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 August 2022 [1].

---

David (son of Heraclius)[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC), User:Haukurth[reply]

This article is about David, one of the co-emperors of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps a perfect example of a victim of Byzantine politics, he was raised to the throne as a child, was the subject of intense dynastic scheming, and was hated as the product of incest. And of course, in the end, he was deposed, mutilated, and then ignored. While in some ways more a receiver of history than a mover of it, he still held the throne during a period of vast controversy in the empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• Suggest scaling up the map and adding a legend, and see MOS:COLOUR
• File:David_plate.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Heraclius_with_sons.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nikkimaria: done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The tag added indicates that a US tag is also needed, and COLOUR still seems to be outstanding? 23:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Tag has been added to both; not sure exactly what you mean in terms of COLOUR; I've changed the caption of the map to "Map of the Byzantine Empire (orange, possessing Anatolia, North Africa, and much of Italy) in 650, showing the Rashidun Caliphate (green, possessing Egypt, the Levant, and much of the Middle East), after the loss of Egypt and other territories to Muslim conquest.", which should allow any colorblind individual to understand it. Are you suggesting changing the map entirely? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's certainly better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nikkimaria: Does the article now pass image review, or is more work needed? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I have written historical biographies, but I am unfamiliar with this person, time period or location.

• " November 7, 630," The other dates in the article have the day first, so this should be standardised.
• Done.
• "September 1, 641." Another date inconsistency.
• Done
• "But according to Theophanes they were ousted by the Senate" I'm not thrilled with this sentence starter. Maybe, "Theophanes states they were ousted by the Senate" The reader already knows there are contradictory sources so it does not need to be emphasised at the beginning of this sentence.
• done.
• "Haldon, John (1990). Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521319171." Since the other refs have dashes in the ISBN, this one should have them, too, for consistency.
• done
• I checked the lede, no concerns.
• In the infobox, the reign says October-November, but the article says the co-orination took place in September or October. Perhaps this needs to be clarified.
• done

Those are my comments. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: All concerns addressed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

My only comments are these:

• The caption to the map is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
• done
• "a military leader named Theodore led a rebellion and defeated first David, Martina's ally, and then marched against Constantinople where he overthrew Martina's regime" would (IMO) read better as "a military leader named Theodore led a rebellion and first defeated David, Martina's ally, and then marched against Constantinople where he overthrew Martina's regime"
• done
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChrisTheDude: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

• Will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Link more names and terms in image captions?

  Done

• Link Byzantine at first mention in article body?

  Done

• Since there are no images of David, and the plates comes cloest to being tied to him, perhaps show more of them[2] by using the multiple image template (like in quagga)? Would also make the image smaller so that it doesn't clash with the quote below.

  Done

• "literally "David Caesar, may you be victorious."" Shouldn't the period be placed after the quotation mark?

  Done

• "The high number of titled princes under Heraclius had not been seen since the days of Constantine the Great." How many siblings were there, and how many from the same mother?

  Done (in first paragraph)

• "An agreement was reached, one part of which was that David was to be crowned as a co-emperor." It seems unclear who he was to be co-emperor with (at least until much further down, and stated as an aside)? And which of them had highest rank?

  Resolved by your solution.

• This explicit sentence in the intro is what could be good in the article body to solve the above: "As part of a compromise, David was raised to co-emperor with the regnal name Tiberius, ruling with his brother Heraklonas and their nephew Constans II."

  Done.

• Likewise with: "All three emperors were children and the Empress Dowager Martina acted as regent."

  Done

• It would seem the map showing Muslim conquest would make more sense under Downfall, after it has been mentioned, than where it is now, Succession struggle, where this is not yet mentioned, and has little relevance?

  Done

• Should Blue faction really link to Chariot racing?

  Unfortunately, yes, as there is currently no page for each Chariot racing faction, the general explanation of them at Chariot racing is the best we have.

• Link Bulgar?

  Done

• "and Marinus" Earlier you spell it Martinus.

  Done (result of page move, didn't catch it)

• Link Jerusalem in intro.

  Done

• "given the senior court title Caesar at the age of 7" His age only seems mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.

  I haven't been able to track down the source that gives him as 7 (although this is obviously correct), so I've changed it to "in 638" in the lede; strong possibility I did the math when crafting the lede in my userspace and assumed there would be a source to give the number in the body, and that never ended up being the case, good catch.

• "in an early example of Byzantine political mutilation" Only the intro states it is n early example.

  Done

• "and the noses of her sons were slit" Unclear what "slit" means, probably better to be as explicit as the article body, "cut off".

  done

• @FunkMonk: All issues dealt with or responded to. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - everything addressed nicely. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Curious about a completely new topic for me. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that some things are not as I usually see them, but may be fine for this kind of article:

• The side navbox, which sandwiches the text opposite the images. The images should be there because of the context. Could the navbox go further down?

  Done; the navbox right after the infobox is traditional, but I don't believe strictly required.

• I am not used to more than three citations for one fact.

  Removed some.

• Bibliography: I am used to differentiate Cited sources and Further reading, but understand that all in Bibliography are cited.

Under the reign

• I am surprised by Nikephoros, without link, while there's Nicephoros later, with link, and no obvious connection to the previous sentence.

  That's actually supposed to be Heraclius, not Nikephoros, text has been fixed.

Tiberius

• I'd link monothelitism, - yes it was linked in the lead, but I forgot.

  Done (it was linked previously at Monothelete in the quote above, but I moved it down to the first actual word.

• I'd move the coin images to the numismatics in the text.

  Done.

Lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes, all fine for me. So now lead:

• "David (Greek: Δαυίδ, born 7 November 630), who had the regnal name Tiberius, was one of three co-emperors of Byzantium for a few months in late 641 (or early 642)." some concerns:
  • Yes I know that we usually first have names but in this case I believe it would make more sense to first mention co-emperor and then the regal name, which by being bold would still stand out.

    Done.

  • the "early 642" suggests to me that the whole reign was perhaps that year, but I understand it's only the end.

    Done.

• the David Plates: yes, I understand there's a link, but in this case would like a very short description, because it could be almost anything made anytime, and is a very important thing to say about our subject (about whom we know almost nothing). Many readers will never get beyond the lead, and may be too lazy to click.

  Done.

• likewise, I believe it wouldn't hurt to add at which young age he was named Caesar.

  Unfortunately this cannot be done as none of the sources feel inclined to give that age; I can say with absolute certainty that it was 7 but no sources will outright say that, so it would be a very technical OR I think.

• I could imagine , for chronological order, to first have the (now last) sentence about the reign, then its end, but also understand the current order, to not leave the cut-off noses as the final line. Perhaps a line about their possible later life, as in the body? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done

• @Gerda Arendt: Done/responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (incl. source review) by A. Parrot[edit]

I made a few edits to wording and punctuation as well.

• "Byzantine art historian Cecily Hennessy points out that the birth of David occurred after several children of Heraclius and Martina had been born malformed or died in infancy." This sentence isn't supported by a citation and is redundant with the paragraph below it, so I don't see why it's here, unless Hennessy draws some conclusion that is missing from this sentence.

  Accidentally split a paragraph, now cited; the two are meant to be together. The conclusion is that the David Plates were not just for Heraclius, but a celebration that Heraclius had multiple "good" heirs.

• "but the accusation that Martina poisoned him was later officially propagated." When, and by whom?

  Fixed, it's by Constans II; the exact time scale isn't known, but probably soon after he took the throne.

• The text says the mutilation of Martina and her sons may have been the first instance of the practice, but the article on Byzantine mutilation lists John Athalarichos as the earliest instance. Do any sources discuss this uncertainty? A. Parrot (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the sources agree that it was early, Moore alone states it was the first; it's possible he was simply unaware of John Athalarichos, as he doesn't mention him at all. Seems like it might have been #2 after all.

• @A. Parrot: Fixed/responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sourcing is excellent. All look like highly reputable sources, overwhelmingly from the past 50 years or so. Older sources are used exclusively for treatment of primary documents, not for analysis. I only see two slight irregularities in the bibliography. The Reiske source is an edition published long after Reiske's death, which seems to have been edited or corrected by Barthold Georg Niebuhr; could Niebuhr be incorporated into the citation template? Also, the author link to Warren Treadgold appears the second time Treadgold's name shows up rather than the first, because of the inflexible nature of the template for Treadgold 1997, but I don't know if there's anything you can do about that.

Spot-checking ten citations reveals no verifiability problems.

I have one complaint about citation style: notes are placed before ordinary citations, which makes them hard to see, especially because the note format uses lowercase letters. Experienced Wikipedia readers' eyes gloss over normal citations when they're reading the running text rather than checking the sources, but because discursive notes are to some extent part of the article text, I think they should be as visible as possible. I use a more visible format for them ("Note 1", etc.), but at minimum, the notes should be placed after the numbered citations, so that the space following the citation allows them to stand out more. A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Replaced Treadgold template with regular cite book to fix the author-link issue, have added Niebuhr as an editor, and converted EFNs to NoteTags and moved them to the end of their citations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and support from JeBonSer[edit]

• In the first lead section a typo of a comma after the name Tiberius that should be omitted.
• Support. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 04:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2022 (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 August 2022 [3].

---

Corinna[edit]

Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corinna is, after Sappho, the ancient Greek woman poet with the most surviving fragments, so we know almost nothing about her, rather than absolutely nothing. Three fairly substantial fragments of her poetry survive, and her works preserve versions of Greek myths not otherwise attested. Despite this, the main scholarly interest in Corinna over the past century has been the surprisingly contentious debate about when she actually lived – despite this being the one fact about her life which is unanimously agreed upon by the ancient sources!

I brought Corinna up to GA back in 2019; this year I submitted it for peer review and got helpful comments from Mujinga, SusunW, Kaiser matias, and Tim riley. As far as I can tell, I have read nearly every piece of English-language scholarship about Corinna written in the past century, and I think the article is now ready to be examined at FAC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

• File:Frederic_Leighton_-_Corinna_of_Tanagra.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Statue_of_Corinna_(Revue_archéologique_1898_32,V).jpg
  • Frederick Leighton died 1896; I've added that to the license tag. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. the Compiègne statuette, the photographs are credited in Revue Archéologique as being by "Berthaud, Paris". Commons says the author died 1912, which would make the photographer Michel Berthaud, who did indeed have a photographic studio. However, he ran the studio with his brothers, and I can't work out on what basis the photo was credited to Michel rather than one of the others. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked the original uploader on Commons if they can shed any light. I will also try to find the dates of the other brothers – if one was born in 1845, it seems likely that the others were both dead by 1952 which as I understand it is the important cutoff here as France is a Life+70 copyright country? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking further into this, it looks like one brother was Michel Gabriel Berthaud (born 1852; I can find no information on year of death); there may also have been a brother Jean Berthaud (though Michel and Michel Gabriel's father was called Jean – unclear if the possible brother is just confusion with the father). Commons has the license tag Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed; is that plus Commons:Template:PD-US-expired sufficient? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Stückelberg_Myrthis_und_Corinna_beim_Töpfer_Agathon_1897.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Hmm, I can't immediately find when this was first published. It apparently is (or was?) owned by Kunsthaus Zurich, but it's not on their online collection catalogue; I will contact them and see if they can point me in the right direction. I've also left a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts asking for assistance. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• File:"CORINNA_(THE_LYRIC_MUSE)"_"WILLIAM_BRODIE"_from_-Sculptures_of_Andromeda,_the_Toilet_of_Atalanta,_Corinna,_and_a_Naiad-_MET_DP323119_(cropped).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sculpture was by William Brodie, who died in 1881 (and it was published no later than 1859, when the photograph in question was published); I've added PD-old-auto-expired to this image which I believe is the correct tag? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Doing some further research, if I do have to remove the Stuckelberg and Compiègne images, there's this Blake drawing, but it's also missing a US public domain tag. It's likely that either PD-US-expired or PD-1996 apply, but I haven't yet been able to demonstrate either. There's also this, which doesn't have a tag for the artwork but I think ought to be PD-old-auto-expired – it's in a public place and both the artists who painted it died before 1927. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I've managed to find a 1901 publication with an illustration of the Stückelberg painting! That one is safe, I think. I think the only remaining question is about the Compiègne statuette photo – I have not been able to track down any evidence that Michel Berthaud rather than one of his brothers was the photographer, and the uploader is now inactive and has not responded to my talkpage enquiry. I have replaced the Commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired with Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired. I hope this is sufficient, but I can't find any discussion about the use of this template on en.wiki; if this is not an acceptable license here then unfortunately I think the photo will have to be removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• Suggest wikilinking orthography on first usage as I, for one, don't know what it is
• "Corinna: The Lyric Muse, c.1855. William Brodie." - this caption is not a complete sentence, so should not have a full stop
• Note h also doesn't need a full stop
• That's all I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, caught out by MOS:CAPTIONS! Changed all following your suggestions. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I had my say at the peer review, and I'm not going to make a song and dance about the spellings "romanized" and "archeologists" (I understand the reason for the former, and the latter has the merit of being one letter shorter than the spelling I favour.) "Set forth" strikes a slightly archaic note, but that's hardly a bad thing in an article on an archaic subject. The only thing I knew about Corinna was the line about not sowing with the whole sack – still good advice for all of us – and I have much enjoyed meeting her again here. I can't begin to judge the content or the comprehensiveness of the article, beyond recording that to my eye it looks authoritative, and it is clearly well and widely sourced. Splendid illustrations, and highly readable prose. As far as I can see it meets the FA criteria in every respect, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks again for your useful comments at peer review, Tim! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

I did go through pretty thoroughly during the Peer Review, but I'll give it another read in the next day or so, see if anything else should be edited. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Went through it again and nothing stands out to stop me from supporting it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aiship[edit]

• Should papyrus be linked at all?
• "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" seems awkward. "often-unique mythological innovations" or something?
• Note C has just Suda, whereas all other uses include the article: the Suda. Any reason?
• "now in the collection of the Berlin State Museums" is repeated, albeit once is in a note.

