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 December 2022 [1].

Dish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dish-bearers and butlers were officers at Anglo-Saxon royal feasts. Dish-bearers are usually described as seneschals by historians, and Bazza 7 commented that it was unclear what "seneschal" means in the Eadwig article, so I have created this article to explain. Bazza and Mike Christie have given helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. I have known not do that for some time but I forgot. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

Hi, Dudley Miles. Nice seeing you here. I have some feedback that I hope you will find useful:

"Feasts played an important role in consolidating community and hierarchy among the elite, and dish-bearers and butlers served the food and drinks.": the latter half of the sentence sounds awkward. Maybe try adding something like "at these functions" or "at these gatherings" at the end?
- Added "at these meals". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...and Northumbrian thegns in the king's entourage got drunk.": I think "intoxicated" would be more appropriate language to use here. However, that's up to you.
- I prefer "drunk". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...In the later Anglo-Saxon period, queens and æthelings...": Is there a link that would be appropriate for "queens"?
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to find perhaps just one more image for this article? There might be a miniature somewhere of a dish-bearer.
- the nearest image to being relevant I can find is a 1902 statue of a dapifer to Henry I, and this seems stretching relevance too much. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Unlimitedlead. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

"Dish-bearers and butlers probably also carried out diverse military and administrative duties as required by the king, and some went on to have illustrious careers as ealdormen, but most never rose higher." Can we break this after "king", like so: "Dish-bearers and butlers probably also carried out diverse military and administrative duties as required by the king. Some went on to have illustrious careers as ealdormen, but most never rose higher."?

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"dish-bearers and cup-bearers (butlers) served at the table, playing a major role in helping to make them political successes": I think the syntax is a little imprecise here -- the subject of "playing" is "dish-bearers and cup-bearers" but it really should be the act of serving. How about "dish-bearers and cup-bearers (butlers) served at the table, a role which could play a major part in helping to make them political successes"?

I do not think your suggestion quite works either. See what you think of my amendment. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You use "biriele" in the "Status" section which is not one of the spellings given in the "Etymology" section.

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The butler and dish-bearer of Edith, wife of Edward the Confessor, remained with her when he died rather than moving to serve the new queen." Suggest "The butler and dish-bearer of Edith, wife of Edward the Confessor, remained with her when the king died rather than moving to serve the new queen."

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is concise and, as far as I can tell, thorough. Just these minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

You give the publisher and location for the online charters, but omit a location for the online OED and ODNB, and give neither for ASE 10.

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see to complain about -- sources are all reliable and the links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Mike. All fixed I hope. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

"occupied the third lay rank in English society" laymen (ironically enough) may not understand the usage of lay here, perhaps "occupied the third rank of laymen (non-religious figure)"or something similar.
In the status section it does not indicate that the thegns were third in rank so clearly as the lede, but only by order of elimination, which seems odd. Perhaps "The offices were held by thegns, who were members of the aristocracy" could be modified to "The offices were held by thegns, who were members of the aristocracy and occupied the third rank of laymen" or something similar.
Article seems complete and very well put together for such a niche topic, and all of my suggestions are minor adjustments for readability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and comments Iazyges. I have fixed both your points. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

"also called cup-bearers". By whom?

It is the dictionary definition. A pincerna is defined as a butler or cup-bearer. I originally had "butler or cup-bearer", but an editor objected that it was unclear whether I meant one office or two. Would "butler (or cup-bearer}" be better? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see their point. Yes, "butler (or cup-bearer}" would be better.

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps link "lay" to Laity?

I think that would be confusing. The first definition given in the laity article is a lay member of an order, such as a lay brother. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"but most never rose higher." Than thegns or than ealdormen?

Added "than thegn". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"several stigweard (subordinate officer". Should "officer" be plural?

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the king ordered that the mead should flow plentifully". Upper case K.

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"showing that junior æthelings also had ..." What is it that makes Edmund a "junior ætheling", rather than just an ætheling?

I used the term to avoid repeating "younger brother". Would it be better to repeat? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. Perhaps "brothers of the king"? I think that "younger" will be understood, and even if not, is not strictly relevant.

Changed to "kings' younger sons". Younger is relevant as I am making the point that it was not only the eldest son who had a dish=bearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a man had to own substantial land in one or more counties". What does "in one or more counties" add? If the land could be owned in a either a single county or several I am not sure what information is being communicated.

It is in the source and I take it to mean that thegns could be substantial local landowners or more important and wealthier magnates owning land in several counties. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what you understand it mean it would be best to use that form of words. Which makes perfect sense to me, while the current phrase, frankly, doesn't.

Changed to "In order to be a thegn, a man had to at least be a substantial local landowner, and he could be a major magnate owning estates in several counties." It is a bit SYNTH as the source just says in one or more counties, but I don't think too much. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to briefly explain what an attestation was? Either in line or in a footnote.

Linked to Attestation clause. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder why you hadn't done that already.

"her when the king died". Upper case K.

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"History" is fairly chunky. Would it be possible to break the paragraph?

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and promoted to ealdorman by his successor". Should that be 'and were promoted to ealdorman by his successor'?

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gog. Replies and queries above. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 21 December 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) 08:49, 31 December 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 article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 26 December 2022 [2].

Robert Nimmo[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Nimmo served in WWI as a light horse officer, in WWII commanding several brigades, with the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan commanding the Australian infantry brigade, and then Northern Command back in Australia as a major general. He had virtually reached retirement age when he was picked as the chief military observer with the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, a position he held from 1950 until his death in 1966. He was described as "by far the most successful United Nations observer ever", was the first Australian to command a multinational peacekeeping force, and his command of UNMOGIP remains the longest ever command of a UN mission. This year marks the 75th anniversary of Australia's first involvement in peacekeeping operations, and as a peacekeeper myself I thought I'd bring this one up to scratch as a way of commemorating that milestone. It just underwent a GAN by Hawkeye7, and just passed Milhist A-Class review. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nimmo_(AWM_097387).jpg: see Wp:WATERMARK

New version uploaded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has the AWM site changed recently? Source links there all seem to be broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have that problem with Nimmo, but I don't know what is going on there with the others. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments.

I'd suggest removing the quotes from the first para of the lead to slim it down a bit; maybe just note that he performed well during the war or similar

OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Nimmo' is used too frequently across the article (e.g. in successive sentences without anyone else being named, and twice in at least one sentence)

Replaced a few. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He attended a 10-day gas training course near Cairo in Egypt in early September then returned to his regiment" - is this needed? These types of short courses would have been routine and the reference is to his NAA file.

Sure, I had left it there to ensure he wasn't credited with being involved in any battle during that time, but there wasn't anything of significance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nimmo's wife Peggy was killed in a fall at The Gap" - the sources probably don't discuss this, but was this an accident or suicide? The Gap has always been one of the leading places in Sydney for suicides, tragically.

Yes, I know. There is nothing to confirm if it was a suicide, although it seems likely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"he was promoted to temporary brigadier, and posted to command the 4th Cavalry Brigade" - perhaps note that by this stage the 'cavalry' units were motorised?

Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The para starting with 'On 10 February 1942' is a bit lengthy, especially as it covers a lot of ground - I'd suggest splitting it.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The date of his son's death could be provided: https://nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au/veteran?id=1058607&c=WW2 and https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/R1719326 It looks like he was serving with Bomber Command in Europe.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know why he was picked to command the 34th Brigade? As the only active brigade in the post-war army and the only one that was intended to serve overseas for a lengthy period (in a role that required good military and diplomatic skills), this would have been a much sought-after posting. Nimmo was presumably considered one of the best brigade commanders in an Army that by now had lots that had led these units in combat.

I did wonder about that, but of course he was permanent army, so perhaps he was among the best of the permanent brigadiers? Nothing in sources I can find though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, why did he only serve in this role for a shortish period?

I suspect that as he had been a brigadier since January 1942 (temporary), he was due for promotion. He got them ready, dealt with the mutiny and got them there, deployed and set up, so I figure he had probably done a job of work, and BCOF was pretty pedestrian in terms of the day-to-day. Nothing in sources though. Such stuff might lie in the files of the Military Secretary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised that the official history of Australian peacekeeping hasn't been consulted, though as its authors wrote the ADB entry it might not add much. The official history has some pretty sharp analysis and criticism, and is available online via the Cambridge Core service which can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library service. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, access was my main problem (no copies in the state or uni libraries here in SA), which you have solved. I will consult it, but I doubt there will be a lot, as you say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I stand corrected. There was plenty, now added. All done now I reckon, Nick-D. See what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks great, and I'm pleased to support. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

It may just be me and this is not a deal breaker, but the lead seems disproportionately long.

I'm not seeing it. I don't think there is much fat in there, but open to suggestions about trimming. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a brief skim, I don't see that either the article or the lead would suffer from losing:

"reaching the rank of major ... was promoted to lieutenant colonel and ... promoted to major general and ..."

I don't get the idea that you wouldn't include significant promotions in the lead to show his progress through the ranks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. But to me in, eg, "he was promoted to lieutenant colonel and served as a senior staff officer with the headquarters of two cavalry divisions" the information of interest to both the uninitiated and aficionados is from "served" on; etc.

"His performance as chief military observer was such that"

Sure, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"his funeral"

Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there is more. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Southport School". The MoS suggests that "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".

OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A piddling point, but "and there was some friendly fire from a British destroyer which also caused some casualties"; "... then ... then ...". Perhaps delete the second, as I am not sure what it adds?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The account of the fighting around the Echelon Trenches, fascinating and well written as it is, seems to get well into "going into unnecessary detail". Contrast the 324 words on this one day, with the account of the period 20.12.15 - 12.12.18; 505 words with no mention of Nimmo getting as close as long rifle shot of an Ottoman and with weeks of hard fighting covered by "Following participation in the successful Battle of Beersheba on 31 October and Third Battle of Gaza in early November, Nimmo's regiment was part of the force that pursued the Ottoman forces north, and helped capture Jerusalem."

I'm in the process of adding some more detail on the Palestine campaign to even this out, but have trimmed this account a bit. See what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"which slowed their return to the Australian line which occurred"; "... which ... which ..."

"deleted a which. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"was appointed as regimental adjutant and appointed as a temporary captain". Delete the second use of "appointed"?

reworded, removing the second "appointed". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"because he no longer performing his". Has a "was" gone walkabout?

Yep, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He was admitted to a hospital in Alexandria". Optional: delete "a".

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a most gallant and able leader". Is the "gallant" part based solely on his record at Gallipoli, as subsequently he seems to have filled mostly, or perhaps entirely, rear-echelon roles.

No, while he was probably most able to display gallantry as a troop commander at Gallipoli, he was also a squadron commander for nearly a year from July 1917. Light horse squadron commanders were definitely in the thick of it, akin to an infantry company commander. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you know that, I know that, but how is a reader meant to deduce it?

I've added a few words to highlight that he led B Squadron through the named battles and the pursuit, but I'm not sure how else I am supposed to do that. I will look at the official history and see if there is anything I missed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The change just about does it. Will the sources stretch to something like "Nimmo led his squadron during fierce fighting in the ..." or even "Nimmo led his squadron during the fiercely fought battles of ..."? Obviously a sentence or two mentioning his direct involvement in combat, similar to that re Gallipoli, would round things out. But if that just doesn't exist you can't help that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Gog, I think the detail and additions in the Sinai and Palestine campaign section now cover this adequately. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting "In late June 1918 Nimmo spent" seems unduly long. 🤔 start a new one at "His record with the 5th Light Horse Regiment was"?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He was also the inspector general of communications for the division." Absolutely optional, but I for one would be interested in a footnote explaining just what this entailed.

Added a sentence fragment, basically he was responsible for the rear echelon logistics of the division, which makes sense given he was AA&QMG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" his previous role as brigade major of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, before reprising another previous role as Assistant Adjutant & Quartermaster General of the 2nd Cavalry Division". Why lower-case initials for "brigade major", but upper case for "Assistant Adjutant & Quartermaster General"; it seems inconsistent.

Hmmm. Yes, it is. My staff duties strikes again. I think that the WP MOS indicates positions should be lowercase unless they are directly followed by the name of the person fulfilling the role, so I'll lowercase them all, which I have now done, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He was devastated, and on 28 April the Army posted him to Brisbane". It seems odd to have this in one sentence. Perhaps move the first three words to the previous sentence, after a semi colon?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He administered command of". What does this mean?

Essentially to perform the role without being posted into it. Usually the second-in-command or senior staff officer acts as the commander in their absence, sometimes while they are on leave, and sometimes when the position is temporarily vacant. Also usually when the person administering command isn't of the correct rank to be appointed to command. In this case, GOC NT Force was a major-general posting, and Nimmo was a brigadier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. But could we either summarise this for the reader or use a form of words which may be less precisely nuanced but will convey what Nimmo was actually doing?

I added "in the absence its appointed commander", do you think this is enough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you add an 'of', sure. ;-)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" he was posted as Deputy Assistant Quartermaster General in the headquarters of". Again, why the upper-case initials?

Fixed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"general officer commanding Northern Command and District Commandant". Why upper-case initials for the last two words?

Also fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"substantive". Maybe link to Military rank#Types of rank?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The citation read". Any reason this is in the past tense?

No, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog, all done except the trim of the Gallipoli bit, which I'm mulling over and will take a crack at this weekend. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I've now had a stab at trimming the Gallipoli bit. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That will do. See comment above in green. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed the remaining point now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi PM, thanks for another fine bio. Sorry but my unfamiliarity with military terms means some of my comments and questions might reflect that ignorance. Some others are MoS related nitpicks and others simple suggestions...

Ibox

Tree list - Gallipoli and Sinai still have caps on Campaign

Thanks, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4th Cavalry Brigade - goes to redirect but link in prose at WWII section is piped

Also fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

the Royal Military College, Duntroon in 1912 - geocomma after Duntroon

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was praised for his leadership as a light horse squadron commander and his skills - maybe add "for" between "and his"

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

staff officer on First Australian Army headquarters - is "on" normal terminology or of?

Usually staff officers are described as being "on" a headquarters, at least in my experience. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

formed part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force - intentionally not linked?

Linked at the top. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he was promoted to major general and posted - pipe to Major general (Australia)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the 800-kilometre (500 mi)-long ceasefire line - there's an extra hyphen?

Argh! Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to honorary lieutenant general in 1954 - already linked above (but as Lieutenant general (Australia))

Removed link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He died in his sleep, of a heart attack, on - he died of a heart attack in his sleep?

Much better, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

remains the longest ever command - hyphen longest-ever?

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

in far north Queensland, - pipe to Far North Queensland?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimmo attended the Southport School - I think "the" should be included in the link ie the Southport School? (while MOS:INSTITUTIONS doesn't explain whether to include the "the" in the link, MOS:THEBAND shows examples such as "Paul McCartney from the Beatles... (But for newspapers we follow the masthead so The Age is correct - gosh!))

Yes, I am also confused. I've done as you suggest, no doubt someone more precise about MOS will fix it if we are wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southport School - presumably as a boarder, do refs mention?

refs don't say, but I agree it seems logical. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World War I Gallipoli campaign

He was commissioned into the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in the same rank - ambiguous ie which rank, not company sergeant major?

No, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimmo himself was involved in - is himself needed? Nimmo was personally involved...?

deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ordered to conduct a feint attack towards - wlink feint attack

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

was noted in the Australian official history of the war. - the lowercase is intentional but ditto lack of italics?

yes, intentional. I'm not quoting the title, just a less formal common name for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lost 24 killed, 79 wounded and one prisoner. - and one taken prisoner?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai and Palestine campaign

there is no link to the campaign in this section?

added see also. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alt - a large group of light coloured - hyphen light-coloured

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alt - forms of dress and with and without headdress- some with headdress?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 February Nimmo reported - new year, add 1916?

this has now been fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

was based at Dueidar - needs some idea of its location? add near Katia, Egypt, or use map or mention Sinai Peninsula?

added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

followed by two weeks sick leave - apostrophe ie two weeks'

whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His record with the 5th Light Horse - new para so Nimmo's record

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar period

The couple had one son and one daughter - that is slightly ambiguous ie with last mention being Peggy's parents, maybe Nimmo and Peggy had...

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

based in Victoria and South Australia, also in Melbourne - ? also headquartered in Melbourne (or remove "based")

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in Melbourne, from 1 January 1926. [11] - space before ref

Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

representing Australia in field hockey - link representing Australia to Australia men's national field hockey team

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was also an Australian and Victorian hockey team selector - he was also a selector for the Australian and Victorian hockey teams

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

posted to the newly-raised - no hyphen in -ly adverbs

whoops, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

southeastern states. - not one word, mos says two words or hyphen

OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimmo flew to Torokina - pipe to Cape Torokina (ie Torokina Airfield)

Sure, better. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war service

On 7 October Nimmo returned - add year

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, - add italics

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morotai incident - is the Morotai Mutiny a separate incident?

Yes, one was RAAF before the end of the war, this was Army after (while waiting to be sent to Japan). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 June, Nimmo was promoted to temporary major general - v On 1 October 1948 he was appointed as a substantive major general - 2 links same para but to diff targets

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations service and death

kilometre (500 mi)-long ceasefire line - remove extra hyphen?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ceasefire line - link Karachi Agreement?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

intervention of the Australian Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies - Menzies not yet knighted in 52 ie remove Sir?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the part time Citizen Military Forces - hyphen part-time?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as Australia commitments - Australia's or Autralian?

the former, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

functions which he has been call on to perform" - called

Doh, good grief. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1964, the UN Secretariat reported - move link up to first mention in previous para

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

solve the Kashmir problem - maybe link Kashmir dispute

Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

from troop=contributing countries - typo hyphen

someone fixed this already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimmo's actions and correspondence during the war indicates - indicate

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which he fulfilled through "through maintaining - remove a "through"

Thanks, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"through maintaining an open, firm but tactful relationship with both the belligerent parties, and to show favour to neither" - this excerpt doesn't quite read sensibly. "maintaining" and "to show" have a tense conflict. Not sure what to suggest, maybe instead of "to show" use [showing]

brilliant solution, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

remains the longest ever command - hyphen?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and Australian observers as pall bearers - fellow Australian observers?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After an Anglican funeral in Rawalpindi with Pakistani military honours and Australian observers as pall bearers, his body was flown to Karachi and then Brisbane.[53] His funeral was held - can we make the first of these "service" to avoid 2 x funeral?

Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the Mount Gravatt Cemetery in Brisbane - hmm, was surprised this cemetery doesn't have an article. Strangely it's not actually in Mount Gravatt but in MacGregor... so change to 'buried in the Anzac section of the Mount Gravatt Cemetery in MacGregor, Brisbane?

Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quote|General Nimmo's wisdom... - should be blockquote?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Ref Anderson, Grant; Dawson, Daryl (2006) - authorlink Daryl Dawson

Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

some changes, if agreed, might need to also be made in lede
I came across this when looking for something, no idea if anything worthwhile.

Some interesting snippets, but I don't think Magro meets RS, it is a thesis for a certificate, not a masters or PhD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again and sorry again for such a long list. JennyOz (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and as always Jenny, thanks so much for the time and effort you put into your reviews of my nominations. They always lead to significant improvements. Sorry it took so long to get to them all. Have a great Xmas, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. I've run through again (made a tiny tweak) and am very happy to s'port. Hope your Xmas and NY are great too. JennyOz (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 - just a friendly reminder that there's several outstanding items on this one yet. Hog Farm _Talk 23:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, away from home for a couple more days, will then tidy all this up and response to all comments. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just tidying up a few things post-addressing Jenny's comments, will ping when I'm happy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

I reviewed this article at GA and believe that it is of the required standard.

Source review[edit]

All sources are high quality
Day, Adam: ((cite web)): CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) Suggest removing the ref card

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACT Memorial: Add access-date

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NAA: B2458, 11 That's the series and control number. The title is "Nimmo, Robert Harold"

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks: 3a, 15, 23, 27, 49, 53a - all okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye, all done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, any chance of some responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes mate, sorry about the delay. Will get onto it tomorrow my time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: I reckon we could be done here. Sorry about the extensive delays, the end of the year was hectic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:58, 23 December 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. Hog Farm _Talk 20:33, 26 December 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 article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 26 December 2022 [3].

Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sir Thomas Hardy, a distinctly unimpressive but surprisingly successful Royal Navy officer. While commanding a ship during the War of the Spanish Succession his chaplain discovered the location of a Spanish treasure fleet, resulting in the Battle of Vigo Bay and a knighthood for Hardy. Further commands and promotion followed for him, but in return all Hardy provided for the navy was a tendency to fail to find and engage the enemy. He would go on to be court martialled once for this but continued to be employed, until in 1716 his illustrious career was terminated possibly because he was a Jacobite. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"Promoted to post-captain in 1693" - is there a link for that rank/term? (both in lead and body)

It is already linked in both places as "captain", so to avoid confusion I've removed the "post-" in the latter mentions too.

"chasing him until dusk when he returned to shepherding the convoy" - change to "chasing him until dusk before returning to shepherding the convoy" to make it 100% clear who it was that returned

Done.

"was further investigated by a panel from the Admiralty, and committees of the Houses of Commons and Lords." - don't think that comma is needed

Removed.

"Rooke's fleet arrived on 12 August" - are we still talking about 1702?

Yes.

"under Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell" - that's a fabulous name. Just saying :-)

Indeed! His end was just as spectacular...

"Sir John Leake, who Hardy frequently served under" => "Sir John Leake, whom Hardy frequently served under"

Done.

Notes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13 are not complete sentences so don't need full stops

Removed.

That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hi, thanks for taking a look! Have replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

~~"Hardy became a follower of Captain George Churchill, to whom he served as first lieutenant": I would expect "whom he served", not "to whom he served".~~

Done.

~~"Having fought at the Battle of Cádiz, he subsequently": we have another sentence shortly after this beginning with "Having", so how about "He fought at the Battle of Cádiz, and subsequently"?~~

Done.

"He was acquitted but was further investigated by a panel from the Admiralty and committees of the Houses of Commons and Lords." Suggest "He was acquitted but was further investigated by a panel from the Admiralty and committees of the Houses of Commons and Lords, which again exonerated him." As it stands the lead doesn't make it clear that he survived the later investigations with no blame.

Done.

~~"he fought at the Battle of Barfleur, taking place between 19 and 24 May": suggest "he fought at the Battle of Barfleur, between 19 and 24 May 1692".~~

Partially done - did not add year as is mentioned in previous sentence.

~~"with which to protect trade travelling through the bay and to the west of the English Channel": suggest making it clear that this refers to the Bay of Biscay, assuming that's correct.~~

Done.

~~"the fleet travelled to Barcelona, Spain, from whence Hardy was sent to": "whence" means "from where", so I would suggest either "Spain, whence" or "Spain, from which".~~

Done the former.

~~"Hardy coordinated Elizabeth Christine's move to Spain which would be done with Leake's fleet." Suggest "Hardy coordinated Elizabeth Christine's planned move to Spain with Leake's fleet."~~

Done.

That's it for a first pass. I'll read through again once you've responded to these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments, responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good. One more question:

Stephen Leake thought Hardy ignorant of sea affairs, and John Leake (were they related by any chance?) had an inner circle who thought him an incompetent seaman. We don't get any clear reason as to why they might think badly of his skills. Is there more that could be said? Since both these opinions are contemporary I can understand that no more information might be available.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen's maternal aunt was married to John. John left the majority of his estate to Stephen's father on the condition that they took his surname. Stephen wrote the biography of John that I believe both these comments originate from. The sources don't go into more detail though. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks FAC quality to me. You have two non-MILHIST supports, so you might want to ping the editors who reviewed this for A-class to see if any have time to add a review here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

You have several sources over a hundred years old. I asked about Clowes in a previous FAC and was reassured that it is treated as reliable by modern historians. Is the same true for Campbell, Charnock, and Laughton?
Suggest adding publisher location to the ODNB citations.

Otherwise sources are reliable and the links work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe them all to be reliable. I would have liked to have used more modern sources, but this period is a strange one in that as time had gone on the histories have gotten less detailed and really less has been written altogether. Sir John Knox Laughton is probably one of the most accomplished naval historians of the last few hundred years, and his work in the Dictionary of National Biography has been added in most cases untouched to the modern Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Charnock's biographies are unique in their breadth of content and are still being republished by Cambridge University Press. Campbell is not perhaps as well known but I have used him only for a couple of minor details. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

"Commander-in-Chief, The Nore, Thames and Medway". Why the upper case initial Cs?

Removed.

"assisting in the transport of Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel to Spain". Perhaps you could indicate why merely assisting in the transportation of a civilian is so worthy of note?

Have made an attempt

Perhaps 'for her marriage to the important English ally the Archduke Charles'?

Done.

"possibly because of Jacobite sympathies." Would it be possible to explain this succinctly in plain English, per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."

I have made an attempt to expand on the subject but sources go into very little detail as to what the accusations against Hardy in particular were, so I've had to stay pretty general

"He was the son of John le Hardy, solicitor-general of Jersey". Possibly an upper case S and C.

Done.

"who became Hardy's patron", also "follower" in the lead. If you are going to use these terms, you need to explain them. (Or thee and me may be the only readers who ever understand what you mean.)

Expanded out a little

"96-gun ship of the line". Perhaps a note explaining what 96-gun ship and ship of the line mean. The latter could be as simple as explaining that they were the largest warships of the time.