That's pretty much it. Well done.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Changed the easy things ("Suda" without the article is a dated use an should probably be avoided; linked papyri in the lead). I agree that "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" is clunky, but I'm not sure "often unique mythological innovations " is any better; I shall think on it further. The discussion of the papyri could probably be rewritten to avoid the repetition – I will work something up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I've had a go at rewriting the two points you raised – how does it look now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Nothing to stop me from a support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

• A minor suggestion which can be ignored: I would link the publishers as I generally find it to be helpful.
• Does MA in Cambridge, MA refer to Massachusetts? If so, I would write out the full form. People not familiar with the city/state might not know the abbreviation.

Otherwise sources are of appropriate quality and formatted correctly/consistently. Spot-checks not included. Version reviewed. FrB.TG (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I've expanded "MA" to Massachusetts, wikilinked the publishers and made a slight tweak for more consistent ISBN formatting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gog. These were two minor "concerns", one of which was optional so it was almost a pass at the time. Anyway, good to go from my end. FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2022 (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 August 2022 [4].

---

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56[edit]

Mathsci (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of the most beloved, so here we try a third time. Thanks to all who commented and improved in the long article history. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is one of few cantatas that Bach called a cantata. The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash!. I asked Mathsci to do a third round, because he contributed most after the last nomination, but he was banned. - Today is the birthday of the conductor with whom I sang it. Those attending a memorial concert for him joined singing the closing chorale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

licensing concerns:

• File:BWV56 aria Da leg ich den Kummer auf einmal ins Grab.jpg, File:BWV56 recitative Mein Wandel auf der Welt.jpg, File:BWV56-excerpt-aria-Endlich wird mein Joch.jpg, File:BWV56-4 final adagio.jpg, File:BWV56-5-harmonized-chorale-No-87-Becker-1831.jpg who is claiming copyright on this? What original contribution exists? Buidhe public (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All files uploaded recently by Mathsci, with detailed information about the IMSLP file, and licensing. GRuban is my help with images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I was summoned. Insert puff of smoke and smell of brimstone here. All of these are musical scores in an unremarkable font, which are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text except for the contributions of the composer; you can't retype a piece of music in a perfectly standard font and claim copyright on the end result. The composer is, unless I misunderstand, Johann Sebastian Bach, who died in 1750, and the works were published in 1831 or so, yes? All of that easily meets public domain standards for Germany, the US, and basically any countries we know of. There are no 190 year copyright statutes. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All of that would suggest the current licensing of CC BY-SA is not correct, so the tagging needs to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Re-tagged.--GRuban (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course you can. Copyright on the composition and copyright on the typography are two different things. Without acknowledging the author of the typography and the license it is released under, these files are in violation of their license. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I humbly disagree, for the reasons as stated. PD-text is quite clear that we, Wikimedia Commons, do not accept copyright on mere typing. Neither can anyone retype Gulliver's Travels or The Merchant of Venice and claim copyright on that. If the esteemed administrator wants to add an additional template of CC BY-SA, I will not object, due to my respect for the mop, but I am quite sure it is not necessary. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Musical notation is not text, and publishers get valid new copyright on new typography. If you are unaware of the difference between musical notation and text, please stay out of this discussion. See [5] for the author. There are two ways to rectify Mathsci's copyvio here, to properly follow the file's CC-BY-SA 4.0 license or to delete it. I feel too esteemed to add any templates, but may nominate for deletion if the false PD claim isn't corrected. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, let me expound a bit, as this is bugging me. Copyright, as the first sentence of our article about it says, is granted not just for work, but for creative work. Retyping is not a creative work. If the typist or the printer employs their creativity in retyping the Cantata, if they intentionally change a C# to a D here and a B to an A there ... it's just not the Cantata. It may be a closely related derivative work, but I don't see anyone claiming that is what happening here. As best I can tell, these are exact reproductions of Bach's composition of 1726, as published in 1831, as best the printer could manage it, correct? If so, the only creativity involved was choosing which font to use, and PD-text is quite clear, we, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, don't consider that single choice sufficient to establish copyright. And I'd say, neither do most courts, but as those of us in the US recently learned, relying on a court to continue ruling the way it has for the past many decades is not at all a matter of certainty! So the best we can do is rely on Wikimedia Commons rules, which are quite clear here. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Neue Bach-Ausgabe is PD in Germany (where the copyright in such editions last 25 years), but not PD in the United States (because the US managed to kill half of the public domain in 1996). Why do you think you're smarter about musical scores copyright than the specialists at the International Music Score Library Project? —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like we should take this discussion outside of the FA candidacy, wherever you prefer, Commons deletion, third opinion, RfC, whatever. How about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright ? Can we stipulate that if the community decides with Kusma, we will place whatever license he chooses on these files, and let the FA proceed meanwhile? I'm quite sure Gerda will accept whatever the community decides, as this is a very hair-splitting point, since whether CC BY-SA or PD, these files will look exactly the same in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The author of the PDF that the files are extracted from has already chosen a license that we could just follow. I am happy to believe in the licensing given for several versions over at the IMSLP wiki page I linked above, which means we could just end this by being nice and acknowledging the person (Markus Müller of bachsoboe.de; this may even be the best source as it gives author information) who typed this up by following their CC-BY-SA license instead of saying they have no right to it and claiming we can use it unacknowledged. I think what you are proposing is a very poor way of treating the work of people contributing free content. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I will restore the license on the files, pending any discussion. --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kusma:  Done, all four files, also added acknowledgment of Markus Müller of https://www.bachsoboe.de/blog/2014/01/31/bwv-56/ under Bach in the Author slot. Satisfactory? I admit I would like to have the public domain for music typography discussion, since it seems likely we will have these issues again. Do you know where it's been discussed before? If not, will you join me at the Commons Village Pump for Copyright, and possibly invite other people who may be authoritative or at least knowledgeable? --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I'm happy now. I tried to do some research but ran into contradicting claims in two different German Wikipedia articles, making me less certain of my position (apparently there is some degree of debate). There is probably a difference between "mechanical" reproduction and a "new edition", but I wouldn't know how to tell. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It does seem complex. Asking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_there_a_copyright_for_typography_of_sheet_music? I hope I explained the question well enough, but if I missed something, please do help. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brett[edit]

The Legacy section starts, "Raised in Alsace, the polymath Albert Schweitzer..." Unless being raised Alsace is somehow pertinent to the cantata, Bach, or the biography in ways that I'm missing, this should be cut. Brett (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done, - hopefully most readers will known him anyway --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by VersaceSpace[edit]

Nothing major to add, as I'm largely unfamiliar with the topic, but I would move ref 1 out of the lead. Hopefully what it cites is inside the body, if not that's likely a separate issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, but quotes have to be cited in the lead. - Fell free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fe[e]l free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. Wise words! I'll be giving the article a full read at a later date, and giving my thoughts. What I will say prior to my absence is that I believe the lead is a bit long and includes some information that isn't of the utmost importance. An example: Bach not referring to his compositions as cantatas. Much less necessary (to me at least) is the one time he did refer to it as such. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem lead-worthy. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It singles this one out, from his perspective, therefore it seems worth mentioning to me. But I'll see what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kusma[edit]

I think this may still need some source work and checks.

• I just read the "Recordings" section, where the sentence about "complete cycles" is unsourced (and quite unwieldy). You probably mean "The cantata was recorded before people like X, Y and Z did complete recordings of all cantatas".

  The recording section was in this article in detail, and was mostly placed in a separate article, as getting too heavy. What is left wasn't written by me, but I'll check. --GA

  Kusma: I'm now in the process of making the recording section prose. ---GA

  I think prose is better :) There are some issues with it still: As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times.. The website by now has 102 entries for complete recordings, and some of these are a bit dubious (not much is known about the second one from the 1940s; two of the 2021 entries are the same). Maybe something more attributed is better ("As of 2022, the Bach Cantatas website lists 101 recordings"). —Kusma (talk)

  So what is your source for 101? —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I took your wording, and said "more than 100". - It's not the exact number but an idea of the range. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The next sentence, "The earliest extant recording was a live concert performance ..." is sourced to a dead link, but it is archived. The source says "American baritone Mark Harrell is heard in a 1939 performance of Bach's Cantata No. 56, a performance that shows the big-scale influence of Mengelberg's interpretations of that composer." and says nothing about "earliest extant recording".

  archive-url taken with thanks. - If you insist, we could say "early" instead of "earliest", but it's unusually early, and we don't know of any earlier one according to this. --GA

  Just write only what you can verify from sources. Either just say "In 193x, it was recorded" or say something like "The earliest recording listed at ThatListOfBachRecordings is ..." Claiming this one is the earliest without a source saying so is WP:OR.

  done ---GA

• The sentence "The cantata is often coupled with Ich habe genug, BWV 82" is sourced to a review that only says they have been "frequently recorded in the past", not that they have been recorded together.

  What can we do? Of the items in the table, 8 have them together. Should we list references for all eight (or more) for that one sentence? Should we drop that sentence as redundant, because naturally cantatas for bass are frequently grouped together, especially when related in content? --GA

  You could state that they have been recorded together eight times, out of X recordings listed at SomeGreatPlace.

  That's now becoming a sourced section, - please check. ---GA

  I like it better now. A few more comments: well focused voice in an intimate rendering full of devotion sounds like it might be better off as a quote instead of in wikivoice. Thomas Quasthoff recorded them in 2004 it is not obvious that Quasthoff is the singer here. three works was released sung a comma might help, or generally a bit more copyediting. —Kusma (talk)

  thank you for looking! - Sorry, I can't access the Cookson saying (and other pages on the site, but some I could see - strange), will check again later. I added baritone to Quasthoff. Not sure about the comma, because we have already one after the year. Move or add? (I'll never learn commas in English, I'm afraid.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The source for the following "bass cantata" sentence also mentions a fourth cantata. It is unclear to me whether these cantatas should be mentioned at all.

  The fourth cantata, Traitor Love, is secular, and doesn't need to be mentioned. --GA

  I don't understand this argument. The third cantata is incomplete and yet both are mentioned in the source. Secular/Non-Secular doesn't seem to be a dividing line for some of the people interested in bass cantatas.

  This is about a church cantata. It seems noteworthy to talk about the other church cantatas, but less so for the one secular work that I see only that one time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Amore traditore is now mentioned. ---GA

• What are the selection criteria for the list of recordings here versus those in the dedicated sub-article? Many of the entries appear to be unsourced.

  I don't know, Mathsci did it. We could drop the table completely, or add from the many recordings. --GA

  no more table here, but expanded in the discography ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, from just looking at this section I don't think the article is ready. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Does look better now. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing in the Recordings section: "Helmuth Rilling, who recorded all Bach cantatas from 1969 to 1985, in time for Bach's tricentenary, recorded the cantata in 1983, with Fischer-Dieskau in his fourth version, the Gächinger Kantorei and Bach-Collegium Stuttgart." Split this overlong sentence and reword it. I currently take home the message that Fischer-Dieskau's fourth reincarnation is the Gächinger Kantorei. Perhaps "From 1969 to 1985, Helmuth Rilling recorded all Bach cantatas in time for Bach's tricentenary. His recording of BWV 56 was sung by ..." or similar.
  • After "three virtuoso solo cantatas", a colon instead of a comma would eliminate potential for misunderstanding. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the "Poet and theme" section, I find the research by C. Blanken that is cited to be fascinating, but there's probably more that can be taken from her article, for example Birkmann's interest in the cross-staff as a mathematical/geodesic/navigational tool (pp. 25–28) could be joined to the mention in the next paragraph. The "cross staff" pictured here is not that tool.

  Yes. --GA

  having looked there more: I am not sure what to say. He was interested, but would the text mean to "tragen" such a thing gladly? Could you suggest a wording. I find also interesting that the poet was torn between scientific studies and theology, but again wouldn't know how to integrate that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks fine to me now. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would put "The text is rich in biblical references" before "Birkmann's text alludes to Matthew's gospel"; this way is a bit redundant/repetitive.

  I am not sure, because biblical references are one thing, and solo cantatas sometimes have few (to none), and the specific Gospel reading for the occasion is another. --GA

  Then at least put "other biblical references". You currently first tell us that the text alludes to the gospel, and then tell us the more general fact that it alludes to the Bible, which we already know because you told us it alludes to the gospel of Matthew.

  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of this is about the text, more than the "theme". "The final lines of the opening aria ("There my Savior himself will wipe away my tears") are repeated just before the closing chorale.", for example, is not "theme". Neither is the rebus on the title page. BTW, the source mentions that Bach used χ for the cross, but "On the title page [of BWV 56], Bach replaced the word "Kreuz" by the Greek letter χ" is not in the source given, which is about other cantatas.

  I added "text" to the header, although I found it a bit redundant. - The X on the title page can be seen, which other reference would you want? --GA

  I did not see that. Could you mention this in the caption? Or perhaps move the whole sentence into the caption if it is not sourced without the image?

  I restored the χ to the image caption. It appears also in the complete quotation of the title page above the movement table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chorale: So apparently this part is not written by Birkmann? It could have been mentioned earlier that not everything is by him.

  It's rather basic about Bach's church cantatas that they have up to three text sources: Bible - contemporary poetry - chorale. See Bach cantata, adding a link to it. It's not normally repeated in every cantata. The second para of the lead says that the chorale is from Johann Franck's hymn. --GA

  I tend to expect articles to be complete also without their lead section. I would suggest to explain the basic structure of Bach cantatas here; should this ever become TFA, it should be well readable for people who know nothing about Bach cantatas.

  For those readers, we have the links to Bach's church cantatas and Bach cantata. Please compare current FAs about Bach's cantatas, such as BWV 1 (2022) and BWV 165 (2015), - we can't repeat the basics in all 200 articles about his cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Depends on how long the discussion of the basics is, I guess, but I won't argue this point further. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First performance: do we know in which church this was?