Done.

"sometime before 1688, at which point he was". I am not sure that a year can be referred to as a "point". Perhaps 'at wich time'?

Done.

"protecting trade from French privateers." "protecting trade" is a bit hand wavey. A tad more specific? 'protecting British and Dutch merchant ships from ...' or something?

Double checked the source and it's actually Guernsey trade.

"Between 1695 and 1696". There isn't any between. :) Perhaps "Between" → 'In'. More precise dating would be nice if available.

It was a yearly appointment that seems to have usually gone from November to November, but the dates aren't given for Hardy in particular.

"a convoy of mast ships". A "mast ship" sounds as if it were a ship constructed out of masts.

Reworked.

"with him moving to the 50-gun ship of the line HMS Coventry in April 1701". That's a stand out peacetime promotion. Is it known why Hardy got it?

Nope. ODNB doesn't think it strange at all, saying "in May 1698 he was appointed to the Deal Castle, in April 1701 to the Coventry, and in January 1702 to the Pembroke".

"also from Jersey, went ashore and was assumed by the locals to be French." Why was that?

People from the Channel Islands are usually fluent in French, it's a bit of a melting pot of Anglo-French culture there. The sources don't explicitly say that though, I'm just guessing in this instance.

I should think that all but certain. Is there no way of indicating as much to the reader?

I don't believe so. The sources are as follows:

"There the chaplain of the Pembroke, also a native of Jersey, who was assumed on shore to be a Frenchman..."
"Her chaplain...By accident he encountered, and struck up an acquaintance with, the French Consul"
"His chaplain, a Mr. Beauvoir, a native of Jersey...fell...into company with the French consul, who incautiously boasted..."

"After the battle Rooke rewarded Hardy with the duty of sailing to England with news of the victory." A footnote explaining why this was a reward?

No need for a note, I'd mis-read the source; it's the knighthood that is the reward in this instance (duh!).

"Hardy was rewarded with a new command, the 70-gun ship of the line HMS Bedford." In what way was being transferred from one ship of the line to another a reward?

Reworded. my thought process was probably that a captain would prefer a new ship to an old one, but that's perilously close to OR!

I am sure you are correct, but, as you say ...

"the 24-gun merchant San Nicholas" 1. Perhaps 'merchant ship, and linked. 2. "captured three enemy warships". So the merchant is also a warship?

Reworded.

"and having seventy-four casualties." The size of the crew, to put the casualty level in context, would be helpful.

Done.

"in the Bay of Biscay, and as such participated in the successful siege of Ostend". This seems to imply that Ostend is in the Bay of Biscay.

Reworded, although I don't think I have the sources to actually say when/how the squadron came to move.

"In October Hardy was". As it's a new paragraph and a new section, could we be reminded of the year.

Added.

"with which to protect trade travelling through the Bay of Biscay". As before re "trade".

Sources don't say exactly what this trade was but I've described it as merchant ships.

"which brought him a considerable amount of prize money". Could we have an in line explanation of prize money per MOS:NOFORCELINK.

Reworded to be more accurate to source.

"by the middle of August the convoy had only reached Torbay". This will mean little to most, especially given that you have not mentioned where it sailed from. I suggest adding that last detail, giving a distance in miles and considering removing mention of Torbay in favour of a more general comment.

Reworded.

"and 30 store ships" A store ship being what?

Reworked.

"which was slowed by heavy fouling." Again an in line explanation would be helpful.

Made an attempt.

"return from prize-taking". What is "prize-taking?

Reworded.

"Hardy, in fact, thought he had encountered Duguay-Trouin again." Delete "in fact".

Done.

"Britain's ally Archduke Charles". Perhaps worth mentioning where Charles ruled and/or aspired to rule. And where he was located at this time.

Done.

"where she and Charles married." Did this have any political or military implications or consequences?

While I'm not an expert on this by any means, my reading leads to be believe that the answer is..not really? The literature does discuss how she was very beautiful, but when it comes to consequences they're mostly how Elisabeth Christine was able to use her new position to give her family money.

"The fleet afterwards captured Cagliari on 1 August". Perhaps insert ', the capital of Sardina,'.

Done.

"with his flag in Canterbury." Only liable to be understood by aficionados.

Reworded both instances.

"While cruising, he captured a French prize". I understand that by "prize" you mean 'ship', but I am not sure another reader will. And is anything further known about it?

Changed to "merchant ship". Added what very little the source says about the ship.

"to escort a convoy destined for Russia to the Orkney Islands." Perhaps 'as far as the Orkney Islands'?

Done.

"He sailed with the ships to the Shetland Isles". Likewise. Unless they actually entered port at the Shetlands.

Done.

"a candidate to lead the Quebec Expedition." MOS:NOFORCELINK again I'm afraid.

Expanded on.

"but as with the Dunkirk squadron was not deemed". Would it not be better to mention the lack of fault at Dunkirk in the paragraph discussing Dunkirk?

Done.

"a French private squadron". What is a "private squadron"?

Reworded.

"while the fifth blew up when attacked." What happened to the sixth French ship?

Hardy did not capture it; "that out of the remainder, three were captured, and one blown up". Reworded.

"there was an armistice in place for peace negotiations". Maybe 'there was an armistice in place to allow peace negotiations to take place'?

Used "to begin" to avoid too many "place"s.

That's it for a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Have responded to all above. Thanks for the detailed review! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. A couple of come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Responded. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, you kindly did the image review for this at ACR. Any chance you could have another look at them for FAC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Review follows. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Only five images.

File:Sir Thomas Hardy (cropped).jpg, File:Bakhuizen, Battle of Vigo Bay.jpg, File:Battle of Malaga, 1704.jpg, File:John Leake by Godfrey Kneller.jpg : PD-art-old-100-expired - okay

File:Monument to Admiral Sir Thomas Hardy, Westminster Abbey 02.jpg : Wikimedian image CC-by-SA 4.0. I have added an ((FoP-UK)) template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 21 December 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. Hog Farm _Talk 20:19, 26 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 December 2022 [4].

The Black Cat (US magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unusual and somewhat influential fiction magazine started at the end of the 19th century. It published many writers who later became famous -- Henry Miller's first sale was to The Black Cat, and it saved Jack London's career by buying a story from him just as he was about to give up writing. The covers were the work of the publisher's wife, Nelly Littlehale Umbstaetter, who went on to have a minor career as an artist. It published science fiction and fantasy, but also just about every other kind of fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:The Black Cat v01no07 (1896-04).pdf is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

For this part (had visited Umbstaetter's home in Back Bay), would it be worthwhile to use the full article title (Back Bay, Boston)? I only ask because I was unfamiliar with this place and I think it may be beneficial for some readers to have more context.
Done -- I didn't make it part of the link, since I think a comma in the middle makes it look as if there are two links there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely get that, but thank you for adding it in anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would a link for the Supreme Court of the United States article be beneficial here (his case in the US Supreme Court)? I know it is a rather basic concept, but I'd be curious if non-US readers would want more context if they are not 100% confident. It makes me think of how I know of the National Diet, but I cannot really say anything about it with confidence.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would link speculative fiction since other genres like science fiction get a link.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence does not have an obvious citation: (Other well-known writers who appeared in The Black Cat included Rex Stout, O. Henry, Rupert Hughes, Susan Glaspell, Ellis Parker Butler, Holman Day, and Octavus Roy Cohen.)
Oops. Now cited; can't believe I missed that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It happens to the best of us lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a nitpick-y point so apologies in advance, but should the placement of the notes and citations be standardized throughout the article? I see an instance where the note is put before the citations and another where it is put after.
I hadn't realized I wasn't being consistent about that, but having had a look I'm inclined to leave note 6 (the inconsistent one) where it is -- it's the main source for the information, and the following two are supplemental. I generally prefer to put sources in order of importance rather than numerical order, though I know some editors dislike out-of-numerical-order sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I do not have a strong opinion about the placement either way tbh. I normally point it as it seems like a common comment in the FAC, but I think it should be open to personal preference as I do agree with your line of reasoning on it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I do not have that many comments, and once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the copyedits! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything! I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

I'll review this sometime later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 23:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The last known issue was dated February 1923, but an April 1923 issue may have appeared" - any details on why they think one may have appeared in April?
Nothing I can find. The 1985 source simply says it goes to that date but gives a volume number of 27/4, which is actually the number of the October 1922 issue per this source. Stephensen-Payne just says "It is unclear how many issues were published in 1922 and the magazine may have lasted until Apr-1923", without elaborating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead specifies that Kane restarted it in 1922, when "1920, to another New York publisher, but ceased publication with the October 1920 issue.[43] It reappeared just over a year later, this time published by William Kane, the owner of The Editor, a magazine for amateur writers" in the body leaves a late 1921 reappearance open to reasonableness
I could uncollapse the table by default, if that would resolve this? Or are you saying that the text should be more explicit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text should be a bit more explicit
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The guidance to writers posted periodically in the magazine always gave a low upper limit on the word count" - I'm not sure that this is exactly supported by the footnote
I think 6,000 is a fairly low count -- it would be about 13 pages of the magazine. In addition to the limits listed in note 5, other limits were given at different times, always lower than 6,000, e.g. 2,500 maximum in 1897, 2,000 words in 1900, 5,000 in 1905. I didn't want to overload the note but could add more of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that it isn't going to be an obvious statement that these were low for the time. Do any of the sources state that they're low for the time or format, or give a comparative word count for other similar magazines? Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I've seen something about this in the sources, but will have to look this evening. If I can't find anything definite, I could change it to "The guidance to writers posted periodically in the magazine gave upper limits on the required word count that varied from 6,000 words to as low as 1,000 words" -- would that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one source that mentioned the word count limits, but it didn't specifically point out that these were low word counts so I've gone with the phrasing above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing much to pick on with this one. Hog Farm _Talk 02:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

I'll give this a read through. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" having saved enough money to start it on his own account" I'm not sure how relevant it is, but given that you establish where his original wealth came from, it might be worth mentioning where this money he saved was earned?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for, but the only information I have about his career before he started The Black Cat that's not already in the article is in this clipping. It mentions the Charles A. Vogler Company and Comfort magazine; is that the sort of thing you're thinking of? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering where the money he saved came from. I don't think that's really it, but no worries if the information doesn't exist, the reader can reasonably assume it was a continuation of his advertising and publishing career. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and he was not the first publisher to take advantage of it to this extent" is "to this extent" necessary? Given the context, I think it could be axed without losing anything
Done -- I meant it to refer to the publishers pricing their magazines at five cents as opposed to the ten cents Umbstaetter had originally planned, but I agree it's unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
""no magazine ever published at any price has secured so large a sale in so short a time"" It might be worth dating when the News Company said this because it could be read as though the article was published in any year, even, say, 2022.
They said it in 1896, so it really only applies to the first few issues. Looking at how I was citing this that wasn't at all clear, so I've rejigged this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When was the first issue published?
October 1895; this was already in the bibliography section but I've added it to the publication history section too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered adding some inflation calculations to the money for some context?
I hadn't thought of it, and looking at it now I'm a bit reluctant -- there are almost twenty dollar figures given in the article and I think providing an inflated value for all of them would disrupt the reading experience. If you think it's necessary I could perhaps create a footnote that inflates a couple of example figures and attach that note to all the dollar figure mentions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that would be unnecessarily clunky. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" with the prize pool expanded to $2,600" -- if it was initially " $1,000 first prize and another $1,100 " for the next four, wouldn't that be a prize pool of $5,400? So how is that an expansion?
The $1,100 was for the next four stories combined -- I thought readers would naturally interpret it that way as otherwise the first prize story gets the least money. I can add "combined" to "four next best stories" if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

probably just a me being slow thing that doesn't need in-article clarification. Sorry-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"subscription to a year of The Black Cat" might be worth saying how much that cost?
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Umbstaetter read nearly 8,000 of the manuscripts," he personally read 8,000, or had his manuscript readers read them?
He personally read them. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"suggests that the Panic of 1907 probably influenced" Looking at Mott's work I'm not sure that he directly says that: all he says is "it followed the example of other magazines" in raising price. While he mentions the 1907 panic in the preceding sentence, is that enough to say he's attributing the raise in price to the panic? In my reading, it could also be interpreted as attributing a fall in circulation to the financial crisis, which could have in turn necessitated an increased price, maybe. Thoughts?
Looking at what Mott says I agree it's not certain that's what he meant, so I cut it. I think your interpretation (circulation drops because of the crisis and that requires the price to go up) is probably right, but Umbstaetter specifically cites production costs ("Thirteen years ago...it was possible to issue [The Black Cat] at five cents a copy. To-day it is impossible. The cost of production has increased over 50%.") so probably best to stick with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"but an April 1923 issue may have appeared" might be worth explaining why it "may have" but is not clear?
Stephensen-Payne, the most recent bibliographic source, just says "the magazine may have lasted until Apr-1923". I could add "according to one bibliographer" if that would help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's fine. The reader can check the sources if they are questioning-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The story, about an inventor who could revive the dead, is famous because it saved London's writing career" this sentence feels a little bit out of place. Thoughts on cutting "is famous because"? Maybe just "...revive the dead, saved London's writing career"? Famous feels a bit subjective...
I made it "well-known"; "famous" probably is a bit too strong. The story appears in multiple biographies of London, and London told the story himself on several occasions, including the introduction to Umbstaetter's short story collection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" London also repeated the assertion made by Barnes: Umbstaetter did not buy stories based on a writer's reputation, instead being willing to "judge a story on its merits and to pay for it on its merits", in London's words" Is there a more smooth way to incorporate "in London's words"? Perhaps "London also repeated the assertion made by Barnes: he wrote that Umbstaetter did not buy stories based on a writer's reputation, but was willing to "judge a story on its merits and to pay for it on its merits""?
I agree the current wording is a bit clumsy, but I'm not crazy about your suggested alternative either. I've just cut "in London's words" instead; I think that's OK because "repeated" in that sentence should make it clear that it's London's words we're reporting, and the citation is right after the closing quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"was owned by Fox Films" you earlier describe (and link) Fox Film (without the S).
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The second was The Man Who Found Zero" might be worth attributing a publisher to this and Page's collections, if you give the publisher of the first anthology.
All I can find for this is the Amazon page -- the publisher is a small independent and doesn't have their website working properly, and there's no list of their books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much, a few minor comments. Many probably simply explainable here. Nice work, as always Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

Ref. 40 - it is The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and I suggest wiki-linking it. Since you have added location for other sources, I recommend doing the same here (London).
Since you have wiki-linked works/publishers mostly everywhere, I suggest doing it at ref. 74 as well for Internet Archive and for those published by N. W. Ayer & Son and Harvard University Press. FrB.TG (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done except the location for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction; I think it's better to leave locations off online sources, and this no longer has a print edition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"with small cash prizes for reader submissions of their favorite stories, and a prize of $25 for the most popular story in each issue" is cited to Vol. 22, no. 2. p. inside front cover. I can't see any mention of prizes nor of $25. What am I missing? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the next page, you'll see the details -- just before page 1. Perhaps if I make the citation say "front matter" rather than "inside front cover"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to consider "p. inside front cover" as other than a single page, so that, plus "p." → 'pp.' would seem more appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made it "pages preceding p. 1.". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 26 December 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) 19:41, 26 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 December 2022 [5].

Rhodesia Information Centre[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhodesia Information Centre was the unofficial, and illegal, embassy the Rhodesian government maintained in Australia from 1966 to 1980. As the Australian government did not recognise Rhodesia's independence it had almost no contact with Australian officials. Instead, it spread propaganda trying to win Australians over to the white minority regime in Rhodesia and helped businesses evade the trade sanctions against the country. The Rhodesian Information Centre survived multiple attempts by the Australian government to close it, including one which led to a High Court case in 1973 and another which caused a backbench revolt in 1977, and was finally shut down by the Zimbabwean government in 1980. As a result, while this is a slightly obscure topic, the article covers a lively period in Australian foreign relations and provides insights into Australian attitudes towards white minority rule in Africa during this period.

This is my first non-military history FAC. I developed the article as a lockdown project after becoming interested in the topic after the Bradley v Commonwealth article appeared as a DYK in August 2021. The article passed a GA nomination in September that year. It's since been considerably expanded. I'd like to acknowledge the historian Matthew Jordan who, during the period last year before libraries reopened, kindly sent me a copy of his impressive volume of official documents and analysis concerning the Australian government's approach to Rhodesia. Thank you in advance to reviewers for your consideration of this nomination and comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Rhodesia_Information_Centre_in_December_1972_-_fair_use_claimed.jpg: the tag currently in use is for cases where the illustration is of the newspaper article/issue - that's not the case here. Suggest using a different tag.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Zimbabwe_Australia_Locator.png is tagged as lacking description, and is missing a source for the base image. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a description, but can't find the base image: I suspect I'll end up recreating this. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just replaced the map. @Nikkimaria: thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support I have previously made 2 edits to this page on sourcing and linking. But I was not involved with the addition of information. From what I see, it does meet the FA criteria. It includes all the information that one would expect to see in a chronological order. Sourcing is good and links all go to the correct destinations as far as I could find. Well done on a well written article @Nick-D:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from a455bcd9[edit]

Interesting article, I didn't know anything about this subject: thanks and congrats! A few comments:

"UDI" is neither defined nor linked when first mentioned
- It's linked at the first mention, and I've just added the acronym. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "UDI" or "the UDI". And actually, should it be used at all, especially in titles?
- Sources generally use 'UDI', and it's the common term for Rhodesia's period of independence and is almost universally used in sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No country ever formally recognised Rhodesia as an independent state" but "Only South Africa and Portugal were willing to enter into formal diplomatic relations with the country.": I don't understand
- I've adjusted the wording here to focus on issues within the scope of the article (e.g. the status of Rhodesia's diplomats). While South Africa and Portugal didn't formally recognise Rhodesia's independence, they treated it as an independent state and provided essential support. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Enforcement of trade sanctions was also uneven, and was undertaken through regulations rather than legislation.": what does this mean? What does it make a difference if trade sanctions are enforced through regulations rather than legislation?
- Regulations are open to interpretation and can be easily changed by officials or ministers. Legislation provides stronger enforcement, as it clarifies things and can't be easily changed. I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the quantity of Australian goods exported to Rhodesia increased between 1965 and 1973": by how much? what kind of goods were exported?
- The source doesn't say, but that seems outside the article's scope. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"T.A. Cresswell-George": do we have his full name?
- Afraid not. The source and media coverage of him in the NLA's Trove service consistently call him 'T.A. Cresswell-George'. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Rhodesian Ministry of Information" and "Rhodesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs": should we link the whole express or only the last terms?
- I think only the last terms. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Rhodesia-Australia Associations": plural or singular? (singular in Rhodesia-Australia Association)
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sekai Holland: should we introduce her by adding "human rights activist"?
- She was an activist for majority rule really. I've tweaked the text. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Croatian independence campaigner": more context, at least in a footnote, would be appreciated. For instance: "Back then, the Socialist Republic of Croatia was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
- That seems outside this article's scope. The fact that there was a campaign for Croatia's independence should explain to readers that it wasn't independent at the time. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a reader and it wasn't clear for me. That's why I suggested a footnote. At the very least, I would change "Croatian independence" to "Croatian independence". A455bcd9 (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link added Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"majority rule": not defined, not linked. What does it mean? Isn't "democracy" better?
- As noted in the article, Rhodesia was ruled by the small white minority. The campaign during the 1960s and 1970s was to establish majority rule so the black minority could have say and a chance to run the country. Unfortunately, neither side was really all that interested in genuine democracy. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the black minority" => majority? OK but the term "majority rule" should be linked or defined somewhere. Same for Minority rule. These terms are very specific (example of a definition). A455bcd9 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Links added as suggested. I've also added some extra material on this issue to provide context - this also helps explain why Rhodesia was controversial. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Rhodesian Security Forces" (2x) or "Rhodesian security forces" (1x)?
- The former: fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm happy to support. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

The article uses several Newspapers.com links that are not properly clipped. Please follow the steps at WP:Newspapers.com if you are able to do so. Sounder Bruce 03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment, I've just made that change. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

~~Compare the formatting of ~~Jordan,~~ Jansen, Michael, and Loughnan; all are Ph.D. theses, but differ in their use of publisher, location, and~~ indication that the source is a thesis.
- I've added a location for Michael to standardise with Loughnan. Neither of the two works by Jordan are PhD theses: the first is a (very large) book and the second is a journal article. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, I meant Jansen, not Jordan. All now have locations but Loughnan has "PHD thesis" while the others have "(PHD thesis)". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, I see what you mean: fixed, I think. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That was it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~For the three web citations you give the website name only FN 102 and not for FNs 39 & 84. Also 102 has "Tade" which should presumably be "Trade".~~
- No separate sub-website name is given for 39 and 84, so listing the publishers seems sufficient, not least as these accurately describe the sources given the nature of the works (a speech in the NSW Parliament and a UN resolution). A sub-website is identified for 102. I've fixed the spelling. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a dozen or more citations to newspapers.com that haven't been clipped, so the link is paywalled.
- Clips added - that's handy feature I didn't know existed until this review. Free trial subscriptions are available for newspapers.com, so it's a soft-ish paywall. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the clippings left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Many thanks for these comments. I think that I may have now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Nick, you can get free access to newspapers.com and the British Newspaper Archive via WP:LIBRARY; I can't recommend it highly enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have access via that resource, and it's excellent. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eddie891[edit]

I'll have a read through. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this might be just an americanism but I think there are a few usages of "being" that the article could lose. Suggest reading through them and asking yourself if the sentence can be read without it and consider removing -- i.e. "The RIC was registered as a business in New South Wales, with the state government being aware from the outset that it was operated by the Rhodesian government." -> "The RIC was registered as a business in New South Wales, with the state government aware from the outset that it was operated by the Rhodesian government."
- Good pickup - I've trimmed them. As my staff can confirm, I have some eccentricities with wording. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 1964, the population comprised" I'd suggest "in 1964", as as of for me holds connotations that something is the most up to date figure we have
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the United Nations Security Council directed" My impression is that the UNSC doesn't really 'direct' nations to do things like this, but more requests or 'calls upon'. Without having looked at the source, is directed really the best word here?
- Also a good pick up - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"from public relations activities or promoting trade with or migration" it feels to me like 'with' is out of place here, thoughts?
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Australian Trade Commission in the Rhodesian capital of Salisbury was also closed" also in December 1965 as a result of British lobbying? If yes, maybe combine with the preceding sentence?
- No, it was an independent act (part of the limited set of measures the government was willing to bring in at the time) Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and replaced with the Rhodesian Information Centre" Suggest redefining acronym after first mention
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our article is at De facto embassy. Thoughts on italicization?
- Strongly in favour of this, and added. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and he visited the department's offices on 2 December 1966." I think this sentence has some room for confusion as to who "he" is
- Yep - fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He gained Cabinet's agreement" perhaps "the Cabinet's"?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" commitments for protect individual liberties and freedom of speech" perhaps "to protect" or "for protecting"?
- 'To' is better - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"that 40 government members " would it be possible to approximate out of how many so the reader can tell whether this is a significant or small number?
- Good point - added (out of 126) Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"gave a commitment in Parliament any legislation that introduced" missing a word? My brain wants "gave a commitment in parliament that any legislation that was introduced..." or "gave a commitment in parliament that any legislation introduced..."
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and the federal Cabinet was intending." I don't think this is the first time you mention Australia's cabinet. Aand I think the first half of the sentence makes it unclear which 'federal cabinet' is referenced here. Suggest "and Australia's federal Cabinet"
- Tweaked. I think which cabinet is referred to should be clear in this context. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A Zimbabwean embassy was later established in Canberra." possible to date this at all?
- 1988 - added Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work, minor things. Many are probably my thick-headedness... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thank you for these comments. I think that I may have now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, happy to Support. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:01, 23 December 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) 16:10, 24 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2022 [6].

Anna Lee Fisher[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Balon Greyjoy (talk)

This article is about Anna Fisher, one of the first six women selected to be astronauts by NASA in 1978. During her long and distinguished career at NASA, she was involved with the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station and the Orion spacecraft. This article is the fifth in the series about the first six women astronauts, following Sally Ride, Judith Resnik, Kathryn Sullivan and Rhea Seddon. Unlike those astronauts, Fisher has no biography, so its writing was more difficult. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Not sure why this doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. Let's fix that.

one of the astronauts supported vehicle integrated testing and payload testing at Kennedy Space Center. looks like a copy-editing error. One of the astronauts who supported?
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was a CAPCOM from January 2011 to August 2013 that's the first mention of CAPCOM; the acronym needs a gloss.
Glossed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her mother Elfriede had been born in Germany in 1918 but had emigrated → was born and lose the second had.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
when she was sixteen years old
The two had returned to the United States lose the had again
Lost. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When she was in high school she did volunteer work at → volunteered at?
Um okay. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
published three article in the Inorganic Chemistry needs a copy edit
Already done - see the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But she saw others who had earned PhDs after six years of work but still could not find jobs, and decided to pursue medicine instead. Two "but"s in close proximity; you can probably just lose the first one.
Changed second "but" to "yet" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, medicine was considered a "non-traditional" career for women Is that a quote or are those scare quotes?
A quote. "As a woman in two non-traditional women's jobs". Had to look up the article on scare quotes. Things were different in Australia, where my own university graduated its first women doctors in 1891. While women were a minority of students, nearly half studied medicine. [7] While writing about the Great War period, I found that British women were surprised that that Australia had women doctors, and even more so that they were allowed to vote in the 1916 election. So although supported by the source, I didn't want to state it in Wikipedia's voice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the son of a United States Air Force colonel Sea of blue and neither link is directly relevant to the subject; perhaps lose the link to the USAF?
Changed "colonel" to "officer" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At lunch one day he informed Bill, who was now her fiancée Whose fiancée?
Already corrected spelling - see talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They had three weeks to assemble the required documents So they both applied? This isn't clear from the preceding text.
Yes. Added that both of them applied. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She attended meetings of the astronauts' spouses Who did?
She did. I didn't want to say "Fisher" here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abbey decided that the five MDs of the 1978 and 1980 1978 and 1980 ... what? Also, no spaces with an emdash
Added "astronaut selections". Removed space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher became pregnant while working as a Cape Crusader Can we reword this slightly so it doesn't sound like it happened during her NASA work?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
with pilot David M. Walker and mission specialists Fisher, Gardner and Joseph P. Allen Not a good use of "with" anyway but the sentence as-structured suggests that the latter two were jointly commanding.
Re-structured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher wanted to perform Capsule communicator (CAPCOM) Is capsule a proper noun here?
Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they had gone ahead and launched the second one "gone ahead and" adds words but not meaning
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if they could retrieve one satellites, and a miracle if they could retrieve two Another gremlin. One satellite or one of the satellites?
Removed the "s". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dale Gardner had a son a few months older than Kristin, all the others had older children That's a comma splice
Added conjunction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so her daughter would know what her mother was like if Maybe shorten to just "in case"?
Changed "if" to "in case" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on November 8, 1984, on what was Discovery's second mission Trim "what was"; more words for no added meaning again
Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"by extraordinary exertions have contributed to the preservation of property from perils of all kind." MOS:LQ and you need a ref after a quote.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
It was to be commanded by Michael L. Coats, with John E. Blaha Same issue as above
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequently, the date slipped and the crew "Subsequently" has many of the same issues as "however" in implying connections that may not exist. In this case, you lose nothing by culling it.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
she advised an aspiring astronaut to "study Russian" I don't think the quote marks are really necessary
Removed quotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
she was involved in the development of the Flight instruments display I doubt flight is a proper noun
De-capitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we think of a better title for the last prose section than "in popular culture"? These sections tend to become laundry lists of every mention of the subject. And on that note, I'm not sure all those appearances are notable enough to mention, but are there sources to support an overarching sentence about her public profile or appearances, so at least the list has context?
Changed to "public appearances". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was it about the "iconic photo" that was so attractive? And how was it used to promote the bands?
I'll see if I can find something. Don't hold your breath. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note 4 contains an inline external link, which is almost always a no-no.
Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—There are other places the prose could be tightened but the FA criteria don't demand perfection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Harry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I was holding out for some more on the photo but I guess Hawkeye hasn't been able to find anything material to add. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the discussion on Reddit [8] but nothing more substantial on the image. It appears that it was never used because of the reflection of the tripod in the glass. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I[edit]

Thank you for your invitation to participate. Two things immediately come to my mind: (1) The sentence "Anna was interviewed by Connie Chung, and that night Bill took Anna and Resnik, who had also been selected, out to dinner to celebrate". Now "Connie Chung" links to a journalist, but that article doesn't mention any position ever held at NASA. Is this the same Connie Chung? If yes, NASA needs to be mentioned, if no, then a disambiguation link like Connie Chung (NASA) might be necessary. (2) Anna Lee Fisher's mother was born in Hof, Bavaria, Germany, and grew up in Munich; also Anna Lee Fisher is fluent in German. (My source is that I met a German autograph collector at a fair once who showed me a personalised autograph he had obtained from Dr Fisher as a child which was accompanied by a short letter from her in German). Might or might not be useful in the article.ViennaUK (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Connie Chung link is fine - the journalist is the one who interviewed Fisher on TV. She never worked for NASA.
Yes, Fisher speaks German fluently. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments II[edit]

Just a comment, not a full review, but I'm concerned that the 'iconic photo' section and its associated notes feels to me like OR. What secondary sources describe it as 'iconic'? FN 67 seems to only cite that the image was posted on ffffound, not any of the other preceding content. Why are these selected uses of the image encyclopedically relevant? Note three feels like speculation, particularly the sentence "It is possible Bryson photographed Fisher on multiple occasions, but that has yet to verified." How do we know that the blogspot post is accurate and was actually posted by Bryson's son? Why are Bryson's speculations posted on social media encyclopedically relevant in Note 4? What cites that " The only publicly available archive of Bryson's work is at The Briscoe Center for American History at The University of Texas."? What cites that " became massively popular on the internet"? Etc. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note that my concerns have been addressed through Mike Christie's source review below, thanks. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

"metallocarboranes,[7]" (both lead and body) Can we have links?
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"published three articles in the Inorganic Chemistry." I'd get rid of the "the"
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Sims was invited to come to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in to Houston," probably the last "to" is not needed
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"On one weekend day each month, she worked in the emergency room at Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital or Tampa General Hospital in Florida or to keep her medical skills well-honed.[26] " Similarly the last "or".
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fisher was based at the White Sands Test Facility." It might be worth mentioning this was an alternate landing site.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It would open it like an umbrella, and take hold of the satellite." The second "it" seems surplus.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fisher would also assist the Hauck and Walker as the mission's flight engineer (MS2)." Similarly the first "the"
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably not much you can do about this, but our article says shear wind is a phenomenon of the lower atmosphere and you're talking about the upper atmosphere.
Changed to "high winds".
"This was the first time that a Space Shuttle had deployed a satellite a night." some error near the end
Changed to "at night". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Post-Challenger" can we italicize Challenger?
Doesn't seem to be prohibited (MOS:HEADING) so italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Red Book magazine" Redbook, surely. And the magazine and TV program titles in this paragraph take italics.
Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusunW[edit]

I had intended to review another woman before the end of the year, but real life issues got in the way. I don't usually work on living people, but found the article fascinating.

Thank you. There is still one more to come in the this series on the original six women astronauts: Shannon Lucid. I have already completed work on Sally Ride, Judith Resnik, Kathryn Sullivan and Rhea Seddon. I also have one ready on Eileen Collins. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the subject by her given name seems informal for an encyclopedic entry. WP:Surname indicates that the surname is preferred and distinction between which Fisher can easily be made by calling her spouse Bill. Suggest you use Sims/Fisher throughout.
Corrected a couple of instances. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3rd sentence seems really long. Possibly better to divide it?: She went back to Germany shortly before the outbreak of World War II to care for her grandmother. Unable to return to the United States due to the war, she served in the German military as a Morse code operator.
Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"After the war she had worked" and also "The two had returned", in both instances lose the "had".
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Moved about frequently" appears twice, delete one of them.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1st sentence in 2nd paragraph seems really long. Perhaps: On May 5, 1961, when Sims was in the seventh grade at Fort Campbell Kentucky, her teacher brought in a transistor radio. The class listened to the radio broadcast of Alan Shepard becoming the first American in space, causing Sims to contemplate the idea of becoming an astronaut.
Re-worded this. See if you like it now. Interesting point is that Fisher set her sights on becoming an astronaut early. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Thanks and yes, I cannot imagine knowing what one wanted to "be" so young. I still have no clue more than half-a-century on. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the "the" before Inorganic Chemistry
Deleted already. (see above). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"But she saw others who had earned PhDs after six years of work yet still could not find jobs, and decided to pursue medicine instead" seems rather informal for an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps: Noting a lack of employment opportunity for chemists who had earned PhDs, she decided to pursue medicine.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"who was now her fiancé" … No woman has been introduced in this paragraph. Perhaps: who was now Sims's fiancé
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be clearer to say "She was part of the third group, the first to include women, which had twenty applicants to be interviewed".
I don't see the problem here, and the suggested wording would loser the fact that the applicants were priocessed in groupds of twenty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of "she" in this "she was asked if she wanted to have children, and she told them that she…" Perhaps: Fisher was asked if she wanted to have children and responded not within the next five years.
Re-worded. (In Australia it is illegal to ask a question like this during an employment interview.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is supposed to be illegal now in the US, but employers still find ways to ask those kinds of questions. I once had an employer ask to meet my husband on a 2nd interview, claiming that as it was a "family business" they liked their team to know the families of who they were hiring. I thought it weird, but brought him. They didn't ask me, they asked him. o.0 SusunW (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the existing classrooms, so during classroom instruction" …perhaps lose the 2nd classroom.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He had taken earned a Master of Science" … Either he took or he earned not both.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be astronaut spouses' club rather than astronauts' spouses club?
Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"…also included David M. Walker as the pilot, Fisher as the flight engineer, and mission specialists Fisher, Gardner and Joseph P. Allen." Is she both the flight engineer and a mission specialist? (The reference p 134 of the pdf numbering doesn't indicate she was the flight engineer.)
Well yes, but no need to mention her twice. (The flight engineer is the mission specialist who sits behind the commander and pilot and assists them. The three form the flight deck crew. The other mission specialists conduct scientific experiments and EVAs. That a medical doctor is being used as flight engineer may indicate something about the roles of mission specialists.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a brief delay while I get an additional source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added an additional source. And a bit about the role of the flight engineer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In February she", first use in the paragraph should not be a pronoun, rather "In February Fisher"
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It would open it"? Perhaps: It would open the nozzle
Deleted already. (see above). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"One the other end" … Should this be on? and is this a grapple fixture?
Yes and yes. Corrected and linked., Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fisher would use the RMS to grab hold of it" Grab hold of what? The grapple? or the satellite? If it is the satellite, then "maneuver it into the cargo bay".
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The mission insignia Fisher designed" seems a pretty abrupt transition from the previous section. Why was she designing an insignia? For herself or officially? I tried to access the link to the citation but it doesn't work. Correct link clarifies she was asked to design it. Probably needs clarification and definitely needs the link fixed.
Corrected the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She was chief (1997-1998) and deputy chief (1998-1999) …in that role" These are 2 different jobs. Do you mean in both roles?
Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about the iconic photo section are similar to Eddie891's. Do we have any high quality sources that discuss the controversy about its origins? I see a lot of speculation in sources that aren't particularly reliable, that it appeared on the cover of Life, which would not likely have published without a photo credit. A search of its magazine covers for that year shows it did not.
As the article notes, Life never ran it on the cover. The image is part of a whole roll of shots. Although Commons accepts it as a NASA image, I preferred to run it as a WP:NONFREE image, given the uncertainty. I cut the whole section right back, as I felt it included material that properly belonged on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed reading the article. Please ping me when you have answered to ensure that I respond timely. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Thanks for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hello Hawkeye, another fine bio. I have only a few suggestions and questions...

lede

became the first mother to fly in space in 1984 - is ambiguous (unless of course there was another mother later in 1984). Either add comma after "space" (same style as "astronauts to include women, in January 1978." just below) or reword to 'in 1984 she became...'
Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

early life

Riley F. Tingle - so how did she get name Sims?
Good question. Short answer is that we don't know. You're only the second person to notice after myself. I thought is was real red flag. It could have been her mother's maiden name, or it could have been someone else. Note that her mother married Tingle in April 1949 and Sims was born in August. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On May 5, 1961, when Sims was in the seventh grade at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Her teacher - should not be new sentence?
Joined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
studies of metallocarboranes,[7] and published - wlink metallocarboranes again (ie beyond lede)
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nasa astronaut

Mark Mecikalski, .... At lunch one day - add year here? (1976? 1977?)
They had three weeks to submit their applications, so it was June 1977. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them applied. - 'They both applied' sounds better?
Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NASA received 8,079 applications, and chose 208 of them for further screening - "of them" not needed?
Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and the two became friends. - Bill and Resnik or Sims and Resnik?
Yes. Changed to "Resnik and the Fishers". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While both Sims and Bill hoped to be selected, - Anna (or Fisher) (because she has changed last name by now?)
Moved this up earlier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
due to her background in chemistry as well as medicine - chemistry and medicine?
They're both doctors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note 1 - Valentina Tereshkova and Andriyan Nikolayev had married - start with 'Soviets'?
Added "Russian cosmonauts" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fit women (called the extra-small Extravehicular Mobility Unit or EMU) - wlink Extravehicular Mobility Unit
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of an extra-small hard upper torso (HUT) - wlink Hard Upper Torso
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fit medium and large sized suits, ... suits to fit small-sized astronauts - standardise hyphens? ie medium- and large-sized
Standardised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1980 astronaut selections—Fisher, Rhea Seddon and - mentioned already so just Seddon
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
procedures for ascent, on-orbit, and RMS software - typo in-orbit
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STS-51-A

Fisher became pregnant at this time. - clarify what time?
It was in late 1982. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
when she was four and a half months pregnant - hyphenate
Hyphenated. I think I got that correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
members of the crew of the STS-41-G mission - wlink
The link would point to the wrong article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the crew was assigned to the STS-41-H - no wlink ?
No article, and it's not on the list of canceled missions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In February she went to New York City - new year add 1984?
Added 1984. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the fourteenth space Shuttle flight - cap S on space
Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
came up with to capture the satellites with was to use a device - second "with" can go?
Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to fly over to the satellite and place the stinger inside its rocket nozzle of the satellite - "of the satellite" can be removed?
Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher was asked to design the insignia for this mission. Her design had - that patch in ibox is so tiny (and I expect readers may not make connection to it from this prose) - any ideas?
Added the mission patch to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the weeks and months leading up to the flight - months and weeks
"Weeks and months" is the usual idiom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery lifted off from Launch Pad 39A at KSC on November 8, 1984, on Discovery's second mission.[48] Once Discovery was - too many Discoverys? make second its
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
using a spring ejection mechanism - hyphen spring-ejection?
Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
using the Frisbee style mechanism that had - hyphen? Frisbee-style
Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
rendezvoused with Palapa B2 - wlink Palapa B2
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of communication with mission control - wlink Mission control
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher maneuvered it so Allan could - typo Allen
Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also operated a Radiation Monitoring Equipment (RME) device - wlink Radiation Monitoring Equipment?
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
medals were presented by President Ronald Reagan[52] Fisher was - insert full stop
Added full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Challenger

In December, Fisher was assigned - add year
Added year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher was assigned to mission STS-61-C - wlink STS-61-C
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and Norman E. Thagard and - already linked above (as Norman Thagard)
Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That mission was cancelled in the - one L for US spelling?
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher worked as the Deputy of the Mission Development Branch of the Astronaut Office, and as the astronaut office representative for Flight Data File issues. In that capacity, she served as the crew representative on the Crew Procedures Change Board. Fisher served on the Astronaut Selection Board for NASA Astronaut Group 12 in 1987. Fisher also served - too many Fishers? second can be she?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
checked their records, and the Fisher was awarded her Master of Science degree - and then Fisher? (or remove "the")
Deleted "the". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic photograph

Incubus,[72] The Arctic Monkeys - remove The
Deleted "The". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note 2 but that has yet to verified - yet to be
note 3 issue of Life Magazine - m
Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note 3 Sygma - wlink Sygma (agency)
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References books

Mullane and Seddon are both out of alpha order
Ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Internet v internet
Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and looking forward to the next. JennyOz (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Shanon Lucid will complete the set of the six original women astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennyOz, 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) 15:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ping Gog, somehow this review page had disappeared from my watchlist. Haven't had that happen before, well, at least not that I've noticed! Thanks for tweaks and replies Hawkeye. I just made 2 small edits for you to check. I am pleased to s'port - and do let me know when Lucid ready if I don't notice its nom. JennyOz (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

~~Shayler & Burgess (2020) is not in alphabetical position in the references.~~
Corrected (see above). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mullane is missing the publisher location.~~
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~FN 62 should be marked as a dead link.~~
Marked as dead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~For FN 67 I can't see the relevant source as it's paywalled but I suspect the title does not really include the YYYY-MM-DD date.~~
Although it is paywalled, you can still see the cover. Added the correct article title Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Any reason why you give the location for just three of the web cites -- FNs 77, 78, and 83 (the last of which is slightly different from the first two)?~~
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have domain name instead of website in some cases -- in FN 81 for example you have "mydelineatedlife.blogspot.com", but the website title is actually "The Pictorial Arts".
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still a couple to fix: search for momanddadday.com, gettyimages.com, wtnh.com, reddit.com, legacy.com, ffffound.com, 411posters.com, arctic-monkeys-store.com, gigposters.com. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still see wtnh.com, which I think will be taken care of by the next point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the logic for choosing publisher or website for the web citations? You have both publisher and website for FN 82, for example, but publisher only for FN 68 and website only for 88. In a couple of cases you have neither -- e.g. FN 71.
I try to use publisher whenever I can.
Consistency is all that's needed. The website italicizes and the publisher does not, so the formatting is inconsistent if the citations vary between the two; plus e.g. for 82 you have both. It doesn't matter which you pick (or both) so long as it's consistent. Looking at what you have it would probably be quickest to drop the "work=" parameter to make it consistent as you have that in only a few cites; and then make sure they all have publisher -- as far as I can see only Leary, Mckie, Mikati, and Gellman are missing the publisher parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All websites removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One left -- FN 65. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest dropping FN 6, the LinkedIn source; the fact that she speaks German just about passes the "not unduly self-serving" requirement of WP:ABOUTSELF, but it's not an important fact for the article, and I would suggest only including this sort of source where it's needed to establish relevant information.
See above for the discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; I'm not thrilled about it but I think it meets the requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why do we think the "Mother of the Year Award" is worth noting? I think the source is reliable for establishing she won it, but does the award itself get coverage that implies it's worth mentioning?~~
I don't know how widespread the coverage of the award is, but it was enough for her to go on national TV on NBC, and being the first mother in space is part of her claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes ffffound.com a reliable source? I think you're just using it to establish virality, but I don't think the page you link to does that -- as far as I can see it has 568 reposts, which is not really viral.
The text only says that it was reposted on ffffound.com, and the website itself is a reliable source for that. The reference is used only to support that fact that it appeared there; not to support any facts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 and note 3 rely on multiple citations to reddit and a blog. Why should we consider these a reliable way to establish the history of the image?
I wouldn't cite a discussion on Reddit as a source of factual information, but it is a reliable source for the fact that something was discussed on Reddit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will check links after these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post a reply regarding the last two points, but I went back and looked through this FAC to see if others had commented on the image discussion, and Eddie891's comments echo my thoughts. It feels like OR to me. I think it would be better to reduce this to something like "Other than the publicity she does herself, her likeness has been widely shared on the internet and it has been used in various promotions and tribute art. A photograph taken by John Bryson, almost in profile, has been frequently posted on social media sites." Then move all the notes to the talk page in case we can find secondary sources covering this later. The band promotion links are OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. Moved to the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest removing the sentence that says it's an iconic photograph; the sources we have don't allow us to make that sort of broad cultural statement. We can still say it was frequently reposted and used to promote bands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. All points addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All look good except:

File:Anna Fisher suits up.jpg. One source link is dead and the other gives no information to confirm this as a NASA PD image.

The image can be found at [9]. I have updated the link on Commons. In future this may not be possible; link rot is inevitable, but stuff on Commons is not routinely archived like stuff on Wikipedia. We may not be able to find a link even when one still exists. And we need to keep pushing WMF to acquire archive.org. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sts-51-a-patch.png One dead link (mix.msfc seems to be an issue) and the other won't load for me. How do we know the mission patch was designed by NASA and was not produced outside of the agency and the copyright acquired? Even if it was designed by Fisher, a federal employee, how would it be within the scope of her duties (the requirement for PD works of the federal government) to design insignia?

The image is at [10] You can find all the patches via [11]. A major part of an astronaut's duties are publicity related, with publicity tours after every mission, and rostered public relations assignment duty (which most of them dislike to varying degrees). Astronauts have been creating designs for mission patches as part of their duties since the 1960s. In the Shuttle era the logos were used on merchandise, posters etc used at NASA and contractor sites. I hadn't thought of this before, but one of the reasons for having it done by astronauts is as you describe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above discussion with Mike Christie, the image page still describes the fair use image as "iconic", you may want to tone that down.

Changed the heading back to "In popular culture". If you have a better suggestion let me know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 22 December 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) 22:09, 22 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2022 [12].

Can I Get It[edit]

Nominator(s): N Ø 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Adele's song "Can I Get It". Several years after the chart-conquering success of "Send My Love (To Your New Lover)", Adele and producers Max Martin and Shellback connected again to create the most "pop" moment on her album 30. Despite the odd decision of not choosing it as a single, it performed like one and reached the top 40 in all major markets. With its moans and pop-rock influences, it certainly sticks out on the otherwise depressing album. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

Everything is appropriate with File:Adele for Vogue in 2021.png, which is understandable since this image was used for previous FACs. This passes my image review. I do have a quick question. Is there a reason why an audio sample is not used in the article? I could see an argument being made for illustrating the genre or the whistle hook. I completely understand if you have already decided against an audio sample, but I wanted to check with you. I may not have time in the immediate future to do a full prose review, but I will see what I can do. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the somewhat late reply. I totally agree with your idea about the audio sample and I have added it now. I always look forward to a prose review from you but do not feel pressured to do one if you do not have the time.--N Ø 03:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. That's the beauty of FACs. You do not have to respond immediately and can take a few days if necessary. Thank you for addressing my question about the audio sample. I think it adds to the article. I might not have time to do a prose review as I will be focused on something off-Wiki for the upcoming weeks, but I will try to make time if the FAC is still active when I am free. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

First two sentences are a bit brief, can you combine them?
"thrilling and wondrous bits of a new relationship" => "thrilling and wondrous parts of a new relationship" ("bits" just sounds a bit informal to me for some reason)
"She decided to have regular conversations with her son" - can you word this so it doesn't sound quite so much like she had been in the habit of not talking to him before, which I am sure wasn't the case.....?
"Shellback plays [...] and provided" - tense randomly changes mid-sentence
"Peter Piatkowski of PopMatters stated its brazen" => "Peter Piatkowski of PopMatters stated that its brazen"
"criticized its whistling" - Adele is British so UK spelling should be used and this should therefore be "criticised its whistling"
"Maura Johnston of Entertainment Weekly opined it was" => "Maura Johnston of Entertainment Weekly opined that it was"
"noted its carefree production complements its lyrics" => "noted that its carefree production complements its lyrics"
"Wood opined it lived up to its title" => "Wood opined that it lived up to its title"
I would write all the chart positions as digits
That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, ChrisTheDude! Thank you so much for the review :-) --N Ø 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

When introducing "Send My Love (To Your New Lover)", why is it necessary to bring up its placement on the Mainstream Top 40 chart? This kind of thing is not done when introducing other songs, and it is not particularly relevant or notable to understanding that Adele has worked with Max Martin and Shellback in the past.

The critical reception for Can I Get It highlighted its radio-friendly production, and the idea that the radio success of her previous work with Martin and Shellback might have played a role in her inclinations to collaborate with them again ties in with the rest of the article in my opinion.

This quote "acoustic guitar breakdowns, slickly produced drum loops, [...] and horns" should either be attributed in the prose or paraphrased. I have a similar comment for these two quotes, "real love connection" and "set [her] free".

Keeping the "set [her] free" quote as that's directly from the lyrics.

Unless I missed it, I do not the article directly states in the prose that Shellback did the whistling. I can only see it being referenced in the "Credits and personnel" section. I can see the stomps and handclaps mentioned in the prose.
Could you explain the structure for the "Critical reception" section for me? I am not sure I follow it. For instance, I initially thought the second paragraph would focus on the whistle hook, but this hook is also brought up in the first paragraph.

The first paragraph discusses it in the context of the album and Adele's discography (that it was an outlier, standout, new territory, etc.) The second paragraph is more focused on the discussion of different production elements and is comprised of the relatively negative reviews. Third one is lyrics!

I would paraphrase the "out of place" quote. It is not a particularly strong quote, and I do not think anything would be lost in paraphrasing it instead.
Would it be worth linking earworm in the quote, its "earworm" hook?
I would link B-side as I can imagine some readers not being 100% familiar with the concept.
Would it be worth linking Frankenstein in the "Frankenstein-ian pop confection" quote? On a side note, I always find it rather annoying when people get Frankenstein's monster and Victor Frankenstein confused lol.
This may be a matter of personal preference, but the "Chart performance" section is quite small at a short paragraph. I was curious if it could be incorporated into a previous section, like the "Background" one, as it would make sense to transition from the song's release to its commercial performance. That being said, this is just a suggestion, and you can always see if other reviewers comment on this matter.
Has Adele performed this song live?

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! All addressed and some replies above.--N Ø 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one more quick question. This part, provided the whistle, stomps, and handclaps along with Adele, reads that Shellback and Adele did the whistle while the "Credits and personnel" section only list Shellback as doing the whistle. I would appreciate some clarification here. Otherwise, this is my last point. Hope you are having a great middle of the week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, you're definitely right. I tried to clarify this wording a bit. Wishing you a great rest of the week as well :) --N Ø 16:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Inconsistent use of the publisher parameter -- it's used once out of the two cite news citations, and three times for the cite web citations.