  Sorry, no. Bach digital has just Leipzig, same Dürr/Jones. --GA

  Do they say that the specific church is unknown? That would be worth mentioning. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No. they say just Leipzig. For many cantatas, it was Thomaskirche in the morning, Nikolaikirche in the afternoon the same day, or Nikolaikirche in the morning, Thomaskirche in the afternoon. But that was more for festive seasons such as Christmas (compare BWV 40#History). In ordinary time - as for this one - rather only one service. Does it matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave checking other sections to others. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I hope I could clarify some, and would be interested in how much table of recordings you'd want, now that we have the other article for them, for example, and how much more you'd like about the navigational instruments, which is one of the several meanings of cross staff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make a table of recordings, sorry. Personally I would probably use prose and only talk about those with excellent sources. For the navigational instruments (or alternatively the question "what is meant by Kreuzstab?") I just see that both Blanken 2015 and Corral 2015 (both seem like excellent scholarly sources; actually, both are "journals", see Understanding Bach) both spend some time discussing this. While we're on the topic of sources: any reason why you're not citing Wollny 2017? One obvious piece of information in there (probably also in better scholarly sources, but I haven't tried hard) is the name of the bass in the first performance (Johann Christoph Samuel Lipsius). Other uncited sources are Ambrose 2014 (probably not RS) and Bayer (dead link). Is the "Carus 2000" source meaning the printed book or the webpage (which, incidentally, attributes the chorale to Johann Rist)? —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only few replies (need to do a bit more for Alice Harnoncourt): used Wollny, made Ambrose external link. Will think about the others, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By now, the recordings table is gone, there's more detail from Blanken and about her (want to write her article, perhaps?), and the bass mentioned. Anything else, Kusma? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many improvements! I can try to read more but not today. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my source comments: please move Blanken 2015 to "Journals" subsection (it clearly is from a journal). —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than my handful of new comments seemingly randomly placed in the text above (look at the diff if you get confused) I think I'm happy with the sections I looked at. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and please check if I found them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented one myself (comma->colon), and I'm still not too happy with "in his fourth version"; the source has the much clearer "This is the fourth recording Fischer-Dieskau made of this work, and one can hear in his voice a mastery of the music and content. His voice is less flexible and colourful than in the three previous recordings of this work, but he remains, nevertheless, the standard by which other singers of this cantata are measured." Other than that I think you've done what I asked for. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest to use the full quote? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just suggest to be clearer about the "fourth version" thing (or to not mention it). The sentence is still trying to say too much at once. —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped it, although I find it interesting. No time right now to find the third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I haven't read enough of the other sections to be qualified to support the whole article, but I have no more complaints about Sections 2 and 5. So I guess this is a "partial support" or something :) —Kusma (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed: [6]

Formatting

• You could consider including 'R.E.B.' as the author for the classicalcdreview.com ref

  Or even better, Robert Benson? —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Your linking of publishers in the books section is inconsistent (i.e. A & C Black is not linked)

  linked now --GA

• Your inclusion of locations in the Books section is also inconsistent (Rowman & Littlefield)

  loc added the second time --GA

• Since Gramophone is not a 'Journal' but a magazine, the subheading might be out of place. Perhaps 'Articles', instead, though you would probably have to move some online sources up then? It might be best to keep 'Journal' and move Gramophone down to the online sources section. Also, it should probably be 'Journals', right?

  moved to online for now --GA

• Bach (journal) and jpc (retailer) (in online sources) should probably be linked

  done --GA

• Blanken, Christine says 'in German', but appears to be in English?

  fixed --GA

• The The Bach Choir of Bethlehem should probably be the publisher, not website, as the website is a different name

  done --GA

Reliability

• I'm not convinced that classicalcdreview.com is a high-quality publication for FAC purposes.

  Understand. The original source for the earliest recording we have was Bach Cantatas but came Francis Schonken and said it's not reliable. One thing is certain: that recording exists, there's even YouTube, and it was reissued. I'm sure it's mentioned in the "milestones" book, but don't have it. Is this better? A combination? Help, anybody?

  In the context: what do you think of this one for a different recording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The muziekweb.nl source is a lot better, even has a WP page (Muziekweb). I think the Audiophile Audition source is okay. Aza24 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I replaced several refs, including classicalcdreview.com. Will tale Audiophile on board. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so it is addressed: I am okay with the use of Schweitzer 1911, as it is limited and directly attributed in the text (or a quote every time); except once where another source is used in addition

Verifiability

• I would move the Griffel page number from the cited sources to the short ref 67. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  doing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the review. I'll look asap (which may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, (Duino Elegies) took longer than I thought, and the last two points will again have to wait. Thanks for diligent looking and patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I added some refs from the discography, to support more prose, and still more may come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything is looking a lot better Gerda, though my comment in the Reliability section concerning classicalcdreview has not been addressed—should either be replaced, or explained how it is a high-quality source for FAC purposes. Aza24 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerns seem to be addressed. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JJE[edit]

I'll review this section. With the caveat that I know next to nothing about the topic or its sources, the prose and writing seem OK to me. Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1? Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead? Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't. What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking, and the less someone knows before, the better we can tell if the writing makes sense. Breaking it up:

• Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1?

  not sure I understand the question, do you mean why a referenence in the lead? Because all quotes in the lead need one. "2011"? --GA

  I mean in the reference section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  still don't understand, sorry, no 2011, and link to what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Schweitzer 1911, p. 255." vs "Wolff 2002, pp. 237–257." for example, in the "References" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean the link to the pages? In the Schweitzer book, it's several different page locations. For Wolff, it's the whole chapter explaining Thomasantor, unless you say it needs to be more specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the first has a link under p.255 and the others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead?

  yes. I might add more refs there to support it, - saw one yesterday in what I added to recordings. --GA

  yes, see [7] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't.

  When the use of a ref is restricted to a certain part, I have page numbers there, but if different bits from a book are cited, rather not. There may still be inconsistencies, please let me know. Several authors worked on this. --GA

• What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in?

  As it's intro sentence states: Dürr/Jones, the bible of Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the prose seems OK but as I said I don't know anything about the topic. I think one thing to consider - but don't consider this mandatory - is to footnote terms like "cantata" and "rebus". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the approval. Would you footnote "symphony"? Rebus seems a common word, but in English I never know. There's a link, so what would a footnote do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes are easier to use w/o having to leave the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see the slightest difference between going to another article and return, and going to a foonote and return. Therefore I prefer article, because that will be monitored and updated better than individual footnotes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

• "In his biography of Bach, Albert Schweitzer praised the cantata" — will "musicologist Albert Schweitzer" be better? We have quotes by him in the lead, so the reader should be aware that, in this case, the biographer is a subject matter expert, and not just a writer.

  tricky. I'd expect readers to him just by name, but "musicologist" is possibly the least appropriate of the many descriptions we could give him. He came from being an organist, and went on to be awarded a Nobel Prize for his humanitarian work in Africa as a physician. --GA

  Oh yeah, he was a "theologian, organist, musicologist, writer, humanitarian, philosopher, and physician"!! --K.S

• "Until recently the librettist was unknown" — Year in place of 'recently' would be better and more accurate.

  Which year, of first thought it was Birkmann, or generally accepted he did it (and then which would it be)? --GA

  What I meant was that 'recently' is pretty vague here. I think it would be 2015. --K.S

• "The third movement expresses joy at being" — fix the disambiguation link at "movement", probably to Movement (music)

  sure, sorry about that --GA

• "Jones, Richard D. P. (2013). — we need an ((endash)) instead of hyphen in '1717-1750'. Same with Barfoot, Terry (February 2002), Cookson, Michael (10 March 2010), McElhearn, Kirk (2 April 2002).

  what I get for just copying titles ... - thank you --GA

• ""Ton Koopman / Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir / Solo Cantatas for Bass"" and ""Johann Sebastian Bach: Kantaten BWV 56,82,158". jpc.de. 2006." are never used in the article.

  Thank you, to be used. --GA

That is it! Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: One comment above, nothing substantial! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

• " in English, it is commonly referred to as the Kreuzstab cantata" This is English? You render Kreuzstab in italics, presumably meaning that it is a non-English word.

  Mathsci insisted that in English sources this is not Cross staff cantata (as I had written in the DYK hook) but Kreuzstab cantata, and I found that true in those I checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Example: Kreuzstab Cantata (no italics, capital c) on p. 290 of Dürr/Jones --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  in other souces (not used for article)

  • Kreuzstab Cantata, Gramophone 1993
  • Kreuzstab cantata, musica-dei-donum.org 2014
  • Kreuzstab cantata musicweb-international.com 2014 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More soon.--20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "sets all stanzas of a hymn unchanged" Unchanged from what? This reads a little obscurely.

  better wording welcome, - in most of Bach's chorale cantatas, only the first and the last stanza of a hymn (or chorale) were retained unchanged, while the inner stanzas were paraphrased by a contemporary poet, - see lead, for example. (Let's not forget that Bach lived 200 years later than let's say Luther, so chorale text was already sort of old-fashioned.) In a few cantatas, this was not the case. "omnes versus" literally translates to "all stanzas", but this "unchanged" is implied. --GA

• "published in 2015 her finds suggesting that Christoph Birkmann wrote the text of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen.[16]" I might say "researches" for "finds" if the source will support it. It seems more formal.

  fine, only she was introduced as researcher in the previous sentence, - is there an alternative perhaps? --GA

• findings?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times" I would say "has been" rather than "was"

  English remains a miracle for me - I though past tense for things past, no? --GA

• I'm not good at the explanations, but that's what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1964, Barry McDaniel was the soloist for a recording in a series Bach cantatas of Fritz Werner with oboist Pierre Pierlot, the Heinrich-Schütz-Chor Heilbronn and the Pforzheim Chamber Orchestra. " Should there be an "of" before "Bach"?

  yes, thank you --GA

• " related to peace (Friede) has been added.[68][28][69][70]" Refs out of order, intentional or not?

  not, thank you --GA

• Thomanerchor is linked more than once in the body.

  no more, thank you, same for Thomaskantor --GA

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

With the caveat that I know nothing at all about classical music, I have a few comments. I have also done a bit of editing, making links mostly, or readjusting them. Please revert any you feel are mistakes. The lead is a little longer than I initially expected for a piece of music. But there is actually nothing that I would scrap.

Thank you for the edits. While I felt that some border overlinking (such as church cantata after the more precise Church cantata (Bach) was linked), they may help readers. --GA

• Bach was appointed by --> Johann Sebastian Bach was appointed by

  not in any other of the cantatas, compare BWV 22 where the appointment is actually discussed. Mozart, Beethoven, - they go just by surname once it's established that not Mozart's son or Beethoven's father is meant. --GA

  I was under the impression that there is a rule that any person should be introduced by full name and subsequently referred to by just surname. And that this excludes the lead, as in an introduction in the lead does not count (something I find a little odd). So all I'm saying is treat Bach the way you treat for instance Gustav Leonhardt. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am under a different impression: that once a person is introduced with given name and surname in the lead of a biography, the given name (like a translation) is not used again unless to avoid disambiguation. Similarly, once J. S. is introduced as the Bach we mean, no repetition of the given name is wanted. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am all too happy to change my conception of the rules. I like taking the lead into account, because the reader read the lead. So, fine, no changes needed.

• and includes Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen --> I guess that here, like in the lead, the translation should be given. Should BWV 56 also be given here? Plus, actually, I miss a description of what BWV 56 means in the entire article.

  No second translation, please. For a person, we give the name in an original language once in the lead, but not again. Some users would refer to the cantata just by BWV 56 alone, but I feel that is too technical. BWV is the catalogue for Bach's works, as the link shows. Mozart has a catalogue of his works, abbreviated K., Schubert D. and there are others. Beethoven's works and those of many go by Opus number (work number). --GA

• rarely used this style in his chorale cantatas, except in the early Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, and later chorale cantatas --> to me as a layperson with no idea how many chorale cantates there are, it seems that "rarely" could be a bit of a stretch. What are we talking about, 5%?

  if you click on Chorale cantata (Bach), you get about 40, so 5% is close. --GA

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you interest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I went back to some previous FACs you nominated (e.g. Der 100. Psalm way back in 2017) and I feel I slowly but surely get educated in the field. Very slowly :) In any case, nice work. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus[edit]

Sorry, I don't think I can support atm, mainly because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject. I'd suggest adding footnotes for terms like declamatory recitative, omnes versus, accompagnato, etc. or to use less technical words there. The lead is a little long and I agree that the Schweitzer quote is putting too much weight on one commentator. Also:

• "A reviewer described the cantatas" – who?
• Is musicweb-international.com reliable?
• "Ich habe genug, BWV 82, a paraphrase of the Song of Simeon" What is the relationship between these? Three items, two items, or one item?
• "for the 19th Sunday after Trinity" I'd prefer something like "to be performed on ..."
• the English translation "There at last I will lay my sorrow in the grave" appears before the German original, is that intended?
• Maybe a bit too much interpretation in wikivoice, like "like that of a sick pilgrim struggling to make his way along the dark recesses of an unfamiliar flight of steps", "the sea is evoked by the undulating cello" (probably prefer a weaker word like portrayed—evoked implies a response by the listener)

Ovinus (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Ovinus (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking, and the views of those unfamiliar are especially valuable. I usually reply point by point, but will try in one batch:

• I do't see needfor a footnote for "declamatory recitative", because recitative is linked, and I believe that declamation and declamatory are common words. I may be wrong, of course, because English is not my native language.
  • Ah, I thought it was a specific term. I've replaced it with impassioned in one instance

    well, that's a word I didn't even know, - I knew only "passionate" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    passionate works just as well!

• omnes versus is explained right next to it: "all stanzas of a hymn unchanged", - how could that be changed to be clearer?
• I believe that accompagnato is so close to accompanied that an explanation is not needed, - wrong?
  • If it's a well-known loan word/term in the analysis of Bach's music, that's fine

    not Bach's alone, we have recitativo accompagnato but as it's a redirect to recitative the duplicate link police would come after me if I linked :) .Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I dropped the reviewer's view. While I think a bit more than just someone performed it is nice, this is not too specific.
• Musicweb is a site composers wait for. It has caused no problems in source reviews of previous cantata articles, not the source review for this one.
• BWV 82: I don't understand the question. Relationship between what? BWV 82, BWV 56, BWV 152: all for solo bass. BWV 82 and BWV 56: both dealing with death.
  • Ah, so these are three distinct pieces. I couldn't tell whether BWV 82 was Ich habe genug. Could you put BWV information in parentheses for the first and third pieces?

    please no after it's standard practice to have catalogue numbers separated by commas, and our article titles reflect that, same for Mozart's and Schuberts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So Ich habe genug is BWV 82! I should have remembered that from earlier in the article. I've used dashes to separate the entries; it's just that a sequence of commas is easy to confuse

• "for the xth Sunday" is a standard phrase, almost part of the title, and adding "to be performed" seems redundant, - what else. Compare other cantata articles and Church cantata (Bach). At Bach's time, this music would have been performed at no other day.
  • I suppose it's clear enough
• English before German: I don't know, Mathsci wrote that. It's long, so makes sense not to frustrate a reader but present the German afterwards for those who can read it.
• "sick pilgrim" - perhaps we should say more clearly that a 1907 author saw it like that, - will try.