That's the only thing I can spot. Sources are reliable, and all links work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Mike! Whether I've used the work or publisher field is consistent with whether the publications are italicised in their Wikipedia article title or not. This is what I've done on all my FAs and seen on many others. There's a practice of print and digital only sources being in work, and TV channels and music stores in publisher. Regards.--N Ø 06:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie [Support][edit]

User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences is the source of almost every error here. I'll support once fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

"A pop song with pop rock and country pop influences, "Can I Get It" has acoustic guitar, drum, and horn instrumentation, and a whistled hook." Drop the last comma.

Background:

"The song is about moving on from a breakup, and explores Adele's search for true love and the thrilling and wondrous parts of a new relationship." Drop the comma (User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences). (CinS)
"Adele announced the album's tracklist on 1 November 2021, which included "Can I Get It" as the sixth track." change to "Adele announced the album's tracklist, which included "Can I Get It" as the sixth track, on 1 November 2021."

Composition:

"Shellback played drums, bass, guitar, percussion, keyboards, and provided the whistle and stomps alone, and handclaps with Adele" This sentence part should be reworded.
"She expresses optimism in the song, and counts on this new affair to "set [her] free"." Remove comma (CinS)
"Peter Piatkowski of PopMatters stated that its brazen pop production felt "a bit shocking, almost disrespectful, and discordant" in the context of the album, but praised..." Remove comma (CinS)
"Writing for DIY, Emma Swann viewed "Can I Get It" as "easily Adele's most conventionally 'pop' moment to date", and added..." Remove comma before "and" (CinS)
"Maura Johnston of Entertainment Weekly opined that it was one of "a few grand pop moments" on the album, and noted that its carefree production complements its lyrics." Remove comma (CinS)
"NME's El Hunt thought the acoustic part of "Can I Get It" was bright and intriguing, but derailed by its whistled hook." Remove comma (CinS)
"Cobbald praised the harmonies in its chorus but derided it as a "2013 Kesha B-side, or something like 'Whistle' by Flo Rida", and believed it did not attain what its writers intended." Also CinS, but I'd change it to "; he believed..."
"Writing for The Independent, Annabel Nugent described the "stomp-and-clap hook" of "Can I Get It" as "most unsettling", and thought..." another CinS issue here. "thought" is not its own sentence.
"Mapes identified the whistling as a "corny '10s pop trend", and thought..." again
"as the "most obvious booster-shot-bop" on 30, and praised it as "Frankenstein-ian pop confection", but questioned" both of these commas could go.
"The latter dismissed it as less interesting than the rest of the album, and opined"

Hey Sammi Brie, I believe these should be fixed now. Thanks for your patience with me making some of the same errors repeatedly, lol.--N Ø 01:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support after changes made. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

As promised. Sorry it took a while. It looks like this is ready for promotion and the article's coverage of the song is in-depth. Here are a few suggestions/comments:

music critics -- suggest linking to music journalism
Adele wrote the song "Can I Get It" with Swedish record producers -- co-wrote "Can I Get It" with…
wanting to be in a real relationship instead of one centred around casual sex -- perhaps use an alternative to "real" like serious or committed, etc.
the album took shape as a body of work -- I think it would be less informal if we used "the album was developed as a body of work that"

That's all I have, great work on another Adele song article. --Pseud 14 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for doing this review, Pseud 14! I think a two-day wait is completely reasonable. Everything is addressed, Merry Christmas and hope your travels are going well!--N Ø 05:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- all the best on your FAC! Have a wonderful holidays! --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 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) 17:01, 21 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2022 [13].

Roanoke Island, North Carolina, half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Another of the commemorative half dollars of the classic era, with a subject that would have been familiar if you had gone to school when I did, but probably isn't much taught today, the colony of Roanoke Island, and the birth of Virginia Dare. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"The coin commemorated the 350th anniversary of the Roanoke Colony, depicts Sir Walter Raleigh on one side, and Eleanor Dare on the other, holding her child, Virginia Dare, the first child of English descent born in an English colony in the Americas." => "The coin commemorated the 350th anniversary of the Roanoke Colony, depicting Sir Walter Raleigh on one side and Eleanor Dare on the other, holding her child, Virginia Dare, the first child of English descent born in an English colony in the Americas."
"The ships explored along the Atlantic coast and Roanoke Island, in what is today North Carolina" - wl NC
"although there has been much speculation that they perished on the island or at sea, or assimilated into a nearby Native American tribe" => "although there has been much speculation that they perished on the island or at sea, or were assimilated into a nearby Native American tribe"

I think this would be OK either way but I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The initial models differed from the adopted coins in numbers details" - should this say "a number of details".....?
"Vermeule described the reverse, "the frozen....." - feels like there's at least one word missing here. Maybe "Vermeule wrote of the reverse, "the frozen"

Done slightly differently.

"urged collectors not to pay from two to three dollars" - "urged collectors not to pay more than two dollars".....?

The source describes the coins as selling from two to three dollars, and I'd rather keep that as is.

"$.2.50 in 1950" - there's a stray decimal point before the 2 there
Think that's all I got..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've either gotten or commented on everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moise[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. This looks interesting. I'll review it. Placeholder for today. Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting my review:

Legislation: "No coins could not be issued after July 1, 1937." Is this correct, or should one of "no" or "not" be removed? Moisejp (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Design: "Sir Walter Raleigh resembles the movie actor Errol Flynn, who was specializing in Elizabethan dramatic at the time." This seems to be using "dramatic" as a noun, or is there a word missing here? ~~And the wording sounds like it was Flynn who was doing the specializing "at the time"? If so, at what time?~~ Moisejp (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I see. I was getting the timelines confused, and of course Flynn was active as an actor in 1937. I'm striking that question. :-) Moisejp (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment but "scrub pine" is wiki-linked in the Design section, but "pine sapling" appears in the Preparation section—should the wiki-link be there instead? Also, again very minor suggestion, but in Preparation should it be "a pine sapling" instead of "the pine sapling" since the pine has not yet been "fully referred to" yet? If you think it's fine as it is, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "the" to "a". Since the source (Swiatek & Breen) does not refer to the sapling as a scrub pine, I'd rather leave the link where it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bair stated that despite the criticism of the obverse, the reverse was applauded." Is the "criticism" here that the bust seemed more like Flynn than Raleigh? The way it's written, that paragraph didn't seem to necessarily be expressing criticism. Perhaps that can be clarified in the text? Moisejp (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned it down a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished my second read-through, and am happy to support on prose. Besides my comments above I also made several small edits. Moisejp (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

"Many commemorative issues were authorized by Congress in 1936, and the Roanoke Island issue was one of them." Suggest "The Roanoke Island half dollar was one of many commemorative issues authorized by Congress in 1936."
"The legislation allowed Roanoke Island groups to buy 25,000 at a time, so long as the issue took place before July 1937, and they placed two such orders." Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see this stated clearly in the body. The end of the "Legislation" section talks about minimum issues of 25,000 so it sounds as though these groups effectively placed orders, as wholesalers, with the government for 25,000 coins?

Pretty much. They had to place minimum orders to avoid the risk of low-issues that collectors might get shut out of and prices go high. This had already happened with other issues.

What are "Roanoke Island groups"? I think this must refer to groups with a specific interest in the history of the island, such as the Roanoke Colony Memorial Association and the Roanoke Island Historical Association, but this should be clearer in the lead.

I've massaged this.

"was determined on as a site": suggest "was chosen as a site".

OK.

"The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to the coin collecting hobby, where they sought to purchase the new issues." Suggest "The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to begin coin collecting, and to seek to purchase the new issues."

Done with a slight change.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see to comment on. Very clean, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Suggest expanding the state abbreviations; I've been told by non-US editors that all but the most obvious are opaque.

The link for FN 11 brings up pages 7657-7713, which does not include the page cited.

Swapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are all reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Image review - pass

File:Lost Colony Tree - Fort Raleigh National Historic Site - Stierch.jpg - could theoretically use some kind of tag for the underlying work because there's no freedom of panorama for 3D artwork in the US, but I'm not going to be a stickler on this for what I think are obvious reasons
No real concerns about any of the other images being potentially non-free Hog Farm _Talk 23:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

first child of English descent born in an English colony in the Americas Is "English" needed before "colony"? I doubt someone else of English descent was born in a non-English colony prior to this (might be wrong of course).

I'd rather stick with how the source puts it. It seems unlikely, I agree, but it's possible an Englishwoman could have given birth in, say, Spanish Florida.

Is William Marks Simpson worthy of a redlink?

I guess. Added, once.

leaving the word CROATOAN, carved into a tree is the comma needed after CROATOAN?

I could go either way on it but I'll go yours.

Should "secretary" be capitalized in secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts?

My reading of the way MOS:JOBTITLES is being interpreted is no.

For the "Design" section, it might be nice if you had a horizontal image template juxtaposing Raleigh with a mustachioed profile of Errol Flynn. This is aesthetic of course, and totally up to you.

I've added a publicity shot from the movie but not as a multiple image, since the comparison is to the coin, not whether Flynn resembled Raleigh.

That's all. ~ HAL333 08:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've gotten to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ~ HAL333 18:40, 20 December 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) 23:43, 20 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2022 [14].

Lake Street Transfer station[edit]

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous FAC of this article failed due to sourcing issues; it appears that Chicago-L.org, while certainly adequate for DYKs and GAs, should not form the basis of an FA, something I can completely understand and appreciate. While I couldn't completely eradicate its use in this article (as I said I wouldn't be able to at the close of the first FAC), I got it down for use as a supplemental "commentary" source that I think it is suited for. More importantly, I turned towards seven book sources that were varied and ranged in time from 1895 to 2007, and was able to add some more and more detailed information on this old early-20th century double-decked rapid transit station. I'll ping @Steelkamp, Dudley Miles, Your Power, Lost on Belmont, Kew Gardens 613, and ZKang123: from the first FAC; this should also be of interest To editors Cards84664 and TheCatalyst31:.

For those not at the first FAC, this was a double-decker transit station on the Chicago "L" from 1913 to 1951. Both lines had been constructed in the 1890s, but didn't merge operations until 1913 or constructed the transfer until then. The upper station's line was replaced by a subway in 1951, which took it closer to downtown. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I forgot to mention, but as in all of my FACs, please feel free to make minor tweaks and adjustments to the article yourself rather than bring them up in the course of your review. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TAOT[edit]

Hi, I'll be doing a prose review. I have an FAC up myself if you're interested in reviewing, but it's optional.

Lead

The Lake Street Transfer was a rapid transit transfer station This is nitpicking, but should it be The Lake Street Transfer, or just Lake Street Transfer? Also, should we use the full "Lake Street Transfer station" name in the first sentence?
- Station nomenclature was rather fluid on the Chicago "L" in the first half of the 20th century (see Congress Terminal for another example); the 1916 Chicago Tribune referred to it as the Lake street transfer point (capitalization and "the" original), and the paper referred to it again as the Lake street transfer station (ditto) in 1935. For its part, the CTA itself referred to it also as the Lake Street transfer station in a 1951 retrospective (all of these sources are cited in the article, btw). I don't feel like having a whole footnote and nomenclature would be helpful, but I've put "Lake Street Transfer station" in bold for now in respect of its contemporaneous usage, even if modern Chicago doesn't use "station" at the end of its station names. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's sufficient to address my concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to link transfer station via a pipe to Interchange station. You and I know what it means, but someone not familiar with trains may not. If you do this, I'd also move the rapid transit link elsewhere to avoid SEAOFBLUE issues.
- I came up with something that hopefully does both things at once. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking again, but It existed from 1913 to 1951, when it was rendered obsolete by the construction of the Dearborn Street subway. isn't strictly correct, because the station existed until its demolition later in the 1950s. It would be correct to say it was open during those dates.
- Changed to "was in service". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The site of the station later served as the junction of the Paulina Connector to the Lake Street Elevated shouldn't this be "the junction of the Paulina Connector and the Lake Street Elevated"?
- Yes it should, done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest putting all the details on station layout into a distinct paragraph. I'd personally make the first paragraph discuss the station's opening, closing, and location. Second and third paragraphs the same as they are now, and a fourth paragraph discussing the station layout. This would roughly mirror the sections in the body.
- I've rearranged the lead, hopefully it works better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's better now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images and infobox

I recommend making the caption for the map more concise.
- I tried to an extent; an earlier commenter suggested putting the information in the map itself, but I don't want to limit access to the visually impaired (even if they don't use maps like the sighted do). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could the alt text be used for the purpose? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments will come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Station

This is optional, but consider linking to Railway electrification. That's my only comment on this section.
- Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lake station

No comments here.

Transfer station

The Logan Square branch would not begin skip-stop until the opening of the Dearborn Street subway and the closing of the transfer in 1951. This kind of jumps ahead of the next section, where the Dearborn Street subway is introduced to the reader with appropriate background and context. I suggest changing this to simply say that the station never had skip-stop service. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided against this, since I think the greater specficity is both more directly supported by sources and adds more nuance to the article; and the "jumping around" issue is mitigated by the lead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dearborn Street subway

It's not clear to me from the prose when exactly the station closed. I had to check the infobox and then reread to see it was on the exact date the subway opened. I recommend making this clearer.
- I rearranged sentences to make the link stronger and thus make the closure clearer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Interlocking.
- Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Paulina Connector – both the original Metropolitan tracks and the newer Washington Junction – remained standing for non-revenue service. Suggest "remained operational" or "remained in operation".
- Changed to "remained in non-revenue service". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Station details

The Metropolitan's Lake station, which continued as its portion of the Lake Street Transfer, also had two wooden side platforms but a station house located at street level on the north side of Lake Street. Should there be a comma after "platforms"?
- Yes; as said in the introduction, please take the liberty of making minor corrections and lint cleanups yourself on my FACs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operations and connections

Smoking was banned by the city across the "L" and in streetcars in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak Is this referring to the Spanish flu pandemic? I suspect it is. If so, that can be linked.
- I also strongly suspect so, but Moffat never explicitly says as much. I can maybe look at contemporary newspapers to see. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Moffat doesn't explicitly make the connection, we can't either. If you can find newspapers that make the connection, then that would be great, but it's not a big concern for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Starting in 1922, fares were usually marketed in packs of three ride for 25 cents, Shouldn't this be "three rides"?
- Yes; again, feel free to correct lint/typos yourself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I'm so used to the idea of "reviewers shouldn't make any edits to the article" that I forgot you said to make minor changes myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have for now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I'm not doing a source review, but looking at the source that was questioned, I do see a bibliography indicating sources used by the website. I don't think it's an ideal source, because we don't have citations in the specific article indicating where the author obtained the information from. That said, it's not something I would personally oppose over, as most of the article stands on its own without citing this source exclusively. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Lake Street Transfer was double-decked, with the Metropolitan's tracks and station being located immediately above the Lake Street's tracks and station clunky use of "with" to connect two facts. You could just lose the "with" and the "being" to improve flow and make the sentence grammatical.

Other than that, support on prose. I don't know enough about the subject matter to offer an opinion on sourcing and comprehensiveness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was traditional to do ablative absolute-style phrases with "...with this being so" in English, but fair point, done. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9[edit]

What's the reliable source of the map? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does the first source cover both "The Lake Street Elevated" and "The Metropolitan Elevated's trackage prior to 1951"? And the second one both "The Loop" and "The Dearborn Street subway and Congress Line"? It would be good to add sources to the file description on Commons as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the first source for better coverage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: Have anything else to say on this article, since it's approaching the bottom of the queue? No rush if not. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @John M Wolfson: I have nothing else to say. I'm not knowledgeable enough to support or oppose. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

For the Transfer station map, even as a person with normal vision I'm finding it hard to distinguish the Logan Square and Loop markers. Can this be improved wrt MOS:COLOUR?
- I have reverted the edit to the original SVG, which I think is also better to show the new routing that replaced the old one.
  - I have gone back to the interactive map, this time with a depiction of the post-1950s routing in question. Unfortunately, I still don't know how to change the line colors from their Commons-data default, so the current suboptimal color scheme has stuck. I hope this isn't too big a deal, but if it is I'm sure someone with more experience with Commons/Wikidata/OpenStreetMaps can assist in changing the line colors. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps someone at WP:MAPREQ could help? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a request there, hopefully it won't take too long. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake_Street_Transfer_station_postcard.png: where is the date information coming from? The description is vaguer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Garfield does not provide any dates for the postcard, nor does it appear in Moffat, so a precise date is unknown. The dress of the passengers suggests that it is from the 1910s, as does the lack of grid coordinates on the platform signage, but I have removed the date. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

[23] links to newspapers.com, but the article has not been clipped -- can we get a clipping so readers can bypass the paywall on the Tribune? Similarly for [24] and [46]. I see you do have clippings for some of the Tribune citations.
- Done for 23 and 24. 46 is multiple-page, so I don't know how to clip appropriately. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  See here, FN 34, for one way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That seems a bit cumbersome in my opinion (not to mention might be COinS-dubious), but so be it. I've only done the second page since that's where the information is and in the spirit of fair use. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It is indeed cumbersome. I don't know a better way, unfortunately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~What is the sorting order for the works cited section?~~
- Harvid order; the 1895 Review was originally simply titled "Review" and sorted appropriately, and has been fixed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, not sure what you mean. I take it the "Review" is treated as "Anonymous" and is therefore first? And from Borzo on it's author, or publisher as author. But why is Department of Subways before Borzo and after the Review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Whatever I put in the ((Harvid)) – "1895 Review", "1939 Plan", "Lind 1974", etc. – is what I used as the sortkey. For a whole lot of CTA/CTA-adjacent refs, I believe it would be more useful to use descriptors such as "1939 Plan" to differentiate wherever necessary.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think a reader needs to be able to find something in the list by searching alphabetically; a minor point with so few refs but still a reasonable thing to do (and future editors will want to add their references at a sensible place in the list). If you're saying that the list is logically ordered as far as you're concerned, and the harvid is how you enforce that, then what I'm asking is what the basis is for that logical order. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If that is the only qualm, I have changed the plan to "CTA 1939" and reordered it accordingly. This is anachronistic, as the article itself states since the CTA wasn't created until the 1940s, but "Department of Subways and Traction" is too long (even in abbreviated form), "CRT" is inaccurate, and "City of Chicago" is too non-descriptive, so this can perhaps be a "lie to children" and allows for categorical grouping. I think it's either that, or back to "1939 Plan". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~No publisher for Chicago Transit Board (1954).~~
- Also no publisher for CTA (1951), which I didn't feel was necessary since they are also the authors there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~You're inconsistent about the use of the publisher location -- Public Information Department (1967), Lind (1974), and Moffat (1995) have locations; the others do not.~~
- Locations have been added where appropriate and easily accessible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~[13] is formatted as a web citation which is fine, but you don't give a website/work parameter -- your other web citations use work=.~~
- Since it wasn't originally in web format, I feel that would be inappropriate, but I have added a "via=" parameter as a compromise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think we need to treat it as either fish or fowl. If it's a web citation, we should give the website; if it's not a web citation, shouldn't we be citing it as a publication (whatever the original publication is) with a title? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It was a map/pamphlet originally, so I have decided to replace it with a generic ((Citation)). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, but using ((citation)) with the ((cite)) family gives us inconsistent formatting (commas vs. full stops) -- FAC doesn't care which you use (or none) but the formatting should be consistent. Perhaps ((cite map)) would work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Didn't give me errors, so sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I apologize if this is an overstep, but this is getting near the bottom of the FAC queue, has multiple supports, and has passed the source review, so I believe there is some consensus for promotion. The main stopping point, in my view, is the image review. @Nikkimaria: I am aware of the suboptimal map coloring, and have requested attention to it, but just as I feared/expected it does not appear to be coming in the short-term future (I can ask the help desk if you feel that is appropriate and more expeditious). Are there any other concerns that would derail (pun intended) this FAC's image review? Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has two general/prose supports. It needs at least one more to even be considered for closure. (Leaving aside the image review.) I has already been added to Urgents. You may wish to consider putting out some neutrally phrased requests for further reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please revert if I screwed anything up.

"The Lake Street Transfer station was a rapid transit station on the Chicago "L", serving as a transfer station between its Lake Street Elevated and the Logan Square branch of its Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad." I can see that "its Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad" means 'the Chicago "L"'s Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad', but for "its Lake Street Elevated" shouldn't we have a noun like "branch" or "railroad" after "Elevated"? Or is this normal usage in Chicago?
- The article Lake Street Elevated Railroad leads to the company, whereas Lake Street Elevated leads to the line itself. I decided to just write "Railroad" outside of the link for consistency.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The merger of the stations was a legal obligation to the Lake Street Elevated's owner when the four companies that had formed the Chicago "L" merged operations in the early 1910s, and involved its closing of Wood station and building a station at the site of its transfer with the Metropolitan." It looks to me as if you say "the Lake Street Elevated's owner" to avoid having to mention the name change to the C&OP in the lead, which is reasonable. However, it makes this confusing to read. Having read the relevant details in the body of the article, how about "The four companies that had formed the Chicago "L" merged operations in the early 1910s, and a condition of the merger was that a station was required to be built at the site of the Lake Street Elevated's transfer with the Metropolitan, replacing Wood station."?
- Done; hopefully I didn't write it too clunkily. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Can we get away with dropping "the Lake Street Elevated's owner", which raises the question of who that is without answering it, and just use the passive -- "a station was required to be built" or something similar? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  How about this? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"newfangled" is a bit too judgemental for encyclopedic tone.~~
- I can see where it has implication of naivete and "greenness", but I don't know of any other adjective that could be used without needlessly altering the structure of the sentence. "Newfound", "newly-minted"? I don't know; not done for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe just "newly formed CTA"? Or "newly created"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "Newly formed" it is. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"similar to how the State Street subway supplements the earlier elevated North Side main line": suggest "in the same way that the State Street subway provides access to the earlier...".~~
- How about "connects with"? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's fine, but I was also hoping to replace "similar to how" -- I know this is an AmEng article but to my ex-pat British ears "similar to how" is not formal prose, and I was hoping for wording that is acceptable on both sides of the pond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "Similar to" isn't formal enough for British ears? I hope the limeys aren't too picky for "much like" :P. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That works. I made it "much as" rather than "much like", but change it back if you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"the Logan Square branch south of Damen would be closed after the subway opened": suggest "...after the Dearborn Street subway opened".~~
- Did "Dearborn subway"; it's enough to differentiate it from the State Street subway, and it is common Chicago parlance to drop "Street"/"Avenue"/etc., especially in a transit context. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the material in the last two paragraphs of the "Dearborn Street subway, closure, and demolition" section relating to the Paulina connector is a bit far afield from the topic of this article, and given that we have an article about the Paulina connector, perhaps we can shorten these paragraphs a bit?
- I tried some trimming, but I think emphasizing its connection with the site of the Lake Street Transfer station would be a better bet. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looks very clean. The history section is complicated and I had to read it two or three times to feel confident I had the gist, but there's not much that can be done about that. I thought of asking for more maps but I think it's just a general knowledge of the Chicago area that's needed to make this easy to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I can try to make a GIF/animation similar to File:Laketransfercontext.svg showing the evolution of the trackage over time, but I wouldn't be able to guarantee that such an animation would be done in the timeframe of this FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need -- I always like more maps but here I think it would just be personal preference, not a requirement for understanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

I don't know much about trains so this review is from a layman's perspective.

The second paragraph frequently uses passive voice - three consecutive sentences with had been. Can you vary a little?
- That paragraph had been a pain to write anyway, and I think passive voice works well for stations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Reincorpoated as the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company on August 24, 1892, to avoid legal issues,[5] its line, the Lake Street Elevated, commenced revenue operations at 5 a.m. on November 6, 1893, between California station and the Market Street Terminal." Too many commas here.
- Most of those are pro forma date/geocommas, but if you'd like I could split the sentence into two. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stations in between Pulaski and the Loop, exclusive, became either "A" or "B" - I don't quite understand the meaning of exclusive here. Does it mean that the becoming of A or B was exclusive to these stations?
- It means that Pulaski and the Loop were themselves excluded from the program (so, in a sense, yes). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Originally included in the petition was a proposal" -> "The petition originally included a proposal" (simplified)
- Done.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"he Wood station had two station houses, one on each platform, designed in a "gingerbread" Queen Anne style, similar to the other stations on the route and the surviving station houses at Ashland." Rather repetitive with four instances of station in one sentence.
- Consider "station house" to be something of a headless phrase independent of "station" .– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Like the rest of the station, the tracks were double-decked in relation with one another, with the Metropolitan's tracks being above the Lake Street's tracks." tracks.. tracks.. tracks
- Fixed.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are mostly minor and focused on the language. FrB.TG (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work. If you can spare some time, I would appreciate comments on my FAC but it's obviously in no way obligatory. FrB.TG (talk) 14:20, 20 December 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) 23:22, 20 December 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 article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 December 2022 [15].

Eric Harrison (RAAF officer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at this so go easy... ;-) Okay, Eric Harrison was, along with Henry Petre, one of the founders of the original Central Flying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Petre, he remained a part of Australian military aviation after World War I, and so was the first man to be known as the "Father of the RAAF", a title more commonly bestowed in later times on one of their students, Richard Williams. So Harrison is, as described by an RAAF officer in 1999, something of an "unsung hero" now, but I hope worthy of your attention... FTR, this has long been an A-Class article at MilHist but I never got round back then to adding some new references and sending to FAC as I did with Petre's article -- better late than never...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"Harrison was promoted honorary captain" => "Harrison was promoted to honorary captain".....?
"Promoted group captain on 1 January 1935" -> "Promoted to group captain on 1 January 1935"....?
- This is common militarese but happy to alter -- nothing incorrect about "promoted to".
"metrological testing" - is this a typo for meteorological? If not is there an appropriate link, because I personally don't know what metrological means?
- Tks, yes it deserves a link.
Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Chris, changes made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size
- Done.
File:Douglas_DC2_Kyeema_1937_(nla.obj-144682466-1).jpg: the NLA indicates that Crome was the collector of these images rather than the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I think it started out as one photographer's work then expanded to include others'.