  ... but that whole paragraph is clearly introduced: "In his book L'esthétique de J.-S. Bach, André Pirro describes Bach's use ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pirro's book was written in 1907 so is trivially public domain; maybe just use a blockquote English translation, w/ a footnote to the original French? Indeed I think it'd be nice to capture Pirro's voice.

    I'll think about it, - was out all day, tired, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• certain "waves" in music evoke the sea, regardless of the response. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • evoke: "bring or recall to the conscious mind". portray: "describe (someone or something) in a particular way". The former is dependent on the listener, the latter is an artistic choice. But I don't feel strongly about this one.

    always learning, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern I have is WP:NPOV and, to a lesser extent, WP:WEASEL. Bach's music is rightly exalted, but we capture this aspect in analyses from others, and it's unwise to write any non-obvious interpretation in wiki voice. Ovinus (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few tweaks, and am less concerned about tone now. I'm not sure what to do about stuff like "A reviewer observed his clear diction and phrasing, and his expressiveness", as I'd prefer it be along the lines of "A reviewer characterized/opined/said ..." Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offers, - "characterised" works but not for this example, "opined" is probably good just that it's not in my (limited) vocabulary, and needs a construction with "that", and "said" is wrong, he "wrote". I begin with "noted" but want some alternatives. How about "emphasised"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used "wrote". The article is in good shape imo. Last issue is the lead section, which is five paragraphs. The four-paragraph rule MOS:LEADLENGTH is under perennial debate but since FAs are supposed to follow the MOS strictly, I suppose it's required unless there's a compelling reason not to. (I often see it as an aesthetic reason than a length one.) BWV 1, for example, is three paragraphs. I'd suggest just concatenating two of the paragraphs and call it a day. Ovinus (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why two different topics should be connected for what looks like a formality to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Alright, after another look through, support. Ovinus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

• Hi Gerda. I think you need to ping some of your reviewers to see if they are able to support the nomination. Four weeks in and only one support looks, on the surface, like a lack of movement towards a consensus to promote. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think those who made one observation could support or oppose. I pinged several who had come to review former Bach cantatas for FAC, and some said they would, and four of them came came. Vacation, it seems. I'll go for another round right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Amitchell125[edit]

​ The following comments refer to the lead section:

• I would unlink soloist (MOS:OL).

  I had it unlinked, but some helper will have linked. Unlinking again. --GA

• The work is regarded as part of – why not ‘The work is part of’?

  Because that cycle is not clearly defined. The first cycle was Bach's first year in Leipzig, the second his second year, but the third is seen over more than one year, and I am not sure if all agree about its extension. --GA

• Introduce Christoph Birkmann.

  tried --GA

• You linked violin and viola, but not cello or oboe – consider not linking any of them.

  That's what I had, - thank you for the support. --GA

• Bach rarely used the word cantata to refer to a composition: the autograph score of BWV 56 is one of a few cases where he did – I would reduce the unnecessary detail here and amend it to ’The autograph score of BWV 56 is one of a few cases where Bach referred to one of his compositions as a cantata’.

  taken, thank you --GA

• Consider replacing This final desire for death with ‘This yearning’.

  done but repeating from the previous sentence --GA

• Bach composed the cantata in his fourth year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. is in a paragraph devoted to the structure and scoring of the work, and also seems rather redundant (Leipzig is already mentioned, for instance). I would amend the text to start ‘Bach structured the work in five movements’

  I moved the first sentence up, omitting the redundant Leipzig. --GA

• He scored the work for a Baroque instrumental ensemble of three woodwind instruments (two oboes and taille), three string instrument parts (two violins and viola) and basso continuo.- this could be reduced to ‘He scored the work for three woodwind instruments, three string instrument parts and continuo’, especially if the infobox reflected the instruments used in greater detail.

  taken --GA

• Five paragraphs for this article? I would move what remains of the third paragraph to join it with the first one.

  I prefer first text then music. --GA

• edited by Wilhelm Rust; edited by Matthias Wendt; published by Carus-Verlag – is this information notable enough to be included in the lead?

  I dropped the editors --GA

• In his biography of Bach, Albert Schweitzer praised the cantata – it’s not clear to me why a review that is this old needs to be quoted (or even mentioned) in the lead.

  It's about the shortest way someone summarised what's outstanding about this work. But I dropped the "praised"--GA

• by the closing chorale – chorale is already linked in the lead.

  yes, thank you for noticing

Amitchell125 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpful comments! Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

​ I'm certainly no expert on Bach, but this has been picked over by editors more knowledgeable than I. Just some suggestions you may wish to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kreuzstab cantata. Do you need to translate the German word again?
• Thomaskantor appears in the lead, but the churches concerned much later.
• Wo soll ich fliehen hin, BWV 5 (Where shall I flee), based on Johann Heermann's penitential hymn "Wo soll ich fliehen hin".[14]. Perhaps Heermann's penitential hymn with the same title
• Christine Blanken Nationality and job.
• You have harbour and saviour and then There my Savior. Since they are translations, it's difficult to see why you have British and US spellings of the same word.
• (SATB) I worked this out, but why not list the voices properly?

Thank you for looking support and trust. I was out all day yesterday, and today first had to look into Sempé.

• No second translate needed, thank you for noticing.
• The churches would make the lead longer, and we don't even know which of them had the premiere.
• Yes, taken, I realised, however why not sooner: because it's tough to avoid two links in a row like that. Please check.
• She should probably get an article. Until then a bit more.
• I don't know if I may change a quote for US-UK difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ[edit]

No issues I can find and this seems like a comprehensive and well-researched presentation of this topic given how old the subject is. Unrelated but I would appreciate anything you may want to contribute to my current FAC. Regards!--NØ 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2022 (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 August 2022 [8].

---

Rupert Downes[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Rupert Downes, an Australian general of World War II. It was part of a series I wrote on senior Australian commanders in World War II. It was previously nominated back in 2011 and closed for lack of reviews. Maybeit can do better this time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Rupert_Downes.jpg: see WP:WATERMARK

  No idea what that is about. Uploaded a new version, from the same source, without watermark.

• File:Desert_Mounted_Corps_HQ_Staff.jpg: when was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bean and Gullett, Volume XII: Photographic Record of the War (1923), p. 623. Frank Hurley was an official photographer, so Australian government image since creation. Copyright expired after 50 years in 1968, long before URAA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

• Lead: The structure of the 1st paragraph seems a little odd to me, with the second sentence out of place chronologically with what follows.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Education and early life section: the title of Downes' thesis has Thymus capitalised but the remainder, apart from the first word, is lower case. Just want to check that is correct.

  It is indeed capitalised that way in the source, But I see no harm in de-captalising it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First World War section: it feels like the 2nd para needs to start with a mention of the commencement of the Gallipoli campaign for a bit of context.

  Added a bit. It used to be that Australians knew this bit by heart, as it came up every Anzac Day, but I'm not sure about the millennials. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe place his substantive promotion to colonel later, for better flow of chronology. There is also repeated usage of 1916 when it is clear that the timeline hasn't moved into 1917.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• especially the DMS EEF: although it is pretty obvious what it is for, the abbreviation doesn't seem to have been introduced.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there another source that could be used for the Sinai campaign to reduce the reliance on Downes' own work?

  Sure. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the above helps with getting this to FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

• was an Australian soldier, general, surgeon and historian in the first half of the 20th century seems a bit of a long intro. Can we not just say, for example, "was an Australian Army surgeon" for the first sentence and then expand upon it later?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we italicise Australia in the War of 1939–1945? Its article does.

  Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Was he a particularly gifted musician?
• Soon after graduation, Downes enlisted in the Militia it says above he was a member of

  Added a bit. After Federation the old volunteer militias were dissolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They had three children: do we need the names of non-notable offspring?

  I always do, as you never know when someone notable might crop up. At the time I wrote the article, I assumed that they were all dead, but Valerie turned out to be alive, and contacted me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Zawed that just a sentence or two of context on Gallipoli would be helfpul.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Jordan valley in 1918, however, Downes was confronted with an epidemic not seeing the contradiction implied by the "however"

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Damascus contained over 3,000 sick and wounded Turkish soldiers How did he come to be responsible for the care of Turkish soldiers?

  Prisoners. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Time soon vindicated his judgement in Wikipedia's voice, that's editorialising; if it's the opinion of a reliable source, it needs attribution

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise remain his greatest legacy

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• vindicated his judgement; and today the major military hospitals you don't need the semicolon and the "and"

  Already deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Downes held this post until 22 August 1944 new section so remind us which post

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Now nearly sixty, he then accepted an invitation to write he → Downes

  Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be up to your usual standard; just a few quibbles! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was created a long while ago, but I wanted to take it to Featured because I created it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HJ Mitchell, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies for the delay. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from ErnestKrause[edit]

Reflecting most of the positive comments made above, I'm wondering if there might be room for expanding the Legacy section with some added details here mostly reflecting what was included in the Wikipedia article for Australia in the War of 1939–1945. If this was to be his magnum opus, then maybe something like an adapted version of the passage from the main article might work as an adjusted CWW. Possibly mention the team of scholars who took over for him, how long it took them to write it, etc. It seems like his great unfinished project. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit about it. The medical series was completed by Allan S. Walker. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition. Optionally, I think the very last volume of the series was written by new collaborators in addition to Walker. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• The links in [41] and [68] don't work.

  Repaired. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes TheShipsList a reliable source?

  Don't remember. Replaced with a newspaper source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only issues I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

• I paused at the list of children's names, surprised to see "Major" there as if it were their surname. I realize it's completely accurate, but perhaps to avoid the reader's surprise we could make this something like "They had three children, all given the same middle name as Rupert: Rosemary Major, born in 1914; Valerie Major, born in March 1918; and John Rupert Major, born in 1922"?

  Sure. Changed as suggested. (Note that Rupert's middle name was his father's first name.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "until he returned to Anzac on 11 August": what does "Anzac" refer to here? I know what it stands for, but if it's the cove then shouldn't it be "ANZAC Cove"? I see instances of both all-caps and title case elsewhere.

  In this context, it refers to the Anzac Cove lodgement. And yes, it is Anzac Cove (Anzak Koyu). Unfortunately, the meaning of ANZAC has been drummed into schoolchildren, and it is a losing battle to keep changing all-capitals back to the (correct) sentence case. (And yes, we persuaded the Turks to name part of their country after people who came to invade the place.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest linking heat stroke. And I had to think what "defective evaporation" might mean; presumably it means a humid environment in which perspiration does not evaporate well and hence fails to perform its cooling function? If so I think it could be clearer, particular as the heatstroke article isn't going to explain it as it's not the cause.

  Linked. The source says:

  The cause of heat exhaustion and heat-stroke in the light horse and New Zealand troops was held by Lieutenant-Colonel C. J. Martin to be not only defective evaporation, as has been maintained, but excessive loss combined with grossly insufficient intake of fluid under conditions of heavy muscular effort. The moral is obvious, namely, that unnecessary water discipline may easily become a calamity if not correlated with a due regard for physiological requirements in regard to fluid intake. It is in limitation of the frequency of drinking in relation to the available water supply that water discipline is physiologically sound and militarily valuable.

• Suggest "third from left" rather than "centre" for the caption of the 1936 picture, as there are an even number of men in the front row.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The two men had discussed the prospect": what does "prospect" refer to? The prospect of writing about the events of the war?

  Yes. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of the chapters of the Official History": I think this is a reference to the book, not the concept, so italics would be appropriate.

  There are 15 volumes, three of them comprise the medical series. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see that the paragraphs of the "Interwar years" section can't be ordered strictly chronologically, because the threads they cover extend across different ranges of years. I was going to suggest that the paragraph about John's illness and death be moved up before the previous paragraph, but after thinking about it some more I think it would be better to move it down one paragraph instead. The paragraph starting "On 20 August 1934" starts with Downes taking a full time position in the army, which would follow naturally after the end of the paragraph about John.

  Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have; all minor issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It would be nice to clarify the "defective evaporation", but the source doesn't allow it. I searched for historical explanations of heat stroke in 19th century books, via Google, and found some relevant quotes, but nothing I think you can use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, another fine bio. Just a few comments and questions...

Lede

• After the war, he wrote articles - haven't mentioned a war yet - could add to "He served in the Gallipoli campaign" of the first world war? Too pedantic?

  Mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• of the newly-formed - remove adverbial hyphen

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sinai and Palestine Campaign - lowercase c per Gallipoli campaign?

  Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Children's Hospital, Melbourne and - geocomma

  Added commas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• but was never able to do so as he was killed in a plane crash in March 1945. - the "never" sounds strange to me, maybe 'but was unable to do so...' or, more simply, 'but was killed in a plane...'

  Sounds fine to me but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Education and early life

• children of Colonel Major Francis Downes - link father again

  Linked

• Roberts' painting - Roberts's per Downes's apos styles?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Roberts' painting - link The Big Picture (painting)?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Roberts' painting alt "we a sea of people looking on" - with?

  Deleted stray word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First World War

• the Gallipoli Campaign, - campaign per lede?

  Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• departed Alexandria for on 17 May 1915 - missing word? or remove "for"

  Added "Anzac". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• to ANZAC Cove for vs he returned to Anzac (I get confused, we use caps for corps but not for place?)

  Yes. Caps for the corps only.

• returned to the Anzac lodgement - caps?

  Caps for the corps only. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anzac Mounted Division - ANZAC per Mounted Division elsewhere

  Changed to "Anzac", which is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Es Salt - wlink Es-Salt?

  Linked. Good find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• James Martin, [25] and - remove space before ref

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• care for the living.The task was - add space

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For his service in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign - c?

  Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar years

• surgeon at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne and - comma

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Medical Journal of Australia - wlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• of her fund raising efforts - fundraising usually one word? (if not add hyphen as a compound)

  Concatenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Air Board - wlink Air Board (Australia)

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Department of Health - change wlink to Department of Health (1921–1987)

  Re-linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ethel Bruce - wlink

  Another good find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War

• image Generals Simpson, Blamey, and Morshead pay their respects... - move this photo to Death and legacy section?

  Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• military hospitals in the capital cities. - maybe add Australia's capital cities

  Linked to List of Australian capital cities

• Repatriation Commission - poss pipe to Repatriation Department?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

• DMS of Second Army until - the Second per elsewhere?

  Changed to match. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• increasingly had less and less to do. - "and less" is redundant? (increasingly says it)

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Barron River near Cairns. - add Queensland

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the third most senior Australian - hyphen/s? (Couldn't see in MOS. I checked online and there are various opinions: don't hyphenate since meaning is clear; hyphenate twice ie third-most-senior because most modifies senior and third modifies most, and Australian is a noun.)

  The Commonwealth Style Guide says: Don’t use hyphens when the phrase is after the noun in the sentence structure. So no hyphens. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Strange fact: we lost four generals in the First World War, all of whom were killed in action. Also four in the Second, but three of them were killed in air crashes, and one died from natural causes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is interesting.(better than poss 14 in a few months) JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne on - comma

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• editor in chief - hyphenate?

  The Commonwealth Style Guide says: Most compound nouns don’t need hyphens because people already understand what the words mean together. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that guide same as old AGPS Style manual for authors, editors and printers? Is this what superseded it? Or is it a different beast? JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• quit due to ill-heath in - health

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• was particularly interested"[75] - full stop

  Added full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject of the Lecture is - lowercase lecture?

  Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rupert Downes Memorial Lectures - create a redirect for?

  Created. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sir Albert Coates The Doctor in the Services - wlink Albert Coates (surgeon)

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• D. Trunkey I am Giddy, - link Donald Trunkey (per "I am Giddy")

  Linked. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

• ref 45 Honours and Awards AWM - has moved?

  Yeah, moved to Amazon. Many of the documents were lost in the process. Fortunately, this one survived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 49 Downes & Anderson 1942 - page no/s?

  Added page number. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Walker, Allan S. - author-link

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category

• is in cat 'Deaths in tropical cyclones' but Cairns crash in prose doesn't mention a cyclone?

  Been meaning to double-check that. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's me. JennyOz (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I always enjoy reading your bios and am happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2022 (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 August 2022 [9].

---

I Need You (Paris Hilton song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Paris Hilton released a doo-wop song as a Valentine's Day present for her fiancé Chris Zylka? Its lyrics are filled with holiday-related puns, such as “merry in your Christmas”, “the bunny in your Easter”, and “your forever Valentine”. The music video features Hilton wearing lingerie, posing in a bed covered with red rose petals, and popping out of a cake among other activities. This song is so unapologetically and unironically corny that I can't help but love it.

I created this article in 2018 and it received a helpful GAN review from @IndianBio:. I recently opened a peer review and I received a lot of great feedback from @ChrisTheDude:, @Pseud 14:, @MaranoFan:, @TheSandDoctor:, @FrB.TG:, and @Tunestoons:. Thank you in advance for any comments. I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG[edit]

• Support per my peer review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support and your help in the peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

• Support per my peer review. Best of luck! :) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review[edit]

I'll take this ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT texts are there, which is good. Most are satisfactory, though can the ALT for the cover art be trimmed? I find it shares more detail than necessary.

• The ALT text for the infobox image has been trimmed down per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:INeedYouSingleCover.png
  • single cover arts usually pass NFCC; this one is no different.
  • For posterity, the source link could use an archived version
    • Archived. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Paris Hilton at the US Capitol (cropped).jpg
  • licensing is a-ok. Derived from a photo taken for a US Congress representative, so this is PD.
  • However, this is causing MOS:IMAGELOC issues on my screen, pushing the "Music and lyrics" header to the right. Can we shrink this using |upright=?
    • Revised. I decreased the size of the image per your suggestion, and I also shortened the image caption to hopefully help with this matter further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:AmericanBeautyParisHiltonScreenShot.jpg
  • I skimmed the section in which this image is placed. The detail shown in the music video screenshot is covered substantially in the prose, passing NFCC #8. It also passes NFCC #1 since one can't make a free alternative image to this screenshot, and readers cannot discern what "classic Americana" aesthetic looks through words alone.
  • I'd fill out the Replaceability_text parameter and say why text alone cannot substitute the picture, which I outlined above.
    • Thank you for the suggestion. It is best to be more specific with these rationales as it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum (which is understandable). Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with the single cover; I'd archive the Instagram link and include the archived version in the NFC rationale
    • There was already information for the single cover's replaceability, which was used from other FAs on songs, and I am not sure if anything further could be added, but I am open to suggestions. I have archived the Instagram link. To be completely transparent though, it is not the most helpful since the image is not showing up in the archive, but that could be an Instagram issue. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went ahead and added a different archive link that actually displays the picture, so don't worry ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
        _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 17:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:INeedYouParisHiltonAudioSample.ogg
  • Of short enough length (10% of original song's) and low enough quality (50 kbps). The relevant section's prose significantly discusses the details intended to be illustrated by the sample. Hence NFCC #8 is satisfied. It also passes NFCC #1 since a free alternative is impossible, and readers cannot discern how doo-wop and pop sound through words alone.
  • Like with the MV screenshot file page, I'd fill out the Replaceability_text parameter for the sake of completeness
    • Very good point. I have revised this point. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Your Power: Thank you for the media review! It is great to get this kind of thing addressed early in a FAC and you have done a wonderful and thorough job as a reviewer. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if things can be improved further. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47, no problem! And I thank you for the prompt responses I went ahead and added captions for the audio sample since I noticed there wasn't one, by the way. Now that that is done and all my concerns are sufficiently addressed, this gets a pass from me ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
    _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 17:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you again! I appreciate that you went the extra mile and added the captions for the audio sample. That was very nice and something that I honestly forgot about completely. Apologies for that. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a great weekend @Aoba47! I hope to see y'all lovely folks again at FAC soon - some goodies are in the works :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
        _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 17:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

• The cover seems to be 250x250px instead of the usual 300x300. This is totally OK though from a policy POV.

• Revised as it is best to keep everything consistent. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think "Hilton's fifth appearance on the Dance Club Songs chart, the single peaked at number 31" might be a more climactic way of writing the lead's second paragraph's second sentence?

• While I understand and appreciate your suggestion, I am not sure about ending a sentence with a number. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hilton posted photos from the music video on her Instagram account" - "Hilton posted photos from the music video on Instagram" might work just as well

• Very good point. It is better to go with your more concise suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it could be indicated somehow that this second album was never released

• Unfortunately, I could not find third-party, reliable sources that confirm this information. There are articles that pop up every now and then about Hilton promising new music, but that's the tough thing with non-releases like this. They hardly ever get confirmation in the press. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dresden described the song as "over-the-top syrupy and smothering" - "over-the-top" sounds a bit critical to me so does this maybe belong in Reception rather than Music and lyrics?

• Understandable. I have revised this bit and moved it down to the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it need to be mentioned the video was released on her "official" YouTube account? It would be rather unusual if they released it on an unofficial channel.

• Agreed. It would be assumed the channel is official unless stated otherwise. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to be more specific while describing "Stash Konig, Dirty Disco and Nitemover" than just "artists"? Maybe their country, or if they are DJs or producers could be included.

• I have included that they are all DJs, with an appropriate wikilink, but I am uncertain about their country. I would imagine that they are from different areas so that may be overly cumbersome to list here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it necessary to include that one of the remixes was released through Facebook? If no secondary source covered this and the Facebook upload is the only source maybe this isn't very noteworthy.

• Fair point. I was initially reluctant to cut this sentence, but the platforms that the remixes were released on is trivial and since it was nothing noteworthy (i.e. neither the SoundCloud or FaceBook releases received attention in secondary sources), I cut the whole thing. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else I can see of concern. Hope you are having a great week!--NØ 15:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @MaranoFan: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help and I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the replies. Happy to support this FAC on prose.--NØ 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review and the support! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

• Support on prose, per my peer review. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

• "Through the track, Hilton sings about love and how she will" -> "The lyrics describe how Hilton is in love and how she will..." To emphasise that this paragraph is about the lyrics.

• The next sentence already starts with "The lyrics ... " so it would make the prose repetitive. I am not sure if the change is beneficial since the transition from the production to the lyrics is already quite clear (at least in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Michael Love Michael viewed the track", "Raisa Bruner cited "I Need You"", since these people don't have wikipages, their credentials (stating that they are critics, or which publication they are writing for) should be included in the article.

• Both critics were already introduced in a previous section where the publication was attributed in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct, so reintroducing them is unnecessary. Perhaps their first names can be removed after their first mention? Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it would be helpful to include their full names since this is a new section and it may confuse some readers to just see a last name. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lede, Hilton is described as a socialite, but this is not cited in the article body.

• I do not believe this is necessary. I have not seen similar things in other featured articles about songs (i.e. having the descriptor backed up by a citation) and the primary Paris Hilton article already make this descriptor quite clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia does not typically ask editors go to other articles to verify information. While a citation would not be needed to say someone is a singer in a song article (the fact that a person released a song is enough to verify that they are a singer is verified because they sang the song, so it doesn't need to be explicitly stated), the fact that someone is a socialite is not inherently implied by the release of a song. It doesn't need to be cited in the lede, but I would imagine that it would be mentioned in the body with a citation. Since I am not very familiar with song/music articles, I will leave that to your discretion on whether it should be added and won't let this affect my support, because at the end of the day this is relatively minor. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• How would you introduce and cite this information in the article? I cannot think of a way that would not come across as awkward? Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The best way I can think of to do so is in the first sentence of "Recording and release" to say, "American socialite Paris Hilton co-wrote "I Need You" with its producer Michael Green..." Again, I am not very familiar with song articles, so if this seems awkward then I do not recommend putting it in the article unless another reviewer also flags this. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That would not work in my opinion. Look at featured articles on songs, such as "I'm Goin' Down", "Dear Future Husband", and "Sound and Vision", and none of them use a descriptive phrase for the primary artist. I thought about including a sentence or two in the "Recording and release" section about how Hilton is a socialite who first pursued a music career by an album in 2006, but it seemed odd to include this for something outside her first musical release and it came across like padding to me.

  For clarification, I am also hesitant to change the lede to say "American singer Paris Hilton" because Hilton is more commonly associated with other aspects of her career outside of music. I am just not sure how to best approach this to accommodate your suggestion. Apologies. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720: Just so you are aware, I have added a brief paragraph to the beginning of the article about how Hilton was a socialite who pursued a music career. I hope that is helpful. Thank you for your review and support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this addition resolves this concern. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede says, "The single peaked at number 31 on the Dance Club Songs chart," While body says "peaked at number 32 on the Dance Club Songs Billboard chart."

• Thank you for catching this. It should be 32 so I have changed the lede. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if anything could be done to further improve the article. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I left some notes above for the nominator's consideration, but it won't affect my support. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

• WP:QWQ issue in source 3 and 31d.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• En-dash should be used instead of hyphen in source 5, 28 and 31. You can use this script to do the work for you.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for my mistake with this one and thank you for the correction. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot-checks: source 3, 4, 11 (in PR), 14, 15, 16, 20. No issues (just one extremely small point noted below).

• Thank you for checking through these citations. Spot-checks are always important. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source 14 and 15: article quotes "breathy vocals" based on these two sources but one of them only uses "vocal" without the s. FrB.TG (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: I have revised this point. Thank you for catching this as I would not want to misrepresent a citation even by accident. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article further. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Consider it a pass from me. FrB.TG (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the source review! Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

I PRed this article and, although there have been some minor changes since then, there's nothing to pick up on so I am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from VersaceSpace[edit]

• Clear and comprehensive. Well-written and contains good media. My only complaint is that the amount of prose in the image caption has caused there to be a large amount of empty space. Still, very good. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not get empty space in the article in my view, but I have attempted to trim the caption for the music video screenshot (which is what I am guessing you are referring to) to hopefully avoid that as much as possible for other readers. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina[edit]

• I think it's helpful to add a brief introduction of Heiress Records i.e. it was created by Hilton herself

• I have added a bit to the "Background and release" section about this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hilton's decision to experiment with a different musical genre" I believe it's helpful to discuss briefly what styles she did before to see how "different" this song is

• I have hopefully cleared this up in the lede, and I have heavily revised the second paragraph in the "Reception" section to make these connection clearer in the prose. Feel free to let me know if these areas could use further revision. I will be looking at them again later when I have some distance. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is a curly apostrophe in the "Music and lyrics" section

• Could you please be more specific? I am not seeing it, but I am not the best at this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Americana

• Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have credits from a more "official" source, like the digital booklet or Tidal?

• Unfortunately, we do not. There is not a digital booklet for this single, and Tidal does not provide any credits for this song. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The rest of the article is well written and comprehensively researched. Nicely done! Ippantekina (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ippantekina: Thank you for your review. You have helped to improve the article a lot, specifically the point about the different musical genres. I have addressed everything, but the curly apostrophe. I cannot see in that section, but I am more likely than not reading over it. Apologies for that. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Though it is nitpick-y, I have went on with fixing the apostrophe myself. Thank you for addressing everything else, and I support this article for promotion on prose. Ippantekina (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the support and fixing the apostrophe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nitpick-y as the article should meet all the requirements. I am not sure how/why I kept overlooking that one so thank you for catching it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

• @WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted a status update for this nomination as it has been two weeks and it has received a good deal of attention from reviewers already. Thank you for your time and apologies again for being impatient. I hope everyone is having a good weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2022 (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 August 2022 [10].

---

Hrabri-class submarine[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Yugoslav acquisition of this class of two British-made submarines in the late 1920s marked the beginning of the Yugoslav submarine service, something that has been celebrated as recently as 2013 in the Yugoslav successor state of Montenegro. The subs were built using parts assembled for British L-class subs that were cancelled with the end of World War I. They had an uncommon offensive set-up, with six bow-mounted torpedo tubes and two deck guns. When they were acquired, they sported the largest guns in the Yugoslav Royal Navy. One was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion and was quickly scrapped. The other escaped to safety with the British in Egypt, and was used for training purposes until returned to the navy-in-exile towards the end of the war. Transferred to the new navy of post-war socialist Yugoslavia, it served a static classroom until it was disposed of in the mid-50s. This article passed Milhist A-Class years ago, and has recently been updated with a comprehensive new source. The two individual sub articles are FAs, so the promotion of this article will mean all articles in the featured topic will be also be featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Specify in the infobox that the length figure is overall (o/a)
• "but regulations restricted them to a maximum depth of 55 m (180 ft)" - is this internal regulations or one of those post-WWI international navy regulations
• "En route one of the boats suffered from engine trouble" - Hvar or one of the submarines?