Tks Nikki, let me know if all good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I will make minor copy edits as I go. Shout if I mess anything up.

"his post of Director of Aeronautical Inspection". Why the upper case initial lettrs?
- The ADB uses lower case but the majority of other sources cap the first letters of Commonwealth titles.
"Gaining employment as an instructor for Bristol, he taught flying on behalf of the company in Spain and Italy, as well as in Halberstadt, Germany, where he became aware first-hand of that country's militarism; some of the students he trained and examined later served as pilots in the Luftstreitkräfte during World War I." A pretty chunky sentence.
- Won't disagree but hoped the semi-colon gave pause for breath -- if you're really keen to split it I'm happy to have a go though.
"gaining his commission": is there any suitable link for "commission"?
- I think the nearest is commissioned officer -- actioned.
You consistently don't put 'the' before CFS (with the exception of "maintaining the CFS's complement"), is there a reason? Also lead "the Central Flying School"; captions "Eric Harrison at Central Flying School", "in a B.E.2 at Central Flying School".
- CFS is consistently referred to in sources without the definite article, and in fact that exception you note should be altered accordingly.
"30 feet (9.1 m)". I suspect 9.1 m may be false precision.
- I agree, forgot the template had a rounding parameter -- actioned.
"when he was posted to Britain ... at the end of World War I". A picky point, but it seems he was posted before the war's end.
- Well I felt we're only talking a few weeks' difference and by the time he started his work in Britain the war had probably ended -- I could make "towards the end" if you feel strongly about it.

I do. At the point he was posted the war had not ended and I am not sure that it was expected to. Or rephrase to something like "when he was posted to Britain" → 'when he took up a post in Britain' perhaps?

Tweaked.

The chronology jumps around a little disconcertingly. In one paragraph it goes from 1921 to 1938 and back to 1931; understandably given the context. But the next paragraph starts in 1935, before progressing to 1937. Separately, is there nothing to report from between 1921 and 1931?
- I think this impression was caused by a typo in the first para of that section, giving his appointment as Director of Aeronautical Inspection as being 1938 instead of 1928 -- actioned.

Ah, yes, indeed.

"Federal government's". Is it usual t have an upper-case F and a lower-case g?
- Again some sources cap both words, some just the first, and some none. We could hedge our bets in this case and make "Australian government" -- actioned.
One daughter is mentioned. Was she his only child?
- No other children mention in sources.

Then perhaps 'Their daughter and only child, Greta ...'?

Sure.

"just as the war had ended". Perhaps something a little more encyclopedic? 'three days after the end of the war' or similar maybe?
- I kinda like the slightly imprecise wording, given the end of fighting and the official surrender of Japan were a few days apart -- WDYT?

I don't object to the imprecision, but to the casualness of "just". Eg, I am happy with 'On 5 September 1945, as the war ended'; or 'On 5 September 1945, at the end of the war'; etc.

Tweaked.

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for reviewing, Gog -- replies above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second round replies above, tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting, but note the two remaining instances of "the Central Flying School". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gog. Actually you've made me re-check more sources -- seems that in its early years it was generally referred to as the Central Flying School, but in its later incarnation (WWII and after) the the was generally dropped; in either case the abbreviation is generally just CFS without the. So I've altered the captions that had "Central Flying School" alone accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Hi Ian, welcome to FAC. I hope this will be the first of many nominations! ;) You haven't left a lot of nits for me to pick.

with the minister's daughter Ruby as passenger should probably have commas either side of Ruby to make her a subclause
AAIC inquiries were generally held in camera In camera should probably be italicised as a Latin term.

That's it. I'll support now as I feel it meets the criteria even with those two minor imperfections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harry, that's done -- for good measure I've also made Greta a subclause in Their daughter and only child Greta joined the WAAAF... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe[edit]

Would be interesting to know what planes Harrison was taught in/instructed others in, if that were possible?
- Re-checking sources, it looks like the only planes used for instruction are those already mentioned in the article, i.e. Boxkite, Deperdussins, B.E.2s and, later, Farman.
"In December 1911" no real need to repeat the year here
- I think it's worthwhile using precise dates at the beginning of new paragraphs.
Was Harrison also made a lieutenant?
- I felt that was implied by mentioning his commission soon after Petre's (as a lieutenant) but I've spelt it out now.
"the Army's proposed Central Flying School" is it right to call it the army when this wasn't actually the name of the organisation?
- Fair enough -- tweaked.
Link Brigadier
- I prefer not to link ranks for wiki-notables to avoid a sea of blue. The standard I try to maintain is linking on first use a rank if the holder isn't linked, and not linking rank on first use when the holder is notable.
Move the captain link to first mention
- As above.
What does "solo standard" mean? First solo flight?
- Yes, linked.
Link honorary rank. Why exactly was it an honorary rank? Harrison was a full-time serving member of the Australian Armed Forces, so why didn't he just get a substantive, acting, or brevet promotion?
- Actioned -- as to why honorary instead of something else, that's not explained in any source I've seen.
Link temporary rank
- It's the same link as for substantive, which I already linked because in my experience it's the more unusual term for the uninitiated, but actioned anyway.
"former commanding officer of Nos. 2 and 4 Squadrons." you don't seem to have mentioned No. 2 Squadron before, is there a link?
- Yes -- actioned.
"On 12 March 1928 he became Director of Aeronautical Inspection" is this a RAAF role or AAIC role?
- The former -- actioned.
Suggest splitting out the links for 1937 Airlines of Australia Stinson crash and Stinson Model A
- Again the sea-of-blue rationale, and in this case I think the key thing is the crash rather than the aircraft type.
"He was a member of the court of inquiry..." it isn't made clear that this is 1938, not 1937
- Tks -- actioned.
Link Air Vice-Marshal
- Sea-of-blue rationale.
Is "safety inspector" the best term for Harrison's position? Before this it's only been described as air accident investigation or aeronautical inspection
- I think "safety" is always part of inspection and accident investigation but took it out anyway.
"In July 1940" don't need to repeat the year, assuming the previous "12 April" was also 1940
- Actioned.
"Eric Harrison received no decorations" no need for a repetition of his forename
- Actioned.
Link Air Marshal
- Heh, I can't plead sea of blue here but OTOH we've established Williams' notability so I felt we could do without it if we accept the rationale for not including the other ones I've noted.
Could add Brighton to his place of death in the infobox
- Could, I just felt since it's a suburb of Melbourne the latter would mean more to the reader.

That's all I have, most of it very minor! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your comments, PC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with your rationale when arguing against my comments. Support. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Lead says he died of heart disease, body of cerebrovascular disease - which is correct?
FN45 is a dead link
Odgers: Worldcat suggests a longer publisher name - can you verify? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Nikki, those should all be actioned one way or another now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator request[edit]

This nomination seems to be ticking along nicely, but would benefit from a review from a non-MilHist orientated editor with an eye on how comprehensible it is to a non-specialist audience. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, just FTR I think Chris at the very top is MilHist-independant but OTOH this hasn't quite been open three weeks so no prob from my perspective giving someone else a chance to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Ian Rose: Happy to read it over. I'll leave my thoughts shortly. ceranthor 20:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support with Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

"He continued to serve in the same capacity as a civilian until his sudden death at the age of fifty-nine" - why not briefly mention the cause of death?
- Is there a brief way of describing hypertensive cerebrovascular disease? I know it's associated with stroke but not necessarily synonymous...? Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"where he became aware first-hand of that country's militarism;" - this is jargon to me; what does a country's militarism mean?
- The term from the source is "war-mindedness" so I felt militarism was a reasonable paraphrase but open to suggestions... Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Petre was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Australian Military Forces (AMF) on 6 August 1912, but Busteed withdrew his application in October and Harrison took his place, gaining his lieutenant's commission on 16 December.[1][5] " - as is I think this is a run-on; would just split into two (ie in October. Harrison took his place...)
- Quite right -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In December 1911, the Australian Defence Department advertised in Britain for "two competent mechanists and aviators" to establish a flying corps and training school." - I'd just want to clarify here that it's physically located in Australia, too, as is it takes a few sentences to clarify that. Could be as easy as just adding in XXX at the end of the sentence
- Fair enough -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"On 29 June, Harrison married Kathleen Prendergast, daughter of the future Premier of Victoria, George Prendergast, at St Mary's Catholic Church in West Melbourne.[1][13]" - comes out of nowhere, is there really nowhere else it can go in the text?
- Well it's chronological, and it happened before World War I began so I'm not sure where else it could go... Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The New Guinea expedition was not publicised until it was over, Harrison's cover story for his time away from Point Cook being a honeymoon with his new wife.[15]" - I'll be honest, second half of the sentence lost me - what is it trying to say and how does it connect to the first half of the sentence?
- The expedition wasn't publicised until complete so Harrison required a plausible reason -- i.e. a cover -- for his absence from Point Cook; the cover was a honeymoon. Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He was appointed officer-in-charge of CFS in June 1917 with the temporary rank of major; the rank became substantive on 9 September 1918." - rather than the duplink, probably better to just link to substantive and remove the temporary rank link
- Yeah, temporary rank is probably easier for the layman than substantive -- done. Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are addressed/discussed, I'll support. ceranthor 20:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Ceranthor for pointing out some infelicities, will respond to each soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceranthor, pls check out responses/actions when you have a sec. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Thanks for the ping. Looks fine to me. Re cerebrovascular disease, you can just say stroke I think. With HTNCVD, death comes from either ischemic (restricted blood flow to the brain causing inadequate oxygenation and thus tissue death) or hemorrhagic (bleeding secondary to ruptured blood vessel walls) stroke. Since the source doesn't specify, I don't think you need to go further into detail than "died of a stroke." If you feel more comfortable saying hypertensive cerebrovascular disease and sticking exactly to the source, I don't think adding those three words is terribly demanding of a reader, since just saying "sudden death" definitely made me scroll down into the article body to figure out the cause. Does that work for you? ceranthor 14:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does, and it's done -- tks for that helpful explanation above and all your other comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Ian, not many comments from me...

Lede

answered the Australian Defence Department's call - should that be piped to Department of Defence (1901–1921)?
- Thanks -- done.

Early career

In December 1911, the Australian Defence Department advertised - pipe DoD per above?
- Done.
and H.R. Busteed - space per MOS:INITIALS (or do RSs not?)
- Heh, I'm going make it moot by putting in his first name.
advertised in Britain ... mention Petre was English-born?
- Done.
News of these flights was only released on 3 March - so were the first three all made on the preceding Sunday?
- Yep -- clarified.
was scheduled two days later. - for two days later (rather than just written down 2 days later)
- Agree -- done.

WWI

never assembled in-country and he had to return in January - embarrassed to say I didn't understand that (have never thought about those early aircraft not flying long distance) but... then I found this (which mentions he also flew first Aust Bristol Scout and Farman MF.11). Then I found how planes went by rail and then were shipped to PNG aboard HMAS Una - "our first aircraft carrier"! here. Is it worth mentioning Harrison's planes transport just before "With little in the way of enemy resistance" (only if Leyland Wilkinson/NHSA is RS, of course)?
- The NHSA is a fascinating article but not certain of how highly we'd rate its quality; likewise ADF-Serials has its supporters but I prefer not to use it. I've employed existing sources to flesh out the crating and transportation of the aircraft, let me know what you think...
  - Excellent!
E.H. Reynolds - space in initials?
- Per Busteed -- and he has an article too, I now find.

Legacy

I know there's no room for another pic but that very good colour photo of the replica Boxkite at RAAF Museum is really so illustrative. Perhaps a link at "Air Show at Point Cook, a replica Boxkite took to the air" if it is the same replica?
- Yes it is a very useful pic and I can't imagine it not being the same replica even though the caption doesn't spell that out. I'm not sure if we need a special link to it since it does appear in the Australian service section of the Bristol Boxkite article that's linked on first use in Harrison's page.
The Australian Centenary History of Defence - italics on this book? (MOS says multi-volume works take italics)
- Hmm, this is interesting because when you use the Series parameter in the Cite Book template, the series title comes out in title case without italics, yet the MOS does seem to say that a series title bestowed by the publisher (which this is) should be in italics. I'm happy to plump for the latter here -- done.

Refs - authorlinks

Cutlack, F.M - Frederic Cutlack
Mellor, D.P. - David Paver Mellor
Serle, Geoffrey - Geoffrey Serle
- Tks -- done.

U.S. Route 34 in Iowa[edit]

Nominator(s): –Fredddie ™ 05:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at garnering a promotion for this article. This time I will be more proactive about getting people to review my work than I did before. Anyway, I am proud of this article and believe it's my finest work yet.

US 34 is an original U.S. Highway in Iowa. It started out as a muddy auto trail, then became a state highway, and finally a U.S. Highway. The article also talks about changing highway policy over the years and how that affected the highway as it is today. It even initiated the creation of a federal law regarding handling Native American remains found during highway construction. –Fredddie ™ 05:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will review this article soon. Feel free to ping me if I haven't gotten to it within, say, 3 days. Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

"It begins on a bridge over the Missouri River west of Glenwood and travels east where it meets Interstate 29 (I-29) and US 275." - Dumb non-Iowan comment, but does US 34 meet I-29 and US 275 at the same location? You mention locations for other interchanges in the lead, e.g. "Its interchanges with US 59 near Emerson and US 71 near Stanton and Villisca are located away from populated areas".
"Just east of Ottumwa, where the road meets US 63, the road joins with the four-lane Iowa 163 for the remainder of its trek through the state" - So, it becomes concurrent with Iowa 163?
"US 34 was one of the original U.S. Highways when the system was created in 1926" - Could this be condensed? For example "US 34 was part of the original U.S. Highway system, created in 1926"
"The Blue Grass Route was assigned Primary Road No. 8 for its entirety" - Should this be "in its entirety?
"Their subsequent lab analysis and not immediate reburial" - I think "not immediate" is slightly awkward. Perhaps "delayed"?
"Since the early 1990s, modern bridges that can handle high volumes of high-speed traffic have been built at both the eastern and western state lines. Both new bridges replaced older obsolete truss bridges." - I think these could be combined, e.g. "Since the early 1990s, obsolete truss bridges at the eastern and western state lines were replaced with modern bridges that can handle high volumes of high-speed traffic". You don't need to say "older" obsolete bridges, as it's implied that these truss bridges predated the current bridges.

Route description:

"The eastern third of the route is a four-lane expressway; part of a corridor between Des Moines and Burlington." - This should be a comma, not a semicolon, since the latter half of the sentence is not a standalone clause.
"The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) designated the entire length of US 34 as the Red Bull Highway, in honor of the 34th Infantry Division." - Is there a specific date for this? If not, you should instead say "The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) has designated".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to @Epicgenius: I have seen your comments, but I have not had time to address them. That should change this weekend. –Fredddie ™ 03:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I must have forgotten about this. I'll leave more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question before I review the rest of the page. I see that, in "Western Iowa", the sentences "East of Afton, US 34 and US 169 run concurrently east; the road curves to avoid the BNSF Railway line. Some distance comes between the road and the rails and the highway straightens. US 169 turns off to the north and US 34 continues east toward Thayer." do not have inline footnotes. Is this also supported by the Iowa DOT citation (currently reference number 6)? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I probably juggled around where the section breaks were after I placed the refs. I moved Ref 6 to the right location. I have everything addressed so far except for the first point, which I'm still unsure how to address. But as to your question, both I-29 and US 275 meet US 34 at the same location east of Glenwood, though US 275 follows US 34 until Glenwood a few miles away. –Fredddie ™ 01:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. I'll leave some more comments tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Any further comments? --Rs chen 7754 03:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I will post a few comments shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

"Continuing east, US 34 briefly curves to the north in order to pass over the BNSF Railway line that carries the California Zephyr." - I also think "in order to" is redundant.
"East of there, the highway heads southeast toward Stanton; it straightens out to east again near Viking Lake State Park." - Unless the section heading southeast is particularly serpentine, the phrase "straightens out to east" should be reworded
"It crosses the middle and eastern branches of the Nodaway River, the latter branch on the outskirts of Corning. There lies an intersection with Iowa 148." - Does US 34 meet Iowa 148 above the eastern branch of the river, or on the outskirts of Corning? The exit list suggests the latter, but the grammar is unclear.
"Some distance comes between the road and the rails and the highway straightens." - The first part of the sentence may be redundant, given that you've already said "the road curves to avoid the BNSF Railway line."
"The two roads split; US 65 turns to the south and US 34 curves to the northeast and then back to the southeast." - I'd add a comma after "turns to the south" to clarify/emphasize the diverging paths of US 65 and US 34.
"US 34 heads due east again. It passes the small towns of Russell and Melrose, both of which lie along the railroad so access to the towns is provided by short connector roads." - I get the second part of the sentence, but it might be confusing to a general reader. Do the connector roads exist because the small towns are on the opposite side of the railroad from US 34?

The connector roads exist because the state tended to build straight(ish) roads on section lines while railroads meandered wherever they wanted. Should I add an adjective suggesting the railroad isn't straight since I mentioned the road heading due east? –Fredddie™ 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that would be helpful. Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Upon reaching the expressway on the eastern side of town, US 34 and US 63 split and head in opposite directions." - Would it be better to just say "US 34 and US 63 head in opposite directions"?
"It is the eastern leg of the Des Moines to Burlington Highway, which was given the Iowa 163 designation in 2009." - Is the entire Des Moines to Burlington Highway known as Iowa 163, or just the eastern leg?

The whole thing is Iowa 163. –Fredddie ™ 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd rephrase this as "It uses the eastern leg of the Des Moines to Burlington Highway, which since 2009 has carried the Iowa 163 designation" or something like that. Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on the "History" section later. Sorry it took me so long to respond @Fredddie. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where I didn't make a specific comment, I will clean those up. –Fredddie ™ 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie and Epicgenius: How is this progressing? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for @Epicgenius. –Fredddie ™ 18:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I should have the rest of the review by today. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History:

"The route was first organized as the Blue Grass Route" - I would replace "first organized" with "established". In this context, the word "organized" seems a bit out of place.

I think that organized works in this sense. Each auto trail had an association that promoted and maintained the road. They rounded up businessmen from each city and town along the proposed route and held meetings and such. Today we'd describe the process as grassroots. –Fredddie ™ 23:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. In that case, can this situation be clarified? Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Paving of the highway was completed in 1930; US 34 was the first road in Iowa to be completely paved" - This could be rephrased to remove the need for the semicolon and the repetition of the word "completely". For example, "US 34 became the first road in Iowa to be completely paved in 1930, when the state finished paving the highway."
"Work began in the 1950s to modernize Iowa's highway system" - To maintain the continuity of this clause, you should move the verb phrase to the end of this clause, i.e. "Work on modernizing Iowa's highway system began in the 1950s".
"Construction on the eastern and western sides of the state, in Burlington and Glenwood, respectively, did result in parts of the highway becoming four lanes, other highway projects were cut back during the 1970s recession" - There should be a semicolon after "becoming four lanes".
"In the mid 1990s" - And this should be "mid-1990s".
"At both state line crossings, modern bridges capable of handling four-lane, high-speed traffic, were built to replace old and obsolete truss bridges" - The comma after "traffic" is redundant and should be removed, as "high-speed traffic" isn't being used as a parenthetical here.
"The Great River Bridge opened in Burlington in 1994 and the US 34 Missouri River Bridge replaced the Plattsmouth Bridge in 2014." - It may be helpful to note which bridge is on which state border. This is the first time either bridge is mentioned in the article.

The Great River Bridge is mentioned at the end of the RD. I didn't mention the name of the Missouri River bridge in the RD because I thought it would have been redundant.

US 34 enters Iowa on US 34 Missouri River Bridge over the Missouri River near the mouth of the Platte River. –Fredddie ™ 23:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not see that. Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Iowa Department of Transportation" - This is already linked and abbreviated as "Iowa DOT" above, so the link should be removed and this should be shortened to "Iowa DOT".
"The Blue Grass Route, also called the Blue Grass Road, was a route that connected Council Bluffs and Burlington" - To avoid repetition, I'd say "The 310-mile-long (500 km) Blue Grass Route, also called the Blue Grass Road, connected Council Bluffs and Burlington."
"The route was first organized in 1910" - Similarly, "organized" sounds like a weird word to use here.
"In 1913, shortly after the Iowa General Assembly passed legislation allowing road associations to officially register their route with the Iowa State Highway Commission." - This is a run-on sentence.

You mean it's a sentence fragment.

Yeah, sorry. I meant to say that it's a sentence fragment. Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Three years later, it was determined that the association had not completed its registration application, thus the road was not the first to be registered in Iowa." - This is also a run-on, but less severe than the preceding run-on; it could be fixed by replacing the word "thus" with "so".
"No. 8 followed a path through southern Iowa that resembles the path of US 34 today..." - While I don't doubt the veracity of this information, the entire paragraph needs an inline citation.

Actually, I'll have to comment more on this later. Please ping me if I haven't returned within 24 hours. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have either responded or fixed the issues above –Fredddie ™ 23:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Highway origins

"In the mid-1920s, automobile associations continued to sponsor their named routes — there were 64 such named routes in Iowa — on top of the route numbers given by the state highway commission" - I'd change the parenthetical "there were 64 such named routes in Iowa" to "of which there were 64 in Iowa", as you are already talking about named routes in the preceding clause, i.e. "associations continued to sponsor their named routes—of which there were 64 in Iowa". By the way, the em-dashes should be unspaced per MOS:DASH.
"This proved to be more confusing than helpful to the casual traveler" - Is it possible to just say "This was confusing than helpful to the casual traveler" or even "This confused casual travelers"?
"Across the country, support for the system was nearly unanimous among state highway officials" - It may be better to phrase this as "Support for the system was nearly unanimous among state highway officials across the country", but this is optional and not a big deal.
"The Iowa State Highway Commission chose to renumber a few highways as to not have conflicting route numbers along important routes" - I feel like there is either a missing word or an extra word here. But this can be avoided completely be rewording the sentence, e.g. "The Iowa State Highway Commission chose to renumber a few highways so important routes did not have conflicting route numbers"
"the same as Primary Road No. 8." - Just so we're clear, the same terminus?
"at which over 5,000 guests, including Governor John Hammill, were in attendance" - Could this be just "attended by over 5,000 guests, including Governor John Hammill"?
"The Glenwood-to-Plattsmouth section that became part of US 34 in 1935 was paved in 1946 and 1947" - Another minor nitpick, but in the phrase "that became part of US 34 in 1935", "that" should be "which". The word "that" implies that there's more than one section between Glenwood and Plattsmouth that became part of US 34 in 1935, but the word "which" states that there is only one section and that it became part of US 34 in 1935. I would also put commas before "which" and after "1935", i.e. "The Glenwood-to-Plattsmouth section, which became part of US 34 in 1935, was paved in 1946 and 1947", for clarity.
"But by the 1950s, increased traffic and wider vehicles took their toll on highways. In some parts of the state, highways were widened to withstand modern vehicles." - The word "but" can be removed.
"to 22 feet (6.7 m) total width" - I suggest "to a total width of 22 feet (6.7 m)"
"a new road was going to be $2 million cheaper" - Instead of "was going to be", I suggest "would be".
"provide fill dirt for the relocation of US 34" - I would link fill (land).

More later (this is a long article, so I have quite a few comments). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I haven't forgotten about this. Most of the rest of the article looks good, though I have a few nitpicks that I'll post later. In the "River crossings" section, I do see an issue with the first paragraph:

"Upon entering and exiting the state, US 34 crosses a major river—the Missouri River in the west and the Mississippi River in the east. Historically, the highway crossed each river on narrow, two-lane truss bridges. More recently, both river crossings have been replaced with modern four-lane bridges capable of handling high-speed traffic."