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF! All done I reckon. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, sorry I forgot about this one. Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

• "Their maximum diving depth was restricted to 55 metres (180 ft) by regulations." Which/whose regulations? (Also in the main body.)

I think this fixed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hrabri was captured by the Italians at the surrender". Could we have a little elaboration on what "the surrender" was?

expanded to "at time of the Yugoslav surrender in mid-April". Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "a revolt by Yugoslav generals based in Egypt." Any link? Ok, I see it red linked in the body.

Definitely article-worthy, but there isn't one yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "they were deployed them around the world". ?

Whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "aft" at first mention.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No link for Austro-Hungarian Navy?

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" and "10.5 kn (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)." Does 0.5 kn really equal 0.1 mph?

No. Good grief, default rounding... single figure rounding takes it to 0.6 mph, which is far closer. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "during her sea trials ... During her trials ... during trials ... During the trials".

Good point, reworded this bit, hopefully smoother now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The crews of all four vessels were commended for their good behaviour on the cruise." Optional: "on" → 'during'.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "was captured there by the Italians after the Yugoslav surrender. In the interim, the commanding officer of Sitnica had been willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece". The break in the chronological flow jars a little.

Fair enough. Re-ordered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the pending surrender". As with the lead, what is/was "the surrender "?

Added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "At 02:45 on 26 April, the group of vessels was met by a British warship and escorted towards Alexandria. At 12:20 on 27 April Nebojša's ..." Personally I don't like (or even understand) commas after dates, but you should be consistent.

OK. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The apparently random sprinkling of commas around dates in some articles is well beyond my comprehension or understanding; but seeing "In January 1943 comma Nebojša was" starting a paragraph while the next one commences with "In August 1945 no comma Nebojša was" does nothing to convince me that whatever convention is being followed is even internally consistent. The good news is, that as I don't understand it, or am even convinced that it is understandable, I am not going to let it get in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

• Looks like this is missing one review, will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Belgrade is duplinked under Legacy.

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No more images of these ships, or other relevant images to spice up the article a bit? Relevant places, people, or events?

Not of the boats themselves, unfortunately, although I have a 2021 book with a dozen or so, in each case it was the first publication I'm aware of. I've added a pic of a gyrocompass, the original AA gun, the tower Nebojša was (partly) named after, and a map of Nebojša's escape. Thanks for the suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done so far, FunkMonk. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the Background section mention how many ships were part of this class and what their names were?

Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "One source indicates that on one 15-day Mediterranean cruise, Nebojša needed" Per above, by this point you haven't presented or linked the individual ships, and the link for this one only comes all the way down in the Service history section.

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Like the names themselves, I would expect to see the meaning of the names mentioned already under background.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nebojša was named after the eponymous medieval tower near Belgrade" Link the tower in the caption.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nebojša was also named after the eponymous medieval tower near the Yugoslav capital Belgrade which had played a prominent part in battles between Serb and Ottoman Empire forces during the wars of Serbian independence and again during the Austro-Hungarian Empire campaigns against the Kingdom of Serbia in World War I.[3]" All seems like background rather than service history to me.

Moved up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Gibraltar.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "After immediate repairs her forward gun was replaced by a wooden replica" Funny, why, to act as a decoy?

A couple of reasons I can think of (although the source doesn't specify), silhouette recognition for friendly ships to avoid being attacked and/or to bluff an enemy merchant ship when surfaced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and two days later the crew were advised by their commanding officer" Do we know his name?

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the meaning of "KM" be explained in the article body too?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "used as a moored classroom or hulk." I doubt that's the link you want...

LOL, no. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, FunkMonk. Thanks for your review. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looking spiffy to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Lead:

• Prior to World War II both submarines participated in cruises to Mediterranean ports, and in 1929 the class was joined by the two smaller French-built Osvetnik-class submarines to complete the Yugoslav submarine flotilla.

Add a comma after World War II.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1933–1934 both boats were refitted, their superstructure was extensively modified and the 2-pounder gun on each submarine was replaced with a single 13.2 mm (0.52 in) Hotchkiss M1929 anti-aircraft machine gun.

Why is it not superstructures were?

superstructure (the superstructure of a ship is the part of it that is above its main deck) is a countable noun, but is usually rendered as singular when referring to a single ship. "Superstructures" is usually only used to refer to multiple ships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>Thanks for your explanation, however, I should think that "the superstructure of each was" would be clearer and unambigious. (BTW, I spent several years as a member of the US Navy and served aboard two different destroyers so I am familiar with the term superstructure.) Pendright (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediately prior to the April 1941 German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia the two boats conducted patrols in the Adriatic alongside the Osvetnik-class boats.

• Add a comma after Yugoslavia, the two boats...
• Adriatic [Sea]

Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hrabri was captured by the Italians at time of the Yugoslav surrender in mid-April, and after inspection they decided not to commission her and she was subsequently scrapped.

• at [the] time of the Yugoslav surrender in
• after [an] inspection

Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• She was overhauled and initially served with British submarine forces in the Mediterranean as an anti-submarine warfare training boat.

Mediterranean [Sea]

OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of 1941 she was prohibited from diving and was employed as a battery charging station for other submarines.

• Add a comma after 1941

Not sure why this is necessary, I wouldn't pause there when reading it and there aren't clauses that need separating. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>At the end of 1941 is a introductry phrase and is followed by a comma. It's no differemt from similar intriductiry phrases punctuated in such sections as the Interwar and WWII? It's your call.Pendright (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• she was prohibited -> by whom?

By the Royal Navy. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In May 1942 her crew were removed and placed in a British military camp in the aftermath of a revolt by Yugoslav generals based in Egypt.

• Add a comma after 1942

Not sure why this is necessary, I wouldn't pause there when reading it and there aren't clauses that need separating. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>Introcuctory phrase - same as above Pendright (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "in" is used four times in this sentence?

Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another extensive overhaul was conducted, after which Nebojša was briefly utilised for training in Beirut until she was formally handed back to the KM-in-exile in mid-1943, after which she underwent a further extensive refit.

• Suggest reworking this sentence:

• Another extensive overhaul was conduclted -> on or for whom?
• extensive is used twice?
• after which is used twice?
• handed back - returned?

I think I've improved this now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

• The naval policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1929) lacked direction until the mid-1920s,[1] although it was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing with the limited resources made available to it.[2]

generally accepted -> by whom?

the armed forces, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same year, a modest ten-year construction program was [finally] initiated to build up [the] a force of submarines, coastal torpedo boats, torpedo bombers and conventional bomber aircraft for coastal defence.

See above suggestions

Adopted the first, but for the second, I don't think the definite article is what is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Their design was based on that of the L class, and they were built using parts originally assembled for the Group III boats HMS L-67 and HMS L-68, which were not completed due to the end of World War I.[5]

Add a comma after boats

Why? "Group III boats" is a descriptor of the two named subs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>It's called an appositive (an American version): A noun or phrase that renames or describes the noun that it is next to is set off by commas.

<>Use the appositive (an Australian version), which is a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side, with one element serving to define or modify the other. If this is not the case, then the suggestion is scratched. Pendright (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The British Royal Navy cancelled the order for the two submarines in March 1919, and [but[ the hulls [erected] were launched on 16 June and 2 July[,] respectively[,[ to free up the slipways on which they were being built.

See above suggestions

Why "but"? They had been cancelled. Have slightly adjusted this sentence though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<> To show contrast - Pendright (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In November the hulls were sold by the Royal Navy to the shipyard, and once the contract with the Yugoslavs was signed they were brought back onto the slipways and completed to a modified design.

completed [in]to a modified design.

No, I don't think that is best. "to a modified design" is completely fine and a commonly-used phrase. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They were an improved version of the British E class, and achieved a better relationship between displacement, propulsion, speed and armament than their predecessors, including a powerful armament of both torpedoes and guns.

Drop the comma after E Class or add a subject to the 2nd clause

Modified the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The class was designed for operations in the North Sea in World War I, but due to their considerable range they were deployed around the world during the interwar period by the Royal Navy, including in the Mediterranean,[5] and three were still in service at the outbreak of World War II.[3]

Drop the comma after Mediterranean

I was taught that you should use a comma before "including" if the sentence would be complete without the part that follows". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>You were taught well - Pendright (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Pause at the end of Background - Pendright (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>Continue: Pendright (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC) General:[reply]

• The keel was straight until it inclined upwards as part of the pointed stern, and detachable ballast keel was also fitted.

• Drop the comma after stern
• Add "a" betwen and & detachabe

they are two separate independent clauses, one about the keel and the other about the detachable ballast keel, so I think the comma is justified. The "a" has been added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There were two shafts each driving a three-bladed propeller, and the boat direction was controlled using a semi-balanced rudder.

How about -> They had two...

Went with "submarines". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The final difference was that one [of] the three periscopes was modified to enable observation of the skies to warn of impending air attack[s].[8]

See above suggestions

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Many sentences in this section begin with "the" - might consider subhstituting some of them.

Tweaked one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion:

• The screws were subject to great stress during navigation in rough weather, and [they] often cracked.

See the above suggestion

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One source indicates that on one 15-day Mediterranean cruise, Nebojša needed 420 kg (930 lb) of replacement screws.

One source -> why not name the source?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There was also a small 20 bhp (15 kW) electric motor for silent underwater running.

They also had a...

went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The battery storage consisted of three hundred and thirty-six 3820 LS Exide cells, [and it had] with a combined weight of 138 t (136 long tons; 152 short tons).[12]

See the above suggest

went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service history:

• Nebojša was also named after the eponymous medieval tower[,] near the Yugoslav capital [of] Belgrade[,] which had played a prominent part in battles between Serb and Ottoman Empire forces during the wars of Serbian independence and again during the Austro-Hungarian Empire campaigns against the Kingdom of Serbia in World War I.[3]

See above suggestions

this sentence is further up now. Addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar period:

• The two boats left the Tyne on 11 March 1928 in company with Hvar.[18]

in "the" company "of" Hvar (with means acompanied by)

"in company with" is perfectly fine grammatically (from an Australian perspective at least). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Torpedo exercises [for the boats] followed, [and] then a cruise along the Adriatic coast.

See the above suggestions

went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There were no injuries [to its crew].[21]

See above suggestions

clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World War II:

• A few days before the invasion commenced, Nebojša and Osvetnik had conducted night patrols, mainly on the surface, on rotation with Hrabri and Smeli.

"in" rotation?

AFAIK, "on rotation" is fine grammatically. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nebojša was forced to conduct an emergency dive to avoid being hit, and [she] almost rammed the bottom.

See above suggestion

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The commanding officer of Sitnica was willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece, but the crew were opposed to this action, and Hrabri was captured at the Bay of Kotor by the Italians after the Yugoslav surrender came into effect on 18 April.

• Why the opposition by the crew?

Probably reluctance to leave their homeland and continue fighting for a country that they had mixed feelings about. There were many non-Serbs in the navy who felt like second-class citizens. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 18 April 194?

1941, per the year of the invasion given in the first sentence of the section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On 9 April Nebojša and Smeli were sent to the southern Adriatic to attack Italian maritime traffic between Bari in Italy and the Italian protectorate of Albania.

Add a comma after April

OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• She returned to the Bay of Kotor on 10 or 11 April, where the fleet had begun to break up , with [and] the crew[s] of some ships deserting.

See the above suggestions

Went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On 14 April the pending Yugoslav unconditional surrender was announced[,] and two days later the crew were advised by their commanding officer that they would be surrendering the following day.

See above suggestion

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While he was absent ashore at a conference, his second-in-command, Đorđe Đorđević, contacted a submarine officer he knew who was attached to the defence headquarters of the Bay of Kotor, Đorđe Mitrović, and offered him the command of the submarine if he would lead the crew that wished to escape to Greece.

• Is the word "absent" nnecessary?

Probably not, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One or two days later she resumed her voyage to Egypt accompanied by the British steamship Destro[,[ and the Greek submarine Papanikolis and escorted by the Orjen-class torpedo boats Durmitor and Kajmakčalan.

See above suggestion

went with a different split to separate the accompanying ships from the escorts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Having had several breakdowns since [arrivinbg] her arrival in Egypt and due to her age, in November Nebojša was prohibited from diving [in November].

See above suggestions

re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Her diesel engines were overhauled and after [having] she had undergone further repairs[,] she was employed as a charging station for other submarines.
• See above suggestion

went with a different positioning of the comma. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On her first sea trial after her transfer both her air compressors failed and the port electric motor burned out.

The word "her" is used three times in this short sentence?

Tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - @Peacemaker67:

Thanks so much for your review, Pendright. I think I got them all, let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good - supporting! Regards- Pendright (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. No concerns. I think the newspaper sources would be unreliable for some material, but for what they're used for here they're fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• File:Yugoslav submarine Hrabri.jpg: UK-PD - okay
• File:Kalemegdan 03.jpg: CC0 - created by Wikipedian - deprecated tag - okay
• File:Algonquin gyro compass2.jpg - CC3.0 - created by Wikipedian - okay
• File:QF2 MkVIII CWM 2.jpg - CC3.0 - created by Wikipedian - okay

Pass Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• "captured by the Italians at time of the Yugoslav surrender". "captured by the Italians at the time of the Yugoslav surrender"?

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "KM-in-exile". This term needs explaining/linking in the lead and body.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "battles between Serb and Ottoman Empire forces during the wars of Serbian independence". Maybe give dates and link wars of Serbian independence.

Done, and linked overarching article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The final difference was that one the three periscopes". "The final difference was that one of the three periscopes". I see that another editor suggested this.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The commanding officer of Sitnica was willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece, but the crew were opposed to this action". What happened to the captain of the Hrabri? Why did the crew oppose the action? Did they want to surrender?