This paragraph should have some inline citations, but this is relatively easy since the information is already cited below. However, the phrase "more recently" can run afoul of MOS:DATED, so you should change this to a more definite time frame. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four-lane upgrades:

"Most of US 34 fell under the plan; from I-29 to Ottumwa, the road would be built to expressway standards and from Ottumwa to Burlington, it would be built up to freeway standards" - I'd add a comma after "expressway standards". Also, though I know the difference between expressway and freeway standards, the general public may not know the difference, so it would be good to clarify that.
"The routing of the freeway was not without opposition." - This is redundant to the next sentence.
"Ultimately, land through North Hill was acquired, but at a cost of $2.6 million" - Do we know the original cost?
"Traffic wider than 12 feet (3.7 m) could not pass between the westbound tollbooth and railing." - This is the first time that a toll is mentioned. (I see that it's also mentioned later in the article, but you should mention the toll earlier.)
"42 percent inflation of construction costs" - I would say "42 percent increase", as "inflation" in finance refers specifically to inflation.
"of which, at least $40 million (equivalent to $152 million in 2020[24]) was allocated for Iowa projects" - The comma after "which" should be removed.
"In 1971, during the grading phase of the project, about twenty gravesites along with the skeleton of a Native American teenage girl were found by highway workers." - Could this be in active voice, e.g. "In 1971, during the grading phase of the project, highway workers found about twenty gravesites along with the skeleton of a Native American teenage girl"?
"to pay for the costs to move the remains" - This should probably be "to pay for the costs of moving the remains".
""right to remain an Indian," even in death" - The comma should be outside the quotation, per MOS:LQ.
"Pearson protested to Governor Robert D. Ray, by gaining an audience with him after entering outside his office in traditional attire. "You can give me back my people's bones and you can quit digging them up" she responded when the governor asked what he could do for her." - There shouldn't be a comma after Ray's name (as the second half of that sentence isn't a clause that could stand as its own sentence), but there should be a comma after the quotation.
"Plans to begin work on the new highway" - Should this be "Plans for the new highway", or are you specifically emphasizing the beginning of work?
"the Congress would fund projects individually" - If you're talking about the U.S. Congress, shouldn't it just be "Congress" without "the"?
"The MacArthur Bridge was dismantled shortly after the Great River Bridge opened" - I suppose the new bridge didn't charge any tolls?
"There were two Missouri River crossings in the project area, the Plattsmouth Bridge and the Bellevue Bridge, which carried Nebraska Highway 370 (N-370) and Iowa 370, that required traffic to pass through populated areas" - The current phrasing makes it sound like the Plattsmouth Bridge carries N-370 and the Bellevue Bridge carries Iowa 370. To clarify things, I recommend "There were two Missouri River crossings in the project area, the Plattsmouth Bridge and the Bellevue Bridge—which carried Nebraska Highway 370 (N-370) and Iowa 370—that required traffic to pass through populated areas"
"The bridge was dedicated on October 22, 2014. Governors Terry Branstad of Iowa and Dave Heineman of Nebraska, both of whom spoke at the opening ceremony, felt the bridge would be a boon to the local economy and attract jobs." - I'd move this to after the sentence "The US 34 designation was applied to the new bridge in May 2014, before construction was completed"
"An agreement to transfer jurisdiction of Iowa 370 on the Iowa side, from the state to Mills County, was reached in 2010" - The commas in this sentence seem like they might be emphasizing the wrong thing. I suggest something like "In 2010, an agreement was reached to transfer jurisdiction of Iowa 370 on the Iowa side from the state to Mills County."

That's all I have. Sorry about taking literally a month to finish all these comments, but it took me a few hours overall to examine the entire article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "'Ultimately, land through North Hill was acquired, but at a cost of $2.6 million' - Do we know the original cost?" are you asking if there was an original offer that became $2.6 million after negotiations? –Fredddie ™ 20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie, yeah. That's what I was asking. This is a relatively minor issue though. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed everything or asked for clarification. –Fredddie ™ 00:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Although there is still one issue outstanding, it's relatively minor, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. Nice work. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dave (talk)[edit]

Placeholder comment:I have finished reviewing the prose. In the next few days, I plan to also do some source spot checks, image checks, and infobox/table checks. I've reviewed your content before and these have never been a problem. However, in the interest of a thorough review I'll try to do some. Dave (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

comment, this sentence " Its interchanges with US 59 near Emerson and US 71 near Stanton and Villisca are located away from populated areas." was confusing at first. I had to read it twice to understand it. There's nothing wrong with it, and I can't tell you why it took me twice to understand it; it just did. Not going to hold up the review over it, but if you are copyediting the lead again, maybe take a look at this sentence.

Truss Bridges should be wikilinked

Route description

Saying the route crosses the BNSF Railway isn't really helpful, as the BNSF owns dozens of rail lines. The article for the California Zephyr lists the specific rail lines used for the route, so you should be able to find that there. That list came from a table of Federal Railroad Administration data. I'll find that table I was staring at, so you can use it as a source if you so choose.

Regarding the lines, it looks like it's the Creston and Ottumwa Subdivisions. Both of those are redlinks at the moment, so am I being too cautious for not wanting to add redlinks, or does the line still merit a mention? –Fredddie ™ 21:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found it [17]. Not the easiest db to use, but it is an official government source for rail line names. My $.02 is that it is worth mentioning. Again just saying BNSF railway doesn't really help, they own dozens of rail lines all across the country. Plus, they won't likely stay red for too much longer. There's a small team on the WP:Trains project that is creating articles for them. In fact, there's quite a few that subdivisions have route diagrams created, just waiting for someone to throw an article together to place it in. But I also accept that's my opinion and if nobody else agrees so be it.Dave (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this [18] 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The route description is void of any description of the geography the highway traverses. Granted, I did a quick scan with a topographical map and there's not a lot of named mountains etc. along the route, so I accept there may not be a lot to be said. However, in the interest of being comprehensive I think you should add at least a couple of sentences. It looks like there's a lot of rolling hills in the western portion with some fairly dramatic geography to the west of Ottumwa, then fairly flat east of there. It also looks like even some of the portions that appear strait, that specific latitude was chosen so the route could run along some ridge-lines and avoid some more hillier terrain. Also, granted the types of bridges for the notable bridges (cable stayed, etc.) are mentioned in both the history section and in the articles for the individual bridges. However, I don't think it would be overkill to mention here also.Dave (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

consider a piped wikilink to List of historic auto trails in Iowa on first instance of Blue Grass Route?
As written the article implies (but does not explicitly state) the US 534 designation was colloquial, but not official. Any way you can make that more clear and still stay true to what the sources say?
Friendly suggestion: IMHO the most interesting parts of the article are the river crossings and the portion about finding Native American remains, both near the end of the article. Not a requirement for FA, but if in your copyediting you feel the need to re-order the article I'd find a way to move this content up. Dave (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is largely chronological. There is a little skip backwards from the Glenwood section to the DSM-to-Burlington section, but that gap is smaller than if the sections were reversed. That section kinda of flows into the Burlington bridge part of the bridge section. The Missouri River bridge opened within the last 10 years, so it fits best, chronologically at the end.

I'm all ears if you have a better location. –Fredddie ™ 04:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moabdave, 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) 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I received a message from Dave on Discord saying that he was going to be incommunicado for a couple days due to an issue with his phone/2FA. –Fredddie ™ 18:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support promotion. I'm not 100% happy with the US530 part. I'd ideally like a clear statement like "though this designation was not approved by AASHTO." However, I accept that sources to prove a negative often simply do not exist, and the statement in the article today is both an improvement of what it said before and is likely the limit of what can be said without violating WP:OR. As such, I reluctantly accept the issue as resolved. I'm not judging, I have some similar "I'm 99% sure this is what really happened, but without a source I can't say it" issues in articles I've worked on. Still, if in the future a source is found that clears it up, please reconsider revising this section. Dave (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moabdave I know you've already supported, but you did mention that you'd do some sourcing spot checks. Are you still willing to do that? I just don't want this review to fail because it loses steam. –Fredddie ™ 02:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I promised I'd do some source spot checks then forgot to do it with the above hinted real life issues I was having. I'm still willing to do some spot checks. I'm just not sure how it would look with me already voting support. However, I'll do it if nobody here has any objections, and trusts that I have enough integrity to rescind my support vote in the event I find something (and I would. However, I doubt I'll find any serious issues, I've reviewed your stuff before).Dave (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dream out loud[edit]

Article looks really good, but I have a few comments:

The highway shield in the U.S. Highway origins section seems out of place. I know it's not common to see shields outside of infoboxes or templates, but just adding the image without context doesn't work. Perhaps you can create a thumbnail image with a caption?
In the junction list table, some rows have an emdash "—" where there is no exit number, while many rows just leave the column blank. There should be some more consistency here.
Iowa DOT should be linked in the Route description
Lots of overlinking in the references (e.g. Newspaperarchive.com, Google Books)
If the alt name "Red Bull Highway" is mentioned in the infobox, it should also be somewhere in the lead

–Dream out loud (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed everything but the first bullet point. Sometimes less is more. –Fredddie ™ 05:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dream out loud, 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) 16:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency of the "Exit" column in the interchanges table still needs to be addressed. Some rows have emdashes, while many are blank. Also, there are many blank rows where espan is used and others where it's not used. Additionally, I disagree with the "less is more" statement regarding the lone highway shield - it needs some context. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree regarding the shield, so I have removed it entirely.
I have placed two notes at the top of the Exit column that should explain it. –Fredddie ™ 11:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paging Dream out loud. –Fredddie ™ 05:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this nomination. I didn't like the 2 consecutive footnotes in the intersections template so went ahead and merged them into one. No other issues to report. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

Coordinator comment: I'm sorry, but at about three weeks in without any general supports, this nomination is in danger of having to be archived. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Having to be"? Based on what? Some arbitrary deadline imposed by the superusers that dictate this process? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

No issues with image licensing. Images are all either public domain due to age, Wikipedian-made images of features not subject to freedom of panorama restrictions, or are public domain HAER images. Hog Farm _Talk 23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

~~You're inconsistent about including publisher locations in your citations -- about half the cite book citations have a location; one of the four cite journals, most but not all cite news.~~
~~You're missing the publisher parameter for Myers and Morrison; you have it for the other web citations.~~
~~What makes the three external links reliable sources? Myers is a blog; Morrison appears to be an enthusiast site; the video is apparently a private account.~~
~~Suggest changing "dignataries" to "dignitaries" in FN 20 per MOS:TYPOFIX.~~
~~Suggest marking FN 22, 79, 80, 83, 85 as paywalled.~~
The link for FNs 26, 28, 41, 57, 72, 77 do not work.
The Plundered Skulls source is fine, but you're quoting the conversation as if Colwell was reporting actual speech. The section you're citing is clearly a dramatization -- perhaps quite accurate according to the recollections of those depicted, but we can't treat it as a verbatim record.
Neither the link nor the archive link for FN 84 works.
~~FN 85 says it's minutes for a 2017 meeting but the linked document is dated 2010.~~

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed your concerns.

I did not add locations for the Des Moines Register, the Omaha World Herald, and the Lincoln Star Journal, since I believe they are major enough cities to not require it since the city name is in the masthead.
Not required, but I would suggest adding the location for those three too, since although all three qualify as major cities in the area, any non-US reader may well have never heard of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I commented out the ELs because on one hand, WP:ELMAYBE #4, and WP:NOBLOGS on the other.
Given your comment on FN 85 later, I assumed you meant 86, which came up with a paywall when I double checked it.
The Iowa DOT reorganized their website. It happens.
I shortened the quotation from Plundered Skulls. After Pearson died in 2003, the Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society dedicated an entire issue to Pearson and included a piece she wrote called "Give Me Back My People’s Bones: Repatriation and Reburial of American Indian Skeletal Remains in Iowa." I'm trying to get a copy of it, but herding cats is easier. Anyway, I'm taking the concurrency of the quote and the title to mean she actually said those words.
Oops. I transposed the date and access date, though I don't know where the 2013 date came from. 2017, when I cited it, was a long time ago.

Thanks for the source review. –Fredddie ™ 09:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most points fixed.

For FN 41 the title should be "Official Description Change".
Sorry, I don't think we can treat it as direct speech unless we have a source that makes it clear those are her words. I think just taking out the quotes would be enough: "Pearson responded that he could give her back her people's bones". If the article you're looking for gives you the actual quote then of course that's fine.
FN 84 is still broken for me (both links).

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've fixed the first two. The third ref is controlled by a template, which I edited earlier this morning. The original link is dead, but the archived link should work. It's downloaded the Word Document each time I've clicked the link since I corrected it. –Fredddie ™ 16:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I suspect that Word document download was working for me too but I just didn't notice it. All good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 17 December 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) 15:14, 18 December 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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 December 2022 [19].

Space Shuttle Columbia disaster[edit]

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. The article's GA review was just completed. The 20th anniversary is February 1, 2023, and it has been my goal to get it to FA-status before then. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

I reviewed this article at GA, and believe that it meets Featured Article standard. It seems like only yesterday

Image review - pass

All images are NASA images except File:STS-107 Columbia entry imaged from ground.jpg, which is a USAF image - all appropriately licensed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me why File:ColumbiaFLIR2003.png is a US government image given the Commons page states it was created by two Dutch pilots flying a helicopter. The source (a YouTube video uploaded by a non-official account) also doesn't provide any evidence to confirm these details, or alternate details. Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this one. I'll remove it for the time being. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

I remember this clearly. I was at school. :(

I remember it as well! One crazy thought to me is that back then the Challenger disaster seemed far away (I wasn't even born yet), and now the time since the Columbia disaster until now is longer than the time between the two disasters. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a more illustrative image we could use for the infobox?
What type of picture are you thinking? Unfortunately, I'm not able to find a free image of the iconic shot of debris burning in the atmosphere. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in here while perusing. Might File:ColumbiaFLIR2003.png be a good option? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the permissions for that photo; the page itself says its in the public domain, but considering that it was recorded by Dutch aircrew I don't think it qualifies as work of the US Government. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your approach to the lead for the Challenger disaster is better than trying to shoehorn the title into the opening sentence.
Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and deploy commercial,[2]: III–66 military,[2]: III–68 and scientific payloads.[2]: III–148 Are the payloads directly relevant? And if so can we consolidate the footnotes to avoid clutter?
I consolidated the refs. I don't think the payloads are directly relevant, but they do provide context on the Space Shuttle and why a large spaceplane was used. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the sensor's data was recorded to an internal recorder Recorded to a recorder?
Changed to "data was recorded to internal storage" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
aileron trim changed from the predicted values from the increasing drag caused by the damage → because of the increasing drag?
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as well as still in the stowed position → or in the stowed position?
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The orbiter began to yaw to the left I've watched enough Air Crash Investigation to know what yaw is but it might benefit from an explanatory gloss
I added that the orbiter was turning to the left and put "yaw" in parenthesis. Does that work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but this was not noticed by the crew or mission control Can we use active voice?
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia's flight data recorder was found near Hemphill, It would be useful to know how far away this is from other locations mentioned. I'm aware that Texas is enormous but we don't have a god idea at this point in the article of how widely the debris was spread.
Added the distance from Nacogdoches. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address the problem of foam loss for the second "Return to Flight" mission Lose the scare quotes (you don't use them for the first RTF mission)
Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any cultural impact to mention? Books, films, documentaries, etc? This was the news event of the year and would have been one of the defining events of the decade were it not for 9/11 and its effects. It's one of those events that people remember where they were when they heard the news.
Added mentions of books and movies. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was the long-term impact on NASA besides the cancellation of the Space Shuttle programme? Did the disaster prompt a culture change? Has there been a deliberate move away from manned spaceflight or is that a coincidence?
I have not seen any sources that state the reason for the long break in crewed NASA spaceflights was the Columbia disaster. Seeing as the Constellation program was started in 2005, it's not like NASA was stopping its crewed efforts in the wake of the disaster. Regarding other NASA changes, I think I detailed the new precautions that were taken (rescue flights, ISS lifeboat, tank redesigns) and the cancellation of the program; is there anything else you're looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Think I addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

" After completing STS-107," Does the mission end at some point before touchdown?

Not sure what I was thinking. Changed to "During the STS-107 mission". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"nearly catastrophic" maybe "near-catastrophic"

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" It flew for the first time in April 1981" I might say "It flew in space for the first time" to let out the ALT.

Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"which provided protection for temperatures below 650 °C (1,200 °F). " Maybe "at" for "for"?

Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The ET consisted of a larger tank for liquid hydrogen (LH2), stored at −253 °C (−423 °F) and a smaller tank for liquid oxygen (LOX)," You don't need to say both larger and smaller. All you are doing is establishing relative size. I'd delete "larger".

Deleted. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"but it was stated that the ET was safe to fly.[5]: 125 " Does the source say who concluded this?

Changed to "but the Program Requirements Control Board decided that the ET was safe to fly". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time, the mission or ground crew did not notice the debris strike." I would move "at the time" to the end of the sentence.

Moved. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"she had asked about the imaging requirement from a flight director but not the Debris Assessment Team" This is a little fuzzy what requirement? This is obviously a crucial event.

I expanded this to explain who Ham consulted with and the basis of her decision; hope it makes it more clear. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"was concerned with the potential delays that may be caused by a foam loss event." Suggest you don't need both "potential" and "may", consider ..."was concerned with the potential delays from a foam loss event."

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"flight director Steve Stich sent an e-mail to Husband and McCool to tell them about the foam strike and inform them there was no cause for concern about damage to the TPS, as foam strikes has occurred on previous flights.[5]: 159 " has should be had.

Whoops! Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Soon after it entered California airspace, the orbiter shed several pieces of debris, which were observed on the ground as sudden increases in brightness of the air around the orbiter." I'd change "which were" to "events"

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more could be said about what took place in Mission Control after contact was lost. The time the vehicle was expected to land would be useful as well.

There's not much more about what happened in Mission Control; they tried to reestablish communication until they learned that the orbiter broke up. I added KSC information, including the expected landing time. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The crew remains were transported for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Dover Air Force Base." I would say "to" rather than "for".

Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"worms" It would be good idea to say what they were doing there, what sort of experiment. Weren't there other animals? You mention that they would have been euthanized under the rescue procedure the review board discussed.

I expanded on the experiment. Regarding the other animals, there were other small animals (bees, silkworms, fish) on board for different experiments. I don't think that needs to be mentioned in this article as I'm not seeing any post-disaster information about them. Does that work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the KSC" I think I'd get rid of the "the" (you do this at least twice). Similar "the JSC".

Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe convened the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) " Is "convened" the best word? It wasn't meeting until some hours later.

I changed it to "called to convene" to make it more evident that it wasn't an immediate process. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You use "argued" twice with respect to the board's conclusions. I'd sooner see "found" or "concluded". The board wasn't getting into a debate.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of the foam loss, NASA grounded the Space Shuttle fleet.[34][43]" This, I assume, refers to the 2005 mission on Discovery and not the loss of Challenger. If so, I'd add "again" to the end.

Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"from its scheduled launch of July 1" no year is mentioned in this paragraph.

Added year. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the two subsequent missions, I think it would be useful to mention what vehicle would have been used had serious damage to the shuttle been discovered on orbit.

Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest deleting any of the musical tributes that can't be supported by secondary sources as trivial.

Happy to remove this! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Think I addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Kusma[edit]

Great idea to try to get this ready in time for the anniversary. I'll review this more thoroughly later in the week, but I have one question that has been bugging me in the past and that I would like to see answered in the article: Why did the foam strike had such a high relative velocity? It took me embarrassingly long to figure out that this was due to drag in the still quite relevant air pressure at about 20km (essentially the foam slows down very quickly and is struck by the accelerating orbiter). In vacuum, this would have been far less of a problem. After I figured this out, I thought of looking into the sources, and pages 60 and 61 of the CAIB report explain the physics of the collision, so this can be included without OR. —Kusma (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I added a sentence in about this. Thanks for doing the bulk of work in finding the correct source, including page number, when suggesting I add information in! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much to complain, but here is one comment: The sentence "When Columbia reentered the atmosphere of Earth, the damage allowed hot atmospheric gases to penetrate the heat shield and destroy the internal wing structure, which caused the orbiter to become unstable and break apart." in the lead does not seem to be repeated in the article, where the melting of the internal wing structure is only hinted at in the "Recovery of debris" section. Could you expand on this in the "Cause of the accident" section, perhaps? (Compare the "physical cause" paragraph in the p. 9 Executive summary of the CAIB report). —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I added a sentence for it; please let me know if you want me to add any more information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine now. One more thing I'd like you to consider is whether the jargon headings "STS-114" and "STS-121" can be made more accessible to non-experts ("First Return to Space mission (STS-114)" etc.?) —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the headers to that format. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good work. —Kusma (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus[edit]

Will review over the next week. Seems to be of excellent quality already, so I suspect I won't have too much. I'll do some spotchecking, though. Ovinus (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"aft end of the orbiter" Can't this just be "aft of the orbiter"? Not familiar enough to know whether there's a difference Ovinus (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep it "aft end" to make it clear that they are attached, as opposed to something like the SRB engines, which are aft of the orbiter but not directly mounted onto it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: I have addresses your comment; please let me know if you have more feedback. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I'm very happy with the prose and comprehensiveness, and will perform some spotchecks in a bit. Ovinus (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: Are you asking me to look at these sources? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're just the references I've randomly selected from. Ovinus (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[13, 22, 29, 30, 40]: good
[50]: For the foam, sources [50] and [51] seem to say 3 inches long instead of 5 inches
Fixed/changed to 3 inches. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[71, 80, 88, 90, 94]: good

@Ovinus: I have addressed the foam size comment. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I checked five more random citations and they looked good. Moving to support. Ovinus (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

What's the logic you're using to decide when to use the publisher parameter for the web and news citations? FNs 30 & 64 have publisher; the other news citations all use work. For the web citations I see a handful using work, but most use publisher.
I tend to use "publisher" over "work"; my guess is that the news citations, and some of the web citations that are using "work" are from other editors. I don't feel strongly about it, and can standardize them if you would like. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAC requires consistency, but (within limits) doesn't care how you achieve it. Sounds like the easiest thing would be to convert the odd ones out to publisher.Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~You have location for just one cite news -- FN 19, The Daily Telegraph.~~
Removed location. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How are you choosing between cite news and cite web for sources like the Telegraph, the Scotsman, the Washington Post, and the Times? I ask because cite web doesn't italicize publisher, so if you use cite news and the work/newspaper parameter you're getting inconsistencies with cite web and the publisher parameter. For example, FN 92 doesn't italicize The Scotsman, but FN 19 does italicize The Daily Telegraph. If there's a clear rule for choosing one or the other that's probably OK but I can't see what such a rule might be.
I generally use cite web, but I can understand how that causes problems. I changed the articles that are from news site (CNN, NY Times, etc. and to include tech news like Wired and Space.com) to use "cite news" and use "work" over "publisher", and I kept the less-news-like sites (mostly NASA) as "cite web"/"publisher". I think it should be standardized now. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~The link for FN 1 isn't working for me; it might just be slow. If it's not working for you, suggest marking the link as dead.~~
I'm guessing/hoping it's only temporarily dead since it's a major NASA/US government document. But I marked it as dead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~The archive links for FN 29, 40 & 70 are broken.~~
Updated the archive links; everything seems to be working now. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if any change is needed, but FN 65 now redirects to a different page that looks like part of the same site. The archive link still works. If the target page is really no longer accessible, suggest marking this as a dead link, otherwise can we change the link to whatever the right page now is?
Weird; good catch. Marked the URL as dead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think I have addressed your points; thanks for the source review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of stragglers from the points above -- FNs 24, 33, and 34 all use cite web and work= so are italicized. You do still have a handful of others using cite web (FNs 22, 58, 67, 87) but those are all news organizations so the formatting is consistent even though the underlying template is not the same -- those don't have to be changed. Otherwise everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed FN 24 and 34 to use cite news/work, and FN 33 to use cite web/publisher. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. All issues addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 16 December 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) 20:08, 16 December 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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 December 2022 [20].

Corp Naomh[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highly ornate and visually appealing (although badly damaged) 9th or 10th century bell shrine that was heavily rebuilt in the 15th century for the better. Originally commissioned as a reliquary container for the hand-bell relic of a, by then, long dead Irish saint (whose identity is now lost), it is now considered a high point of medieval Irish metalwork.

Much appreciation to Sailko for the images –the object is not normally on display for some odd reason, probably conservation as there is plenty scholarship. Part of a series on Insular art; feedback/insight/criticism gratefully welcome. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"It was likely was held" - stray word in there
"Although recognised as the object as a reliquary" - should this be "Although recognising the object as a reliquary"
"The shrine consists of a sheet and cast metal mounds" - should "mould" be singular?

Changed this to "mounts" Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It is hollow, and made from a bronze casts" - should "cast" be singular?
"the back of his heads protrudes" - he has multiple heads?
"He wears a full-length and according to Bourke, "wing-like" tunic or cloak" => "He wears a full-length and, according to Bourke, "wing-like" tunic or cloak"
"described these designs and their "equal-rayed limbs" as an examples" - ~~design~~ example should presumably be singular?
Wikilink Book of Kells
"the rider's hands are placed inside their cloaks" - if you are referring to multiple riders then the apostrophe should be after the s
"dramatically curls-up at the back" - no need for that hyphen
"Two oversized birds perch on the horse's heads" - again, if you are talking about multiple horses then the apostrophe is in the wrong place
"Like the rider's cloaks, the bird's wings" - same here (both cases)
"In the panel, the animal's hindlegs" - same again
That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's been a lot of subsequent work so I think I'll have to do a whole fresh review, but one thing that jumps out at a first glance is "It contains a series of much tinner confronted animals" - is that meant to say "thinner"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes, thinner. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I think we have enough commentary to make a call to close this but if you still feel you'd like to re-review, pls go ahead -- just let me know yay or nay on that at your earliest... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, see support from Chris below[21]. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must've blinked -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Placeholder - please ping me once the above has been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"likely belonging to an early Irish saint." Could we change the US English "likely" to the Irish English 'probably'. Similarly with "It was likely held by hereditary keepers".
Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Sections from its original phase include the cross on the reverse and the ornate semi-circular cap on the top". I have reread this several times and have no idea what it means. What does it mean?
"phase" means build period. I've tweaked a bit to make this clearer, but do need a clearer definition. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Some indication in the lead of the size of the object would be helpful.
Now added. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"after the dissolution of Tristernagh Abbey". Is it known when this happened?
Clarified.. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Treasury room". Either upper case R or lower case t.
It's The Treasury according to the NMI website, although the capital "The" looks weird to me. Thinking.

That's ok, cus the MoS suggests that "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".

I ended up removing the claim, remembering that it wasn't there on last visit...the (underfunded) NMI website is notoriously poor and out of date. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Gog, given your current limited wiki time. 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Co. Westmeath". Abbreviations should be given in full at first mention.
dabed. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It was first mentioned and described in Henry Piers, Chorographical Description of the County of Westmeath." Should "Piers" have a possessive?
Yes. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"it was found to contain a block of wood substituting a saint's hand-bell." I am puzzled; how was it know that a block of wood was meant to represent a hand bell? I mean, it was just a piece of wood.
The metalwork's shape made it obvious that it was a bell shrine. Presumably the wood was placed so as it wouldn't collapse. Need to review the sources to cite this. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"it is generally accepted that the 15th century additions". This is the first mention of 15th century additions, so they need introducing properly.
The quote starting "laced...of brass, and..." is 62 words long. The MoS suggests "Format a long quote (more than about forty words ...) as a block quotation, indented on both sides."
Has been paraphrased Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think will chop this down and move parts to other sections. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"RIA". Abbreviations should be given in full at first mention.
done. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the 600-900AD period". En dash, not a hyphen, and a space before AD.

OK. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the large central figure of Jesus on the cross. At 23 cm (9.1 in) high, it is around the size of a pocket bible". What is size of the bible. At the moment you have this as the figure of Jesus. If you mean the shrine then "it is" → 'the shrine is'.
Now linked to pocket gospel book, which gives a clearer indication. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"produced between 600 and 900 AD with iron coated with bronze". Perhaps "with" → 'of'?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It consists of a sheet and cast metal mounds". What are "mounds"? What is the "sheet" made of?

Monds = protrusions, the sheets now clarified as bronze. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"are from the 9th or 10th century phase." Consider deleting "phase". If not, what is it/does it mean?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"frontside" isn't a word. You probably mean 'front side'.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and is composed from". Possibly "from" → 'of'? I don't think something can be "composed from".

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as "full profile"? I understood there to be either profile or full face. Happy to be corrected.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"beard and whiskers." What whiskers are there which are not part of the beard?

Removed whickers, but the point was the fine detail on such a small figure. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means say so, assuming a source supports it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Raised bands divide the robe". Just a suggestion → 'Raised diagonal bands divide the robe'.
"Patrick's Cross". Why the italics?

Removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and designed in the so-called "Kells style" attached to a number of riding figures in earlier or contemporary". 1. I am not sure about "designed", perhaps 'shown'? 2. "attached"? Maybe something like 'also seen in'?
"has a long and thick mane, has a downwards looking head and eyes, and long and wide tail." Delete the second "has".

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The hind legs are positioned low underneath their body". "their" → 'its'.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional: "Keeping within this tradition" → 'In keeping with this tradition'.
"below the horse's knees rather than above the horse's shoulders." "above the horse's shoulders" → 'above its shoulders.'.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the birds represent the martyrdom of the cleric". Which cleric?

The one they are facing, as in the section above. Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar figures in the Book of Kells miniatures ... have short fringes and sometimes a bald crown." But the second illustration from the Book of Kells immediately below shows a rider with a full head of hair which curls up at the back.

Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The titles of works all seem to be in title case except for Johnson, 2005.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working through these, most done. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The bronze figure of Jesus and the silver cross were both added in the 15th century but are now badly damaged, as are large portions of the cross". "as are large portions of the cross" ? This is already covered by "are now badly damaged".

Removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a deeper cut protrusion". To protrude is "To extend from, above or beyond a surface or boundary; to bulge outward; to stick out." So how can one have a deeper protrusion?
Incision. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"lining the length of the shire". What's a "shire"?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"placing its creation to 1493". Is there a grammar hiccup here?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a fact used to date the additions to the Corp Naomh's main panel. "Perhaps how this was done could be explained, if only in a footnote?

Spelling fixed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a grid of interlinked cast openwork, equal sized, crosses." I think there should be a comma after "cast" and a hyphen after "equal".

Yes, rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"its upper side panels" → 'its upper-side panels'?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"which holds the crosses." the crosses? Have these already been introduced?

Removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"amongst other contemporary Irish metal relic containers." Does this mean that the Soiscél Molaisse and the Shrine of Miosach are both examples of contemporary Irish metal relic containers, or that they are both examples of contemporary Irish metal relic containers with similar crosses?
The latter, as indicated by The crosses are similar to those on the...". Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" The plate dates to roughly the same period as the first phase". I think that you need to define and explain somewhere what the "phases" are.
"polaire" should use a lang template.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"An undated portable leather case". Does "portable" add anything?

it idicates that the case was used for carrying from place to place, but guess that's implied so removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does "sewing" really need linking?

Suppose not; delinked. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The flap has rows of stitch holes heavier than". How can a hole be heavier than something?

Rephrased to indicate that the holes are larger, ie they once contained heavier thread. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it for a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It was probably held by hereditary keepers after the dissolution of Tristernagh Abbey" is in the lead, but I struggle to find it in the main article.
"The metalwork's shape made it obvious that it was a bell shrine. Presumably the wood was placed so as it wouldn't collapse. Need to review the sources to cite this". Any joy?

Looking really good. IMHO. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Almost there; there is the block quote to also sort out. Been a very rewarding review! Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you found my reviews intimidating? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your not as dastardly as everybody says ;) Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As update, just the block quote and hereditary keepers claim left. Ceoil (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cough*. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, apologies for delay; all resolved now if you can take another (hopefully final) look. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cough*. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You called? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Are you in a position to say aye or nay Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an aye. See also the section heading. —Kusma (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek! Thanks both!!!! :) Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's comments and support[edit]

Thank you for another fine piece from Irish cultural heritage! I'd make small changes myself but was offline on a plane when I wrote it, and - on vacation - can't check again.

Lead

"to enclose a now lost c. 600 to 900 AD hand-bell, likely belonging to an early Irish saint" - can we get the time for the bell to later?
Reworded this so the dates are not interrupting the flow so much. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
link saint, or Irish saints if there is something?
went with List of saints of Ireland which appropriately says “The vast majority of these saints lived during the 4th–10th centuries” Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
extra "was" in third para
Done Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

avoid extra lines for references?
Removed Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

I recommend to move the bell image altogether from that section. It sandwiches text, displaces the following header, and the text has no bell yet. The pic could go to Function" (or to the bottom after leather case where there's white space)
moved Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleric

no comma after Bourke, or a comma before "according"
Done Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemen

near-mirrored?
Reworded Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
any link to Kells or Kell style?
Linked Abbey of Kells Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"curls up"?
Reworded Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confronted animals

with a link to embossed we don't need the longish explanation in brackets
snippedCeoil (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these are just minor points. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all great suggestions for improvement, will add tomorrow. ps, have great holiday! Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for action and wishes, - Sunday was another great day, singing with a friend in her church choir in historic Katonah, then hike in Manitoga with other friends, pics to come

support article --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

Consistent alt text would be good. The infobox image has alt text in Italian, not ideal.

that’s the file name, but agree. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but with articles on specific artworks or objects, alt is less useful as the image caption would cover it anyway. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main images of the corp naomh and other National Museum of Ireland images look to be OK by Irish freedom of panorama law.
Book of Kells images: why are these PD in the US? According to Book of Kells, some if not most of the images were published in Ireland early enough to be PD in the US in 1996, but when were these two published?
Have replaced with PD-old-100-1923, which have used on recommendation on FACs on illuminated manuscripts. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I guess the issue here is whether the book was "published" before 1927. The British Library says there is technically copyright on illuminated manuscripts they own if they have never been published ([22]). The copyright notice from Trinity at [23] is a bit confusing, stating "Rights statement: Copyright The Board of Trinity College Dublin. Images are available for single-use academic application only. Publication, transmission or display is prohibited without formal written approval of the Library of Trinity College, Dublin." followed by "Copyright status: Public domain" which we might take as saying the images are PD, but Trinity claims the rights for the specific reproductions on their webpage? The bad news is that the images are sourced to exactly this digital reproduction... on the other hand, the existence of a 1951 facsimile edition mentioned at Book of Kells should mean the images from that edition are all PD in the US, as they should have become PD where they were published and then in 1996 in the US. Does image copyright also give you a headache? —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does image copyright also give you a headache. I need a sit down and smelling salts. Will fix the captions for now, but will be a day or two before I get to look at the licensing. But nice to have a friendly and helpful img reviewer, so thanks :) Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, the captions still need a tiny bit of work. One of the horsemen is actually on (double check "on" versus "in", currently inconsistent in the caption) folio 89 (recto), not 58. You can find the whole book at [24] (your images are from image 513=255 verso and 180=89 recto). —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed from the tcd website and done. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Corp Naomh Reverse Margaret Stokes.jpg: doesn't look like a drawing, and the source doesn't mention Margaret Stokes?

yeah, will remove and see if I can get a free one. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need the catalogue number for the leather case in the caption?

removed. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all. —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusma; getting to the publication of the Book of Kells Images just now, in case you think have forgotten. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ceoil, I think the 1951 publication in Switzerland (even if black and white [25]) should be enough to make the Kells images PD long enough before 1996 for them to be OK. It is debatable whether the copyright tag for the images is OK; perhaps something like ((PD-Art-two|1=PD-100|2=PD-1996)) is better. Thank you for the alt tags and other changes. —Kusma (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kusma, have switched the tag for both colour imgs to ((PD-Art-two|1=PD-100|2=PD-1996)) as first preference; I think using B+W reproductions for imgs from the BOK is near sacrilege given the colorisation is kind of the whole point as to whey the book is so well know. If have to go down the FU route, second choice is to use just one image, butr that would be a bummer, and take from the ed value of the article. Anyway, thanks again for all the feedback. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, reduced to just one book of kells img. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a fair use defence is needed for either of the images. With the new tags, the images are fine and this image review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Finally, I can start to rebuild my life and sleep easy at night :) Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Can we have a plain-text pronunciation guide in the lead?
the then-owner of the land on which the You don't need "then" for the same reasons we don't use "the late" (for example)
However, when finally opened it was found to contain a block of wood No need for the "however".
described as "a certain gentleman, a great zealot of the romish church". You need a reference straight after a direct quote. And should Romish Church be a proper noun?
"laced...of brass, and...studded Ellipses should be spaced per MOS:ELLIPSIS
The large diagonal cross on the case's front is consists of two overlapping leather straps sewn onto the case. Stray word?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, all done except trying to figure out how to add a plain-text pronunciation. Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, have made a stab at phonetic pronunciation based on how I would pronounce it, but Irish lang dialects widely vary by region, on spelling, vocabulary and especially accent (and of course the sources don't cover this). Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for review and support Harry. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

"became signina of clerical office" - never seen the word "signina" before. If it's not a typo, is there an appropriate link?
THat's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it; reworded as insignia now ChrisTheDude. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the ces and cmts. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will do a source review here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with source reliability
Formatting is satisfactory
Spot-checked the cites to Frazer p. 35 and didn't see any issues. Hog Farm _Talk 23:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great and many thanks Hog Farm. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 11 December 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) 12:19, 16 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2022 [26].

Ibn al-Ash'ath[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Arab aristocrat who led one of the largest rebellions against the Umayyad Caliphate in the early 700s. His story is essentially the story of the Iraqi Arabs under the Umayyads, and especially during the governorship of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. The article became a GA and A-class back in 2015, but was occasionally reworked and expanded since, especially in April-May of this year, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to nominate it since. I hope it is an interesting and understandable read, and look forward to all suggestions for further improvement. Constantine ✍ 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Airship[edit]

Will review shortly.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I emphasise that these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to ignore them, with sufficient justification.

No death year in the first paragraph?
- Added.
Is it 'the scion' or 'a scion'?
- Changed.
"distinguished family of the Kindite tribal nobility" you mean that the family was an especially distinguished noble family, correct?
- Yes.
Perhaps the first 'overbearing' could be removed, as you use it again in the same paragraph.
- Good suggestion, done. It is an indication of just how overbearing al-Hajjaj was...
I've edited a slightly comma-heavy sentence in the third paragraph.
- Thank you.
"and later led the Kindaite quarter in Kufa, where he died in 661". Could probably make this a separate sentence, for better flow.
- Good suggestion, done.
Do we know the birth order of Ibn al-Ash'ath and his brothers?
- Not as far as I know.
The rivalry section seems to be at odds with the description in the lead: here, it seems like Ibn al-Ash'ath is the haughty and overbearing one, as opposed to al-Hajjaj who just seems to be unpopular.
- There is more than an element of truth in what you say. The tribal nobility were a prideful bunch, insisting on their 'rights', and with a mentality that reflected their tribal traditions (honour, spoils, vendetta, etc); and al-Hajjaj's actions can be seen in the light of him being the representative of a central government, whose authority he wanted to enforce against their parochial recalcitrance. Traditional historiography certainly has not been kind to him. Think how history remembers English kings who tried to restrict their barons' rights, or early Roman emperors who ran afoul of the Roman senatorial aristocracy (which wrote the histories). But it is also clear that al-Hajjaj (often deliberately) provoked the sensibilities of the Iraqis, and by the end of his tenure had made Iraq almost into an occupied country.
Slightly unsure about the differing ways used to attribute in-text quotations. Alternatively, you have:
- "[quote]" (full name of historian, linked), with citation at end of following sentence;
- "[quote]" (last name of historian, unlinked), with citation at end of sentence;
- according to historian, "[quote]", with citation at end of sentence;
- in what [historian] described as "[quote]", with citation at end of following sentence;
- [historian] suggest that "[quote]", with immediate citation;
- and some more. I think there needs to be a little standardisation, especially keeping the second example of WP:PLAGFORM in mind. I'll go over the motives and driving sources section after the above has been justified or fixed.
  - Hmmm. Full name of historian is always at first reference, last name after. AFAIK that is standard. The placement of the citation depends on whether the citation is used to support the quote and the rest of the sentence/section, or just the quote. Again, this is standard. If only one source is cited and the author is clearly named, then the attribution of a quote should not be a problem, nor is it plagiarism, even if the quote were located in a long paragraph. On the parentheses, I admit I don't like them too much either, but here it is the easiest and shortest way of including the quotes without either having to laboriously paraphrase them or have to constantly introduce constructs like "according to x". I can remove them, if that is necessary, though.
Is government the best word to describe the rule of al-Hajjaj?
- Probably a bit archaic in this sense, changed to 'administration'.
"when the two armies met in battle" you should probably say where.
- Done.
"The defeat turned into a flight, aided by al-Hajjaj's offers of pardon." is unclear. What did al-Hajjaj's offers of pardon aid, and why?
- Clarified.
" this renewed defeat" perhaps second (or similar) instead of renewed?
- Changed.

I hope the above was helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot AirshipJungleman29 for your time and suggestions. Anything else? Was the article easy to understand? Constantine ✍ 13:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still a little iffy about the parenthesised author names, but that's a minor issue. Aside from that, there's nothing to stop me from supporting the article for promotion.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Maps should be scaled using |upright= instead of fixed px size
- Done.
File:Caliphate_750.jpg: see MOS:COLOUR
- Has been replaced by a different image. Constantine ✍ 21:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dirham_of_Sistan,_AH_82.jpg needs a US tag for the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.

Funk[edit]

Marking my spot, will review once I'm done with another review. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance there appear to be a few unneeded duplinks.
- Fixed.
"and married Caliph Abu Bakr's sister" But the subject of this article is not a descendant of her?
- It isn't stated anywhere AFAIK. Given the practice of polygamy, it is well possible that Abd al-Rahman is not her descendant. Will keep looking.
  - Strike that, she was indeed Abd al-Rahman's grandmother.
"in the Hadramawt." State this is in Yemen for context?
- Good point, added.
Perhaps give dates to the caption of the first map?
- Added.
"after an eventful journey" Sounds like some of that should be described here, or?
- Good point. I have looked into the primary sources, and while things happened during the journey, there is IMO nothing really worth mentioning. So I have removed this.

Hi FunkMonk, have responded to your remarks so far. Constantine ✍ 14:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"what historian G. R. Hawting calls" You don't present other historians by occupation, should be consistent.
- Added the occupation to the other cases as well.
"known in history as the 'Peacock Army' (jaysh al-tawawis)" This is already mentioned earlier, but without quotation marks and Arabic name,and here you present it as if it was the first mention. Any way to consolidate this?
- Removed the first reference.
"Modern scholarship on the other hand holds that the portrayal of the great personal animosity between the two men is likely to be exaggerated." This also largely repeats statements from the preceding section. Any way to make it seem less repetitive?
- Good point, moved this up and integrated it into the previous section.
"The Zunbil drew the Arabs deep into his country" This makes it seem like the Zunbil was a person, when its article indicates it is a collective term for a dynasty?
- 'Zunbil' is a title, and gave its name to the dynasty. It is used here just like 'Pharaoh' or 'Caesar' would be used for the Egyptian or Roman rulers. It also reflects usage in the sources the article draws from.
"while its favoured Syrian troops did not share in the same dangers and received greater salaries (ata) to boot." Seems to repeat what was stated shortly before.
- Removed the repetition.
"then morphed to a" Morphed into?
- Fixed.
Much of the article seems to be details about the revolt rather than the person himself, which I guess there's not much to do about, since this is de facto also the article about the revolt. But if a separate article about the revolt was made, I'd think text such as that under "Motives and driving forces of the revolt" would be more appropriate there.
- When starting to expand this, I considered splitting into two articles, one for the revolt and one for the man, as I have done e.g. with Battle of Fakhkh and al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Abid. But the fact is that the revolt is named after the man, and therefore quite inseparable from him. An article on the revolt would likewise have to deal with Abd al-Rahman's background and why he was the ideal leader around whom Iraqi grievances coalesced, so the overlap between the two articles would have been considerable. Plus in the sources, the two are also treated in one go.
"over one of the Iraqi towns" Which town?
- Clarified.
Why say Kindite tribe in the intro but Kinda tribe in the article body?
- 'Kinda' is the tribe, 'Kindite' is the adjective. Hence 'the Kinda tribe' but 'the Kindite tribal nobility'.
"committed suicide to avoid being handed over to his enemies." This is not stated as explicitly in the article body.
- Hmmm, I rather disagree: he was confined to a remote castle at Rukhkhaj in anticipation of his extradition to al-Hajjaj, and chained to his warden, but that he threw himself from the top of the castle (along with his warden) to his death clearly connects the anticipated handing over to his death.

It is implied, yes, but unlike the intro, the intention is not stated, only the act itself. I think the article body needs the word "avoid" to make it explicit. It's not a big deal, though, but the intro shouldn't be more explicit than the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, added. Constantine ✍ 19:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk, have addressed your remarks. Constantine ✍ 18:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looking good. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review-Pass[edit]

Hawting, Gerald R. (2000) and Hawting, G. R. (1993)
- Fixed.
Rowson, Everett K. should be linked in the Tab. template.
- Fixed.
Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, index, which has some good deal of info on Hajjaj's retaliation against the mawali, Zutt, Asawira etc., should be added.
Also see Hoyland, In God's Path, pp. 152-153 (gives numbers of the peacock army, and some other interesting info).
For a mention by Theophanes, see Hoyland, Seeing Islam as others saw it, p. 650; for some curious details reported in Aghani, see Kilpatrick, Making the Great Book of Songs, pp. 190-191. These two are optional though.
Sources are all high quality, and properly formatted. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AhmadLX, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I just now got my hands on the two books recommended by AhmadLX, will add them tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 20:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, AhmadLX, done. Constantine ✍ 14:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AhmadLX, is the source review a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, Cplakidas Sorry for the delay. The source review is a pass, of course. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 08:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX[edit]

That Ash'ath "was instrumental in forcing Ali to abandon his military advantage" is just an allegation (likely unfounded). See EI3 al-Ash'ath b. Qays, and Wellhausen 1901, pp. 5-7
- Thanks, rewrote the relevant section and clarified it.
"in 680 [Abd al-Rahman] revealed the hiding-place of Muslim ibn Aqil to the authorities." See also Tab. 19. p. 21.
- Fixed.
"After Mukhtar was defeated and captured,...[he was] executed." He was neither captured nor executed, but killed while trying to break through.
- Hmmm, I had another look at Tabari, and fixed that. No idea how this was misread in the first place.

Thanks for the corrections, AhmadLX! Anything else? Constantine ✍ 15:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the Umayyad army suffered a heavy defeat,..." I would call it a government army. It was not an Umayyad vs Shayban affair, but a government vs rebels affair.
- Hmmm, OK.
Nasir al-Mu'minin → nasir al-mu'minin; Jaysh al-Tawawis → jaysh al-tawawis
- Done.
"Nevertheless, it is clear that al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular...pay to a level below that of the Syrian troops." This para should go the section on motives.
- Good point, done.
Veccia Vaglieri suggests, Veccia Vaglieri described; Dixon points out, Dixon opined; Wellhausen comments, Wellhausen rejected;... The tense should be made consistent.
- Indeed. Fixed.
"al-Sadusi's uprising": was it really an uprising?
- Changed to 'mutiny'
Qurra' → Qurra
- Done.
Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Samura al-Qurashi: Qurayshi?
- Was 'Qurashi' in Dixon. Fixed.
  - Note: Qurashi is correct in this case, as this is how the sources transliterate the Quraysh nisba. Same with with Sulaym → Sulami, Muzayn → Muzani, etc. Al Ameer (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I've restored al-Qurashi. I asked because Tabari writes al-Qurayshi. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Done this round as well. Looking forward to more :) Constantine ✍ 17:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A'sha Hamdan was not "a certain", but a famous poet.
- Fixed. Thanks for the pointer! Constantine ✍ 20:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Al Ameer[edit]

Glad to see this here. Will wait for Funk and AhmadLX to finish with their reviews before making my comments/suggestions. Al Ameer (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Al Ameer, if you'd like to comment, please do at your earliest... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'Ibn al-Ash'ath' common enough to warrant renaming this article?
- Hmmm, good question. The EI2 article certainly implies so, but as it can refer to any male descendant of al-Ash'ath, I preferred to use the full name. I would not be opposed to renaming, however.
  - Have had another look at the sources, and almost all refer to him as 'Ibn al-Ash'ath'. So a renaming is in order. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox has 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Ash'ath'. The full name should be mentioned
- Done.
For year ranges when the exact Gregorian year is not clear, the style should be consistent ('686–687' or '686/7')
- Done.
Fix new duplinks.
- Done.
Sometimes he is referred to in the article body as Abd al-Rahman, and other times Ibn al-Ash'ath. Should be consistent.
- Standardized to 'Ibn al-Ash'ath', primarily to avoid confusion with his namesake lieutenant.
"far less distinguished" → "less distinguished"
- Done.
"being killed in 686/7 in the campaign" → "being killed in the 686–687 campaign"
- Hmmm, by standardizing the Hijri years to '686/7', this looks somehow weird.
Define pro-Alid or replace with pro-Shia.
- Good point, chose the latter for simplicity.
Remove "apparently" from "apparently went over to the Umayyads"
- Done.
Add "[Husayn's supporters] Muslim ibn Aqil and Hani ibn Urwa"
- Done, though slightly different.
In general, all persons should be briefly introduced for quick context. Ex. '[the South Arabian or Kufan tribal chief] Sa'id ibn Qays al-Hamdani'
- Done, but I will do another pass to make sure I haven't missed anyone.
"A contingent from Tabaristan are also" → "A contingent from Tabaristan is also" (ignore if I am wrong)
- Both are correct, AFAIK. A contingent implies a number of men, so the plural can be used.
In the third para of Fight for control of Iraq, there is 'Abd al-Rahman' and 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abbas': one should be used for consistency.
- Done
"threatened to give command to Ibn al-Ash'ath's brother" Do we know the name of the brother?
- Not mentioned in either of the sources cited.
"The "prospect of a long and difficult campaign so far from Iraq" (Hawting)" would be better paraphrased imo.
- Hmmm, why and how? I rather like Hawting's summary here, TBH.
Same with "interaction of religion and politics in early Muslim society" (Hawting)
- Done.

—Al Ameer (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest replacing the map with something newer and clearer so readers could more easily identify the various provinces and major cities of the Caliphate.
- Have replaced the map with one showing the Second Fitna, which has the added benefit of helping readers visualize that conflict.