No mention of the captain in the source, but essentially there was a fair amount of defeatism across Yugoslavia, some of the crew were no doubt Croats (and a longed-for Croat state had been announced with German support) or Slovenes (as they were the other main maritime nation within Yugoslavia), and many would not have wanted to leave their home and families. I don't have a specific source for all of that with respect to Hrabri's crew, but it certainly was true of the rest of the armed forces. Do you think I need to make a more general comment? I just don't want to slip into OR with respect of this sub's crew by moving from the general to the specific. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be helpful to cover these points in the background section. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Dudley. I have added a couple of sentences to the last para of the Interwar period section. Let me know if that does the job? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine. Just a few minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, are you able to get on to these (and Ed's below)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will finish off tomorrow. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your points, Dudley Miles. Just one I have a query about. Thanks for your review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The ed17[edit]

Mostly minor comments and questions for ya, Peacemaker67.

• This isn't a dealbreaker, but: the lead isn't the easiest thing to read, in part because it's rather stuffed with information. I've made a couple edits to simplify things, and you might consider going through it with a fine-tooth comb to remove information that isn't critical to a reader's overall understanding of the submarines.

It's a long story, but I trimmed it a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "were manufactured in six parts of two cylinders each which were screwed together." – what does this mean? The cylinders had six parts each, linked into a single cylinder by those screws?

No, the engines were made up of six parts, each of which held two cylinders. The parts were held together by screws. Should I re-word it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Between 1933 and 1934 ..." – was this a refit? Modernization? I think you need some context/an adjective around how significant this work was (or wasn't!).

It was a significant rebuild of the superstructure. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "with tactical numbers 1 and 2" – were these tactical numbers ever used in service or elsewhere? If not, I'd consider dropping them as pretty trivial information

"Yes, they were painted on the hulls, and help to tell which one is in a given photo. Sadly, all the photos I know of that show them are not free. Have added where they were located. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any dates available for the sea trials mishaps? What happened to Nebojša that it began sinking bow-first?

"No dates, just autumn 1927 for Nebojša' sinking incident, so I added the month range of mid-Sep to mid-Dec. No info about why. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "When trial diving on another occasion, Hrabri listed sharply to starboard and the bulwark around the bridge was damaged by waves." – was this also during the sea trials? The wording here suggests that it was not.

Yes, during trials, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "A few days before the invasion commenced, Nebojša and Osvetnik had conducted night patrols, mainly on the surface, on rotation with Hrabri and Smeli." – read literally in my mind, this wording would suggest there were patrols on one night a few days before the invasion. But I think this is meant to mean that they were going on patrols on multiple alternating nights? Perhaps the sentence should read something like this: "Starting X days before the invasion, the Yugoslav Navy deployed two submarines each night to patrol the coastline, primarily on the surface. They deployed Nebojša and Osvetnik together, and rotated them on each succeeding night with Hrabri and Smeli."

Great idea, adopted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The transfer of the former German Type VII U-boat U-570 – HMS Graph – was considered, ..." – who considered this? The Royal Navy, government, otherwise?

Added detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "She remained unable to dive and was used as a moored classroom or hulk." – emphasis mine. Did the "extensive overhaul and repairs" in Port Said still not allow the submarine to dive in the last couple years of the war? It seems unlikely that it would have been sent to Malta without that capability. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, the Yugoslavs were keen to have any vessel, even one that couldn't perform a critical function. The source is very clear that she was not able to dive even after the work at Port Said. I mean, she was towed to Malta... Thanks for your review, Ed, see what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That last point is fascinating, considering that the core function of a submarine is to dive beneath the water! Fair enough. On the engines, I'd like to see that reworded as it's still not clear to me. Did each part have two cylinders?

That's a minor quibble, though, and so I'm happy to now support this article's promotion to FA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2022 [11].

---

Bad Romance[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to ask me to define "Lady Gaga", this song would be my answer. It has everything that made Gaga famous—catchy chorus, elaborate music video, outlandish costumes and nonsensical chanting. I have been working on this article intermittently for quite some years now. A few months ago, I digged deep for academic sources and found to my delight many of them. A song called the catchiest in the world by a prominent organization of psychology should have the highest-quality article on Wikipedia. Kinda reviewers, help me make that happen. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

• For the RedOne and Francis Lawrence images, I would include the year that the photos were taken to the caption to provide the full context to readers.
• I do not think File:Lady Gaga BR GMA.jpg is necessary. A performance image does not fit in the "Critical reception" section and the article already has two performance images.

• Apologies for adding yet another thing to my review, but I just noticed that this part was not really addressed, and I would appreciate your feedback about it. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Aoba, I’d removed it as per your suggestion because it really does seem out of place there but I was reverted by another editor here. FrB.TG (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your response. I had removed the image and used a detailed edit summary to hopefully clear up this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think the citation in the infobox is needed as this information should be present and cited in the article. I do not think it is controversial enough that a person is credited under their legal name for songwriting credit to require this citation.
• I would spell out extended play on its first use in the lead to help readers who are not 100% familiar with the concept. I'd look at '"All About That Bass" as an example of what I mean. The body of the article should mention that The Fame Monster is an EP and a reissue, which it currently does not.
• I am uncertain about the "full-throated" quote. In the article, it is not given clear attribution in the prose, and I am not sure if a quote like that works in the lead.
• I think this part, attraction to individuals with whom romance never works, her preference for lonely relationships, reads a little awkwardly and would benefit from revision. This information could be conveyed more concisely and the phrase "lonely relationships" seems off in particular to me.

You are quite right; "lonely relationships" sound almost oxymoronic to me. I have tweaked it.

• I do not think the French bridge is notable enough to include in the lead. I also could not find this information in the article.
• This part, The recipient of a Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, it was, is not grammatically correct. if read literally, it says that the song won the award, when the award was given to Gaga.
• For the Saturday Night Live bit, I'd clarify that Gaga performed the song to avoid any potential misinterpretation.
• The "released" is used twice in close succession in the first paragraph of the "Background and release" section.
• I do not think the caption for the audio sample is particularly strong to justify its inclusion. The current caption is more focused on the lyrics, which could be illustrated through the prose alone, and I would instead do something about the song's genre or sound.

I played around with it quite a bit and in every scenario, it fails WP:NFC. I have removed it.

• Is there a reason for using a university's sheet music over musicnotes.com?

Musicnotes is generally badly received at FAC, and it is usually not known if the sheet posted there is in fact the original or just another version posted by the label/singer. I believe a university source than one which does not even have its own article on Wikipedia should be the better choice, no?

• I have seen the issues raised with MusicNotes. From my understanding, these issues are not specific to that site, but they are more about sheet music in general. I could be wrong and it would likely be better to have a more experienced editor comment on this, but the university could have the same issue as the website. The university could have a specific arrangement made for a band that is separate from the version Gaga recorded in the studio. It could be the same arrangement, but there is not a clear guarantee that this is the case. Again, I'd go with a more experienced editor's opinion, but I think the issue is really with sheet music in general. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to get super nitpick-y, but I'd revise this part, The song then plays keyboard sounds, as I do not think a song can play anything.
• For this part, a postdoctoral fellow in American studies at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, I would remove the university as it is not necessary and it would make this more concise.
• I believe the "falling in love with one's heterosexual best friend" analysis would benefit from revision. I would lead with how it connects to Gaga's LGBT audience since I was a little confused by this sentence until I got to the second half of it.
• The final two paragraphs of the "Music and lyrics" section has a lot of great content, but could you tell me how you organized it? I think it would benefit from a clearer structure.

I have done quite some rearranging, with the third one being about unhealthy relationships and the title's meaning (which is the same thing: "bad romance"). The last one is entirely about Horn's analysis. Hopefully, the structure is more comprehensable.

I hope this review is helpful. These are my comments up until the "Critical reception" section. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not a clear citation supporting this part, with praise for its chorus, beat and hook.

The citations are the follow-up reviews in that para.

• That was not immediately clear to me and I think it looks off when there is a citation in the middle of a sentence, but not at the end. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd avoid one-word quotes like "relentlessly" as they are not particularly informative and they take away from the other quotes.
• This Rolling Stone citation has an author, but they are not included in the citation or the prose.
• I have noticed some other issues with how critics are attributed in the prose. Pitchfork has an author for the "Bad Romance" entry, but they are not attributed in the prose. While the article often includes critics' names, there are instances like "a critic from Rolling Stone" and "The Billboard review" where the name is not used so it is rather confusing.
• While the Boston Public Health Commission stuff is interesting, it is placed in a weird spot in this section. It is in a paragraph that is praising the song, and this does not fit that. It is also not really a review of the song. It is more of a study or analysis.
• I'd be careful with the following wording, "They felt it was not on par with them", as it makes it sound like the "not on par" and lacking the "instant catch" is a critique from both reviewers instead of the individuals.

Apologies for jumping in with some additional comments already. I just noticed some issues I wanted to raise first. While I can tell a lot of great work has been put into the article, I am not sure if it is fully prepared for a FAC (but I will leave that up to other reviewers). Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. This was nominated just now after a PR so resolving the issues shouldn’t be a major problem. I’ll see if this can be done within the FAC scope. If not, well I’m sure we can figure something out. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47, for your comments. I have done quite some rearranging in "music and lyrics" and "critical reception" sections. See if you wish to continue your review or stand by your current viewpoint, either of which is perfectly fine. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses and for being understanding about everything. I will continue my review later today or tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am guessing the music video synopsis is sourced with the video as the primary source; would that be correct? The synopsis seems a little on the long side, and I am wondering it could be made a little more concise.

That is correct, as per WP:FILMPLOT. I have trimmed the subsection a little. Hopefully, it is more concise now.

• This part, for its fashion, choreography, futuristic set-piece and costumes, does not have a citation. I am guessing that this part is supported by the citations later on in the paragraph, but it does look odd to have a sentence with a citation in the middle and none at the end.
• For the "Reception and thematic analysis" subsection, would it be worthwhile to separate the reviews and the analysis? This subsection looks quite long and I think that further structure may make it looks less intimidating to readers.
• I am not convinced that File:Praying mantis india.jpg is necessary, especially since the "insect" dress is not being shown so there really is not much of a comparison being made.
• The university in this part, sociologist Mathieu Deflem of University of South Carolina, is not necessary so I would remove it.
• I am uncertain about the sentence starting with this part, Calling it a "culture-breaking moment". This sentence is pushing together two different Billboard articles by two different writers and it gives off the impression that they were either written by the same person or downplays the individual reviewers.
• This is more of a note than anything. I'd be cautious about the size of the "Live performances" section in the future. It is pretty much guaranteed that Gaga will continually perform this song throughout her career due to its popularity so I'd be wary of this section becoming too big or overly detailed.

You are absolutely right. I did some trimming and removed some superfluous information and rearranged the structure a bit. It's much more condensed now.

• The information from the "Personnel" section (i.e. the production and recording processes) should also be written out in the prose of the article, likely in the "Background and release" section.
• I am not sure what "actor" means in the "Personnel" section?

Neither do I. It must have been vandalized at some point and nobody noticed.

• Both MTV or if MTV News are used in the citations for the same website. Citations 2, 109, 112, 135, and 138 use MTV while Citations 63, 64, 73, 107, 114 use MTV News. I would be consistent with one way or the other. I'd go with MTV News as it is more specific.

• Citation 140 is missing the author.
• Citation 229 should have its title translated to English. This is true of any citations with titles in a non-English language.

Done wherever possible. In some places, the ref. is automatically generated as part of ((single chart)), which cannot be modified.

• Simon Price should be linked in the article and in the citation.

This should be all of my comments for my first read-through of the article. I hope that this review was helpful and not too nit-picky. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, Aoba. It was not nit-picky at all and was very helpful. The article has improved in leaps and bounds now. Hopefully, this is now enough to convince you of the article's quality at the FA level. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I will read through the article again a few more times tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I will leave the sheet music citation up to other reviewers. I am not fully convinced, but I will focus my review and support on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my peer review, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

This article has been at GA level for some time now and has been written at a high level of narrative quality and thoroughness. One comment I would add here is that I think this was used in the context of the very last show which Alexander McQueen did before the end of his life and that there are reliable sources for this. Since Lady Gaga was a follower of his designs, mentioning this as his very last full fashion show with reliable sources might be a good addition to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added, as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a fine Covers section in this article along with the well done Video section which accompanies the song article; I'm sufficiently familiar with this article since the GAN was done by another editor that I'm supporting the FAC nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ[edit]

I had a look at this article while it was at PR and it seemed to be in solid shape. I will give it the customary reread and then add some comments here. Btw, I would greatly appreciate if you could review my current FAC, although it is totally fine if you do not have the time or interest.--NØ 03:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If the abbreviation "EP" is not used again, it does not need to be mentioned.

In the lead, the infobox uses the abbr, and in the body, it is used in "Track listings" section.

• The oxford commas should be consistently used (or not); Not used: "chorus, beat and hook", Used: "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show"

I generally try to do without it as I find it unnecessary but in places like "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show", I have intentionally used it to not confuse with the and's (and residency shows is used to not repeat while the second and is preceded by a comma to clarify that it's part of the main listing of places Gaga has performed the song at.

• "Gaga explained that she generally felt lonely in her relationships and was attracted to unhealthy relationships" - Perhaps there would be a way to avoid the repetition?
• Thanks for replacing Musicnotes. I'll leave it to the source reviewer to determine if the university source is okay
• Does its inclusion in the list of "Top 10 List of Songs with Unhealthy Relationship Ingredients" fit the "Music and lyrics" section? I found this placement kind of random

I think so. It's more of a themes analysis (which is what the music and lyrics section is about) than an "award", but unfortunately I couldn't find the main source, which I am sure has a thing or two about why it's in the list.

• "and Rolling Stone critic Jon Dolanfelt that song made her name a "Teutonic chant" - Space before "felt" and the word "the" should be there after "that"
• Do you think it would be beneficial to include the release years for "Tik Tok" and "Empire State of Mind"?
• Seems to be missing alt texts in the music video section. Not sure if intentional
• Do we need a wikilink for rubles? Seems like a well-known term to me
• While I do think Elle is generally reliable, is its opinion reputed and important enough to be highlighted in a quote box?

I think Elle definitely counts among reputed sources; it has been referenced in CBS News, NY Daily News and Time. The author herself has written for Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, Vogue, Esquire etc. As for the quote itself, I think it truly captures all the successful aspects of the song (genre combination, lyrics, music video and Gaga's voice), which no other source does.

Love the inclusion of various research studies which truly gives the article a comprehensive feel. After these are addressed, I will go through the article once more to see if I got everything. Regards.--NØ 04:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marano. I think I have addressed everything. Let me know if you are not satisfied with something. FrB.TG (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with the way this has been handled and it totally looks like an FA to me. Great work!--NØ 03:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

The article appears to be well-written and has an in-depth coverage, especially on its analysis of the themes from scholarly sources. As the article's prose has already been PR'd and reviewed by experienced editors on this topic of interest, I have very little to add. Here are a few suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

• "Bad Romance" was acclaimed by music critics -- suggest linking music critics to music journalism
• and was included in yearly "best-of" -- I think annual instead of yearly is what’s commonly used.
• making Gaga the first woman to have three number-one singles in one year -- perhaps it could be specified as first female act or artist, as woman is a bit vague.
• The song was certified quadruple platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association for shipment of 280,000 copies of the single. -- I think we can omit “single” at the end as it is understood that the song shipped X copies.
• and 12 million in total, becoming one of the best-selling singles of all time -- I assume this figure is to date? If so, it would be worth clarifying.
• with more elaborate sets, including sets outdoors. -- perhaps a little tweaking, to remove mention of “sets” twice’'
• Glee cast performed -- Although it’s linked to the article, I think it's worth mentioning Glee as a musical tv series.
• That's all I have. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Pseud 14. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie - image review[edit]

Please note this is my first FAC review of any variety. I will be claiming this for WikiCup. Please tell me if I make any comments that are off track.

This article has seven total images. One is in the infobox and is the album cover. It has an appropriate fair use rationale and alt text.

There is also one other fair use image, which is a still from the music video showing the choreography of the song. I agree with its fair use as irreplaceable content discussed in a critical manner in the article.

Of the other five images:

• One has a VRT ticket confirming approval for use under CC-BY-SA 4.0.
• The remainder were ported from Flickr, where they were posted under various CC licenses (confirmed by Flickreview).

Two images need alt text: File:The Monster Ball - Bad Romance revamped3.jpg and File:Glee-Born This Way.jpg. The latter should also be displayed on the right size as it currently bumps a section header. Its caption is a complete sentence and must end with a period.

Moved one paragraph upwards.

All of the images have good captions other than the missing period.

I intend to pass the image review when the missing alt text is supplied and the one image is shifted from left-side to right-side display. Pinging the nominator, FrB.TG. Other reviewers are encouraged to leave me feedback on this review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the detailed image review, Sammi Brie. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I identified have been fixed, and the image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ippantekina[edit]

I have very fond memories of this song.

• "with a full-throated chorus" "full-throated" is somehow POV in my opinion; can we reword it?

I think if it sounds POV-y this way, it will sound POV-y any other way. I have simply removed it from the lead.

• "Lyrically, it explores ... the paranoia she experienced while on tour" I think the lyrics per-se don't explore this, but rather were inspired by this?
• "A 2017 journal, published by the American Psychological Association, called the song the catchiest in the world." interesting, but I'd also want to know on what metrics (is it song structure or melody or something else?) were used
• Background and release—Do we have the date the song was leaked?
• I am doubtful about the reliability of the sheet music provided; it is the sheet music to the drum arrangement of the song, and the personnel listed are not credited as producers/engineers of the song.

Since two reviewers have objected to this source, I have restored the one from Musicnotes.com.

• Critical reception—"by Pitchfork—which called it "epic in construction"—MTV News" perhaps a comma after the quote "epic in construction"?

I think the em-dash functions as a comma; the reason I used it instead of a comma was to clarify it is not one of the publications calling the song one of 2009's best.

• "Kaufman lauded the drastic transition into a bombastic "Erasure-esque throb" during the chorus, called catchy by Rolling Stone's Jody Rosen, one of Gaga's best by MusicOMH's Michael Hubbard" am I missing something or is the grammar a bit off here?

It was supposed to be about the chorus being called xy: "..during the chorus, (which was) called catchy". I guess the transition from the active to passive voice is a little awkward here.

• Serial quotations, especially short ones, make it hard to read; I'd paraphrase some
• Commercial performance—"second artist to have three singles [...] each sell five million digital copies" also who is the first?
• Pipe Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs)
• Personally I don't think we need to mention which week the song reached number one in Sweden and Ireland. We can simply group them into the countries where the song reached number one (Austria, Denmark et al)
• Music video—"hoping to work with her again" unless they did collaborate on some later projects, I'd leave this out because it comes off as trivia
• "Gaga created a pair of razor-blade sunglasses" did she really create them? Just to make sure...

More to come... Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Ippantekina. Unless I have explicitly stated otherwise, I have implemented your suggestions. I look forward to the next batch of your reveiw. FrB.TG (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I love the depth of research in the Thematic analysis section, but am a bit lost on the organization because it reads a little staccato... like a simple display of disparate opinions without flow. Maybe a brief introduction sentence at the beginning of each paragraph, or grouping some similar opinions (for example, I see some opinions having the same concern regarding sexuality) would help?
• "winning for Video of the Year,"?
• I am unsure if the Elle commentary is significant enough to be singled out in a quotebox

I don't know, I like it a lot. This touches on all the aspects of the song that made it so impactful. Do you think it should be removed altogether or just not highlighted like that in a quotebox?

I think it's fair to keep it in the prose, just not the quotebox. If a quotebox should be useful, I'd go for an opinion from a reputed critic or academic, and the Elle journalist, while reliable, is just not the best option imo.

• "Gaga sang "Bad Romance" during her residency show, Lady Gaga Enigma + Jazz & Piano (2018–2022); on her Enigma show, she performed it in a champagne-hued gold outfit,[142] and on Jazz & Piano, she did a stripped-down version" so Enigma and Jazz & Piano are two shows or one.. I am confused
• I think the Glee version entered some charts; should we mention them?
• For the track listing section, I doubt if it is necessary. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Single track listings they say that it is not standard practice to include such a section unless the track listings received extensive commentary. Given that none of the remixes listed here are discussed in prose, I'd remove the section altogether.

I don't know it's unusual for a song to have this many versions with different durations. It can be part of prose if necessary (in Background and release section for example).

I personally don't find the track listings helpful, but I'd leave it to other editors.

• I think it's better to include table captions for separate years; i.e. one for 2009 year-end charts and one for 2010 year-end charts...

I'm not sure that is necessary since it was released pretty late in 2009, and the song's peak was somewhere between 2009 and 2010. For 2017, for example, it makes sense since it and 2009 are several years apart.

I do think it is helpful to include table captions for separate years. While it may be clunky, it helps with accessibility.

This concludes my prose review. Apart from my comments I made some minor edits that are hopefully beneficial. A great read overall! Ippantekina (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ippantekina. I think I have addressed the rest of your comments. Let me know if you disagree with something. FrB.TG (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I have a few remaining concerns, but they are minuscule to the quality. Great work! Ippantekina (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

• All sources are reliable and properly formatted
• Spot checks performed: ref 5 just gives me a load of "plug in not supported" messages, am I doing something wrong? 17 doesn't mention Boney M. 30 OK. 42 OK. 43 OK. 56 shows the song at number 20 in Ireland, so doesn't support the claim that it topped the chart there. 64 OK. 73 OK. 83 doesn't seem to say anything about "robotic, zombie-like arm movements and morbid theme". 99 OK. 109 OK. 118 OK. 127 OK. 138 OK. 155 OK. 265 OK.

Ref 5: it returns the same error for me; replaced with another source.

Ref 17: the comparison to Boney M. was supposed to be from source 17. Corrected attribution; thanks for catching it.

Ref 56: the source next to it (now no. 56) is supposed to support the claim that it topped the Irish chart. Not sure why this one was even placed there. Removed.

Ref 83: the claim comes from the NYDN review, which is cited earlier in the sentence but not in the end. Corrected.

• Is the publisher of ref 191 really "Top Digital Download"? I can't see those words in the source

It seems to be the chart for the singles and is automatically generated by the use of ((single chart)).

• Refs after "the works of filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and Michael Jackson's Thriller." are not in numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, ChrisTheDude, for the source review, and sorry for the mix-up of the sources. I rearranged a lot of things a few months ago but messed up some parts. Thanks for catching these. FrB.TG (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pass source review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Okay for me to start another nomination? FrB.TG (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [12].

---

Eadwig[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings. It has been improved by helpful comments at peer review by Mike Christie. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. This is up to Dudley's usual standard; I commented at the peer review and have nothing to add here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. I made one formatting tweak. Sources are all reliable and consistently formatted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Silver_penny_of_King_Eadwig_(YORYM_2013.1351.4)_obverse.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Silver_penny_of_King_Eadwig_(YORYM_2013.1351.4)_reverse.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Nikkimaria. I have corrected typos in the tags. Are they OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet - the typo wasn't the issue here. Both images have a tag representing the copyright status of the photograph. However, they also need a tag representing the copyright status of the coin itself (which will almost certainly be a copyright-expired tag of some flavour). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikkimaria. Sorted now - hopefully. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, although I'd suggest labelling the tags to make clear what applies to what. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• "The following year, Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, separated Eadwig from his wife Ælfgifu on the ground" - I would say that that last word ought to be grounds (plural)

• OED has ground singular if there is only one ground. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, maybe I just talk weird ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "while others see his character and the events of this reign" - his reign?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "By 878, it had overrun" - for total clarity, I would say "the army had overrun"

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "he does not name the daughter in his account. [17]" - random gap before the ref

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I got as far as 955, I will endeavour to look at the rest tonight -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Chris. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ælfsige, who he appointed" => "Ælfsige, whom he appointed"

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "allowing landholders to convert folkland" - wikilink folkland?

• I wondered about this, but the wikilink goes to bookland, so it would read "allowing landholders to convert [[Bookland (law)|folkland]], which they already owned as hereditary family estates which owed food rent and services to the crown, into [[Bookland (law)|bookland]]". What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would work nicely (although you need a comma between food and rent :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks ChrisTheDude. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the kingdom was divided even though had been appointed by Eadwig" - think there's a word missing in there

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the lot from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks ChrisTheDude. Replies and query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

I write historical biographies, but not in this time frame, so my expertise is limited. I started the comments a couple hours ago, and did not realise that another editor would also comment, so I'm sorry if these comments overlap and will not be offended if you resolve Chris's comments first.

• "In the ninth century Anglo-Saxon England" suggest putting a comma after century

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "By 878, it had overrun", " By 883 Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians," The use of commas after years should be consistent. I recommend using the comma, but that's personal taste.

• Added comma. I have no strong views either way, but I see that I have mostly use the comma. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "He almost immediately lost control", "He almost immediately invaded" The duplicate sentence starters is jarring. I also don't understand how someone "almost immediately invaded". Did he invade the kingdom or not? Or is this referring to how it was invaded very quickly after this time?

• Changed to "He then invaded Mercia". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to Dunstan's earliest hagiographer," Suggest wikilinking to hagiography, as this is a specialised word.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rory Naismith sees the story of Dunstan's intervention" Who is Rory Naismith and why should the reader care about their opinion? Since they do not have a wikilink, a job title might be appropriate to add here. Some editors would also suggest adding job titles or credentials for wikilinked experts, but I'm of the opinion that it isn't necessary.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it threatened to cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." Two threats in quick succession. Maybe, "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it could have cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." or something similar

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig and his women may" Should it be "Eadwid and this woman"? If not, I don't think its appropriate to have women be phrased as a possession of Eadwig. Perhaps, "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig's romantic relationships may" or something similar.

• I don't think it is a problem. "romantic relationship" sounds coy to me and I think you can refer to a woman and her men and a man and his women. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and Eadwig was not even mentioned." I don't think even is necessary here and can be removed.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "was appointed an ealdorman in Mercia in 956." Suggest wikilinking ealdorman

• Wikilinked on first mention above. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to Dunstan's biographer B," B has already been extensively talked about previously, so I don't think this author needs to eb reintroduced here.

• Done. I have kept it below in "such as Dunstan's biographer B and Byrhtferth" as "such as B and Byrhtferth" sounds odd to me but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, this is a difficult case because the name is just a letter. I think the current text is fine. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and Frederick Biggs comments that if Edgar" Who is this person and what are their credentials?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "amounting in the view of Shashi Jayakumar to" Who is this person and what are their credentials?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "was abandoned by the Mercians and the Northumbrians with contempt"," Is that comma supposed to be a period?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "William Hamilton (see right)," I don't think "(see right)" should be included here. Mobile versions won't put the image to the right (it is placed on top or below the text) so this will be confusing to many readers. I think the caption under the image is enough and "(see right)" it is unnecessary here.

• I think it is helpful to the reader to point to the picture so I have changed it to "see image". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not necessary for my support, but I suggest putting the "Sources" section into two columns to make the list shorter to scroll.

• I never use columns for sources as I find that it is quicker to find a source in a list without columns. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Z1720. All answered. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I turned up too late for the peer review, but it looks as though I wouldn't have had much to contribute in any case. I have only four minor quibbles on the present text:

• Background

• "…thus became the first king of all England. He died in October 939 and was succeeded by his half-brother and Eadwig's father Edmund, who was the first king to succeed to the throne of all England…" – aren't you telling us the same thing twice? If Edward was the first king of all England and Edmund succeeded him, the latter must ipso facto have been the first king to succeed to the throne of all England. (As Eadwig had only one father I'd put a comma before "Edmund" if I were writing the sentence, but we won't fall out over the point.)

• Historians distinguish between the two cases. Æthelstan succeeded as king of the Anglo-Saxons and only became king of England when he conquered Northumbria. Edmund was the first to succeed as king of England. I am open to suggestions of how to express this more clearly. Added the comma before Edmund.

• Fine. I do not press the point. Tim riley talk 17:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reign

• There are a lot of "Eadwig"s in the opening para of the section: perhaps a pronoun or two would make things smoother?

• Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Early reign 955–957

• His sixty odd gifts of land – you really need a hyphen here; otherwise, it's sixty strange gifts, rather than sixty-something unstrange ones.

• Done. This seems to me one of the few cases where adding in a hyphen helps the sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• around 5% – I believe the MoS favours "per cent" rather than % in the text (not in tables etc), and I'd also go for "five" rather than "5". (Not quite so sure about the percentages in the coinage section, though: I think they look all right as drawn, MoS notwithstanding.)

• Changed. I prefer 5%, but life is too short to argue with MoS. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Nothing of enough importance to prevent my adding my support. – Tim riley talk 11:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.