Will continue tomorrow. Cheers Al Ameer (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all from me. Al Ameer (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as usual, for your review and suggestions, Al Ameer son. Please have a look at my changes. Constantine ✍ 21:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those adjustments. I am happy to support. And here's one more nitpicky thought to consider: changing the 'Aftermath' heading to 'Legacy' since this is still technically an article on the person, or making 'Aftermath' a subsection of 'Revolt'. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a455bcd9: Lead review—pass[edit]

A few comments on the lead only (I didn't read more, but I think the lead should be self-sufficient?):

Should we add to the infobox and lead: "Born: Unknown"?
- As a rule, I avoid putting entries like this into infoboxes. If only the death date is given, it is generally assumed/implied that the birth date is unknown.
Infobox: add the fields "native_name" and "native_name_lang"?
- Added.
"after his grandfather": link "his grandfather" to Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays and add a footnote explaining the meaning of "ibn" and linking to Patronymic#Arabic ("sometimes the father is skipped and the paternal grandfather's given name is used instead"). Otherwise, it's hard to understand.
- Added the links, but not quite as suggested.
"scion": I'm not a native English speaker, I had to Google the term. Why not use "descendant"?
- Hmmm, the phrase 'scion of a dynasty/family/clan' is a fairly common one. As a non-native speaker myself, I try to not use obscure terms, but IMO this isn't one of them.
"viceroy": the term is only used once in the article. Elsewhere, we say "governor of Iraq and the eastern provinces". Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf's infobox only mentions "Umayyad governor of Iraq". Which term(s) is/are correct?
- A governor who governs half of a realm is more than 'just' a governor, regardless what his official title is. Al-Hajjaj is frequently called a 'viceroy' in sources as a result. Added this to the text.
"the eastern provinces of the Caliphate": what are these provinces? present-day Afghanistan? Worth mentioning I think.
- Not in the lede though. The most remote provinces are mentioned in the text, and there is a map of the Caliphate as well.
"Iraqi nobility": what does this mean? "the Kindite tribal nobility"? Were they Arab as well? Muslim?
- Have rephrased this slightly to hopefully make the link clearer. But again, I don't want to get into too much detail the lede; plus, when talking about people with Arab names and in the context of a 'Caliphate', I have to assume that certain things are given to a reader.
"Arab expansion": link to Early Muslim conquests?
- Done.
"the army to rise in revolt" => "the army to revolt": simpler?
- Done.
"with the Zunbil": singular or plural? Before we have "the Zunbils" but everywhere else only the singular form is used.
- Nice catch: should be singular.
"the army started on its march back to Iraq" => "the army marched back to Iraq": simpler = better?
- Done.
"religious scholars": should it be replaced by "religious zealots" or "religious purists" to be more specific. It would help to understand "acquired religious overtones" mentioned earlier.
- Done.
"al-Hajjaj's Syrian troops": this first mention of Syria is unclear for the uneducated reader (that's me :) ). I suggest mentioning earlier "discontented with the Syria-based Umayyad regime" or "discontented with the Syria-based regime of the Umayyads"
- Excellent point, done.
"fled to the east": to where in practice? to Zabulistan?
- Not all of them. We know that Abd al-Rahman did, but others scattered in the eastern provinces, to fates unknown.
"Later revolts, under Yazid ibn al-Muhallab and Zayd ibn Ali,": add dates?
- Done.

A455bcd9 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC) Thanks A455bcd9 for some excellent suggestions. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 18:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I haven't read the whole article and I don't know enough about the subject to support, but you can consider that my review is done. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 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) 13:35, 14 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2022 [27].

Matangi (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I would give people a break from endless articles on Gillingham F.C. :-) Back in 2013 I successfully nominated this article for GA but I'm not sure why I never brought it to FAC as I had done with the artist's previous studio albums. So, nine years later, here it finally is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Comments to come soon FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: hope you are well, just wondering if you still hoped to take a look at this article....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was waiting for Your Power to finish their review before I start mine.

Be consistent with the Oxford comma. Places like "Hit-Boy, Doc McKinney, Danja, Surkin and The Partysquad" use it while others like "Bring the Noize", "Come Walk with Me", and "Y.A.L.A." don't.
"reportedly featured input from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - reportedly indicates an expression of doubt when M.I.A. herself confirmed it. I see no reason that the artist herself would lie about something like this.
"The album received highly positive reviews from critics, many of whom cited it as a return to form" - whose return to form?
"She made a decision to" -> "She decided to"
However, she said it does not have "a tranquil flute massage sound." Full stop after the quotation mark after MOS:LQ.
"Despite an initial mixed review, Pitchfork ranked the album at number 46" - although the review and the ranking are both from Pitchfork, they came from different critics so I would leave the "mixed" part out. FrB.TG (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - all done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (pass)[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I still wanted to help in some way. My comments on the images and audio sample are below:

File:MIA Matangi Cover.png has a clear purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text.
For File:Matangi.jpg, I would alter the caption to avoid starting with "The artist" as I find that phrasing to be awkward. Shortening the image caption may also help prevent it from cutting across section headings. I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to this image as well. Everything looks appropriate for the image on the Wikimedia Commons end.
File:Bad Girls - MIA.ogg needs a stronger justification for inclusion. It is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum and to the best of my understanding, audio samples should only be used in an album article if they are somehow representative of the album as a whole and illustrate something the prose cannot alone (like critics saying a certain song represents a genre, production choice, etc. throughout the entire album). This audio sample is more focused on the individual song rather than the album.
Do you think the article would benefit from including an image of M.I.A., preferably from around the album's release?
This is not related to the image or audio sample, but I was surprised that the article does not a legacy or impact section (á la 1989). Was there any kind of retrospective articles or analysis of this album?

I hope that this review was helpful. Apologies for not being able to do a full prose review. To summarize my comments above, I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to both images, revise the Matangi image caption, and either remove or provide a different rationale for the audio sample. The last two bullet points are clarification questions. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - thanks for your comments. I'll address the first three in due course but re: the last one, I couldn't find anything of note. The album was not a major success (only one week in the UK albums chart), is not one that has been a major influence on any other artists as far as I can see, did not boost M.I.A. to greater success like that Taylor Swift album did for her (her career was already on a downward trajectory, TBH), and has not really been written about in any significant way since its initial period of release. Her first album was featured in a book published years later called something like "Albums You Must Hear Before You Die" but nobody really looks at this one in the same way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I was surprised because I remember "Bad Girls" just being everywhere at the time, but this is probably a case of me confusing that with the album having a greater sense of importance. If anything, that song may have a more long-lasting legacy than the album. I appreciate that you took the time to answer this question. Your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All other points now addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. File:M.I.A. - Festival Primavera Fauna 2013.jpg checks out to me. I would recommend archiving the source link and adding an author link to user's main Flickr account, but neither of these points are requirements. If you ever want to add an audio sample to the article, please let me know. I have briefly scanned through the article, and the Jim Carroll review would provide a solid justification for "Bad Girls" as an example of the album's "hard-bodied pop tracks" or the Alexis Petridis review identifies "Bring the Noize" as representative of the album. Either way, this passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from NØ[edit]

M.I.A. is addressed as a recording artist here, as a rapper and hip hop artist on previous album articles, and as a "rapper and singer" on her biography. I was curious which one you think is the most appropriate one and it should probably be consistent.
"Matangi did, however, top the US Dance/Electronic Albums chart" - I've been advised against the usage of "however" on some nominations
"The song "Y.A.L.A.", ..., was seen as a response to the slogan ..." - Was this the perception of critics? This could be more clearly stated
"Matangi was originally teased when M.I.A. posted a photo of herself in the studio in November 2011, on TwitPic" => "M.I.A. originally teased Matangi by posting a photo of herself in the studio on TwitPic in November 2011"
"Internationally, Matangi attained moderate impact on the charts, reaching number 47" - The middle part probably constitutes original research unless directly stated by a secondary source and should be removed. Which would leave this as "Internationally, Matangi reached number 47 ..."

Glad to see you take on something music related! That's all from me :-)--N Ø 17:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- N Ø 08:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias[edit]

Hi Chris! With all the help you've extended in my previous two FACs I find it fair that I finally review one of yours :-) I have one up right now if you're interested!

Maaaany sources here need archive links. Some like the WaPo source and the RS source are dead.
- I've replaced all the dead links. I'll keep trying to run the bot to archive the ones which aren't dead, but I don't believe this is a requirement for FAC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some OR concerns:
- "M.I.A. Blasts Oprah..." does not explicitly say Maya tanked commercially compared to her previous albums. All we get is "M.I.A.'s new album /\/\ /\ Y /\ drops from No. 9 to No. 34 in its second week on the Billboard 200, selling 11,000 copies, according to Nielsen Soundscan (down 61%)."
  - Source replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The three sources cited before that do say that Maya received mixed-negative reviews as the current article implies, but none of them say that her albums before that received critical acclaim.
  - Sources replaced
The critical reception section could use work.
- Too many quotations for comfort.
- WP:RECEPTION try to consolidate similar comments from varying reviews instead of paraphrasing every review you used. In other words, summarize the reviews as a whole and not the reviews individually. For example, write "Gavin Haynes of NME and Alexis Petridis of The Guardian praised the album for its nonconformity to the characteristics of mainstream music" instead of paraphrasing whatever specific comments they made.
  - Both the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Following this, the artist [M.I.A.]... The rapper [M.I.A.] has been..." -> let me preface this comment by saying that this is completely optional and you don't really have to implement it since a lot of it has to do with stylistic preference. I'm not a fan of WP:ELEVAR such as this one; this writing style is more for the realm of magazines and newspapers than encyclopedias. Either we use her name or her pronouns.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"experienced a period during which she struggled to find motivation to make music" this is a lot of words to simply say "Following this, M.I.A. struggled to find motivation for new music." Verbosity is a recurring aspect of this article - "originally teased", "the first by M.I.A.", "She eventually found initial inspiration".
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"allegedly featured input... M.I.A. contended... who purportedly..." this is pretty strong and aggressive wording, portraying the claim that Assange helped M.I.A. with the album as something outrageous. Is there any reason why we should doubt whatever M.I.A. is saying about her own album's recording? Can't we simply say "M.I.A. said" ?
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure "western" and "eastern" have to be capitalized
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Metro an ok source to use here?
- Writer Arwa Haider has written for The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, The Guardian, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some points on comprehensiveness:
- Can we clarify in the prose (or in a footnote, if you wish) why M.I.A. and Diplo were in dispute? This seems like an interesting thing that begs to be explained.
  - Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For an album inspired heavily by Hinduism I expected to see which songs tackle the relevant themes. Which songs deal with karma, for example? Which songs incorporate the om chant? Are there any other themes explored on this album?
"noted for" see MOS:SAID
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of "Promotion" is way
- @Untroubled.elias: - is part of this comment missing.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude, whoops my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say that there are a couple unwieldy sentences in that article, such as that one. I see that you have already split the sentence I mentioned, which is a good start. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 10:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 11 has "NME" in publisher but all other NME sources put it in work
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Stereogum writer" stereogum should be italicised
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concerns have to do with sourcing and the professional tone of the prose. I have not done a full spot check of the article references, but if anyone deems it necessary then by all means. Currently, I do not feel confident to offer my support - ~~I am leaning oppose~~. Sincerely hope this gets addressed promptly - I may do a proper, full review of the article once these initial concerns are struck. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 08:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

"Despite the positive critical reception and its inclusion in several year-end lists, its first-week sales were significantly lower than those of M.I.A.'s previous album, and its chart peak was lower in all major markets" see the OR concern above. Even if this were verified, commercial success and critical success are not mutually inclusive (look at whatever Drake is doing) so there is no need to contrast the two information.
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to comprehensiveness concerns:
- I read in passing somewhere that M.I.A. infuses a lot of her music with political commentary. Can we clarify this context in the background so the last sentence of the "Recording" section does not seem random?
  - Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the Fader interview a bit and it tells me that M.I.A. was inspired by stories of female spirituality in particular while making the album. The article needs to elaborate on which songs tackle these themes in the "Music and lyrics" section. I can see that there are lots of tracks that have not been discussed here - maybe those are the songs that employ such themes?
- "it was eventually pushed back by M.I.A.'s label, which claimed the record was 'too positive'." What is this supposed to mean? I'd elaborate or remove it altogether.
  - Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "music and lyrics" is synonymous with "composition" so rename "Composition and recording" to "background and recording"
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning that Diplo provided no contributions to the album whilst failing to mention the album's many contributors which are listed in the lead feels off
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Matangi. It is out of place to mention that "Bad Girls" first appeared in a mixtape before this album and that that version sounded different.
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"which led M.I.A., whose real name is Mathangi [sic] Arulpragasam, to choose the latter as the album's official name." Three things
- Why is there a [sic] there?
  - It was meant to reflect the fact that her name is not spelt exactly the same as the album title, but I guess it's no big deal so I removed it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- M.I.A. picking the album's title should be in "background and recording", not "release and artwork" IMO.
  - Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited Fact source does not explicitly state that M.I.A. chose Matangi as the title because it matches her real name. Other sources say she does, however, so replace the Fact one.
  - Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done copyediting (diff) on the article to address sentence length, verbose wording, active voice, and flow and cohesion of paragraphs. I added some information I found from the currently cited sources as well. Please feel free to make further amendments to these edits or revert some of them if you find them unhelpful.

My stance on the article's readiness for the bronze star remains, although I am glad to see swift progress. :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 12:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Power: just as an update, I believe the only things outstanding are adding some more about lyrical themes and sorting out the archive links. I tried running the IABot to archive the existing sources but it didn't do anything, don't know if I am doing something wrong......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: it tends to do that for me as well. Unfortunately it seems that someone would have to do the archiving manually. Anyways, I have done another round of copyediting+addition of new content in light of the recent additions you made to the article. As always feel free to revert ones with which you disagree. With that, some more comments - I am really sorry that my review has dragged this far!

"Her fans gave her two ideas" the tweet by itself seems to indicate it's the other direction?
I doubt PopCrush is a high-quality source to use here, which means that the bit about the "car imagery" (which that source supports) can be cut
The "Reviewing the album track by track..." line is barely understandable and IMO does not add anything of value to the article.
Re. third paragraph of reception section: again, the use of "noted" here is discouraged. Also I have difficulty tracking what that sentence is supposed to mean.

That should be all, hopefully

Appreciate all the effort undertaken to tidy up this article. A bit of a tangent, but I've seen a lot of memes with the caption "live fast die young bad girls do it well" within the past two years, and it only occurred to me where that line came from after reading this article. Huh. The more you know. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 13:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of those last few points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Power: I think I have addressed every point above to the best of my ability, would you be able to re-visit.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChrisTheDude - you really worked your butt off with this article, wow! You deserve your 10s - the article has improved significantly compared to when I first arrived here! The only thing holding back a support from me is this bit from the lead: " 'Bad Girls' ... became one of M.I.A.'s most successful singles." That requires explicit attribution somewhere in the prose and I just don't see it. As much as I want to see the archived versions of the source links, I understand that it is beyond the scope of my intended prose review; thus it won't really stop me from supporting once the last concern is addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Power: - I just deleted that claim as upon reflection I think it was questionable (it was only her fourth biggest hit in the UK, for example) and re-worked the sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that last pressing concern has been addressed! After a lot of reading and commenting I am confident to say I can now support this article based on the prose quality and comprehensiveness. Nice work! Hope to see you work on more music articles soon; love to see you branching out into new topics. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 07:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Power: thanks for your support. Just to note, while I haven't done much related to music here at FAC, over at FLC I have successfully promoted over 80 music-related lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DAMN. When I tell you my jaw dropped upon seeing that number... I see notifs about your FLs passing in places like the WP:SIGNPOST, but I was not aware you've been doing that for a while. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 07:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

"Matangi's first-week sales were significantly lower than those of M.I.A.'s previous album, and its chart peak was lower in all major markets." - source?
- Removed the bit about sales, the other bit is (now) sourced in the commercial performance section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN1 is missing author. Ditto FN19, check throughout
- Fixed 1, 19 and one other. Didn't find any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Missing FN69, 71 - please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes The Fader a high-quality reliable source? Metro? 7digital? AnyDecentMusic?
- Removed/replaced all these sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FNs30 and 46 appear to be the same source
- Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN63: author name doesn't match source. Ditto 54, check throughout
- Fixed those, didn't find any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check formatting of nested quote marks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: - unsure what the last point means, please could you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - When a title contains quotation marks (eg FN35), you end up getting a string of double-quotes. These should instead be nested per WP:QWQ. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN49 is now broken
- Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN16 has doubled |title=. Ditto FN44, check throughout.
- Fixed, no others found -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic is sometimes italicized, sometimes not.
- Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - phew, all done now (I think!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing author for Fn67 - in cases like this it's reasonable to just list the author for the specific entry, although if you'd prefer all of them that's fine too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: with three supports on prose and completed source and image reviews on this nom, would it be OK to start another one? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Apologies for not getting to this FAC earlier. I hope my comments below are helpful:

Is there a reason why the lead starts with a two-sentence paragraph? I have not seen album FAs use this structure. It looks and reads choppy to me, but that could be a matter of personal preference.
This part (on her own label, N.E.E.T. Recordings, through Interscope Records) reads awkwardly to me. Would something like (on her own label, N.E.E.T. Recordings, which is an imprint of Interscope Records) be beneficial? I just find the mention of the two labels confusing in the current wording.
Would it be possible to add more information to the lead about the album's delayed release? This information is mentioned in relation to the singles, but it feels like I am missing information.
The lead only mentions the positive reviews even though there's an entire paragraph in the "Critical reception" section focused on more critical reviews.
I am uncertain about this sentence: It was included in several publications' year-end lists of the best albums of 2013, but its chart peak was lower on the main album chart of both the UK and United States. It puts two pieces of information in relation to each other, but an album's placement on a year-end list does not really have any bearing on its chart performance.
Is there a reason why the lead only mentions the US and UK charts? I do not think every country should be named, but I was wondering if there was space for a broad sentence on its chart placement in other countries. It just seems odd to only focus on two countries.
Shouldn't the last two singles, "Double Bubble Trouble" and "Sexodus", be mentioned in the lead?
Does the experimental hip-hop genre need a citation in the infobox? Is it considered controversial enough to require a citation here rather than sourcing it just through the article?
On a similar note, why use experimental hip-hop rather than alternative hip hop? I only ask because the current wording is a redirect to the main article.
I'd move the Matangi image to the left to avoid potential interference with the infobox in certain views.

My comments are focused on the lead and the infobox, apart from a comment on an image. Once everything has been addressed above, I will read through the rest of the article and add more to my review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this part (many of whom cited it as a return to form for M.I.A. compared to Maya (2010), her previous album) supported in the article. In the "Critical reception" section, I only see one critic (Jem Aswad of Spin) make this point.
Apologies if this is super obvious, but where is 2010–2013 recording dates sourced in the article? I am likely just reading over it, but I wanted to make sure it was present and sourced in the article.
I believe the first sentence of the "Background and recording" section would benefit from further revision. I would avoid using "works" in this way as I was told it is too vague, although I understand its use to avoid repeating "albums".
This part (Following this, she struggled) makes it seem like she struggled because of Maya's critical/commercial performance, but the citation has her saying she wanted to change her creative process which she found "really saturated and predictable".
Citation 4 is being used to support the Google Search sentence, but that information is not there and instead appears in Citation 5.
I believe the part on the deterioration of M.I.A.'s relationship with Diplo would benefit from further revision and clarity. A lot of information is pushed into one sentence and as someone on the outside, it is not very clear to me. For instance, I've never heard of the "critical article" in the New York Times so more information would be helpful.
The final sentence of the "Background and recording" section seems like it would make more sense in the "Release and artwork" section as it is more about the album's release than its recording.
For this part (ranked it the best song on M.I.A.'s four albums to date), I would avoid wording like "to date" as it could mean different things depending on when the readers sees it. I'd just say on "M.I.A.'s first four albums".
Would changing (the Hindu creation of the world) to (the Hindu creation myth) be helpful? I think a link would be beneficial and something about the current wording seems off to me.
I would not use (Meanwhile) as a transition outside of either plot summaries or discussing events happening at the same time.
For the Superbowl bit, why is only Madonna mentioned when M.I.A. was also performing with Nicki Minaj as well?
For this bit (a hit single by female duo), I would avoid using "hit" in this context as it is too informal for Wikipedia.
If the album does officially sample other tracks, why are none of these mentioned in the "Track listing" section?
For this part ("Atention" reportedly contains an uncredited sample of), I would attribute who reports this in the pose. Otherwise, it is unclear who is reporting this information (i.e. a critic, fans, other artists, etc.).
Do you think the "Paul Simon on acid" quote from Citation 38 would be beneficial to include in the article? I find it both interesting and reflective on how she thought the album sounded at that time.
The article only mentions Interscope Records releasing the album and doesn't mention N.E.E.T. Recordings in the prose.
I think the M.I.A. quote in the "Release and artwork" section could be paraphrased. I could understand some parts of the quote being used (like "too positive"), but I do not see the need for the entire quote.
I have a question about this part (The label responded by announcing the album's official release date as 5 November.). Since the album was ultimately released on 1 November, could the earlier release be mentioned in the prose?
The "Promotion" section appears to be missing some information (like about the music videos, the critical reception, live performances etc.). This section should be an overview of this information, but it feels like a lot is missing.
I would rewrite the first sentence of the "Promotion" section as I think there would be a better and clearer way to introduce this information. It reads like people should already be familiar with M.I.A.'s work and as someone who is not, it took me by surprise and I was confused by this "new recording" when the original recording was not introduced first.
For "Bad Girls", why is only (number 43 on the UK Singles Chart) mentioned when it did chart elsewhere as well?
The "Promotion" section does not mention "Sexodus" being a single.
It seems rather random to only mention the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon performance when at least according to the "Y.A.L.A." article, she has performed other singles on other talk shows (i.e. The Colbert Report and Late Night with Conan O'Brien).

I hope these comments are helpful. My review goes up to the end of the "Promotion" section. I think you have done a lot of wonderful work with the article, but I do think the "Promotion" section needs a significant amount of work. I also think an audio sample would be very beneficial as M.I.A. has such a specific style and I have mentioned a few ways that this could be implemented in my image review. Best of luck with this FAC and I will continue my review once everything's addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thanks for your comments. I have tried to address all of the above. I am slightly confused though when you say that the Promotion section should give an overview of critical reception. Do you mean it should summarise the critical reception section immediately below? Or am I misunderstanding.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review and for addressing everything so far. That is a fair question. I meant more giving an overview on how the single was individually received in reviews as the critical reception section would be more focused on how the album was received as a whole. That being said, when I look through other album FAs, I do not see this kind of thing being done often so this could just be a matter of personal preference and I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this part (M.I.A. primarily handled the production for Matangi with). It gives me the impression that M.I.A. produced a substantial portion of the album, but from reading the track listing, she has only produced one song. I was curious if I was possibly misreading this part?
Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, I would italicize album titles in the citation titles. It was something that I only learned about recently lol.
How are websites and publishers linked in the citations? I am only wondering since The Guardian is not linked in Citation 3. Is it a case where the websites/publishers are linked in all instances or on the first instance (and both are valid choices so I will leave that up to your personal preference of course).
Would it be possible to avoid using Amazon as a citation? From my experience, it has been discouraged to use it as a source in a FA context.
Citation 43 appears as an error message for me.
M.I.A. should be linked in Citation 37. I would double-check the citations to make sure authors with links have their appropriate link).

This should cover everything, but I will read through the article a few more times tomorrow to just make sure I have not missed anything. Thank you again for your patience with my review, and I hope I am not being too much of a bother. It is great to see more representation in the FA -space. While I have tons of issues with M.I.A., I hope this FAC encourages editors to nominate more diverse styles of music in this space. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - all done bar Amazon. I couldn't find an alternative source for the specific release dates sourced to Amazon - should I just remove them? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. Upon further reflection, the Amazon citations should be fine. It is preferable to have this information in the article in some capacity and since these citations already passed through the source review, they should not be an issue for my review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last question/comment for my review before I support the article for promotion. Citation 82 includes a long list of authors. The citation itself only uses NME as the by-line, although these writers are all individually credited in their individual write-ups on the albums. This is unlike Citation 80 which does list all of these authors in ths article's by-line. Citation 82 is more in-line with Citation 77, and I think like Citation 77, it should not have any author attached to it because the current structure is not an accurate representation of the by-line in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done - I had somehow failed to notice that there were initials at the end of each little write-up showing who specifically wrote it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to the best of us. That is the point of the FAC process anyway to point out these kinds of things we miss. That being said, I do not think the citation should have Leonie Cooper as the author since she is not the main author of the list and I believe the current structure gives that impression. I would not have an author attached to it because the publication did not specify any of the authors as the primary one in the by-line. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - OK, removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC and have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 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) 23:12, 13 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2022 [28].

Northolt siege[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a hostage situation in London (safely inside the M25, Tim!) in 1985, mostly remembered today as the first time a police officer from a dedicated armed unit shot a suspect. Up until that point, most suspects cornered by armed police either surrendered or shot themselves. It marked a turning point from the Dixon of Dock Green image of an entirely unarmed police force (which was always a myth) towards the use of more professional teams of specialist armed officers to deal with armed criminality. I started this article last summer and have recently come back to it and expanded it. Pleasingly, all the books I needed for this were already on my shelf. I'm hoping a friend will be able to get to Northolt when the weather allows to take photos of the location as it today just so the reader has something to look at, as all photos of the siege appear to be held by agencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review. The given image is appropriately licensed and I note your comment about getting a picture of the site, but are there any images that would be valuable to include under a fair-use claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, as far as I can tell there's essentially multiple versions of one still photograph from the incident and it's owned by Getty, meaning the policy hurdles to overcome are higher. It would have to be the subject of commentary in the article, which at the moment it isn't. In previous cases (like the Chandler's Ford shooting or the Iranian Embassy siege) there has been an image which itself has attracted attention. I could shoehorn in a sentence to the effect of "this photo exists" if you feel that would be useful and in keeping with the spirit of the policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think just 'this photo exists' would work, but what about photos of the individuals involved? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Hi Harry and Nikki, how are we going resolving this (or is it already)...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'm not sure it can be resolved. Chris (Thryduulf) has very kindly ventured over to Northolt to get pictures of the building the incident took place in. All photos of the incident are held by agencies so can't be used unless they're the subject of commentary in the article but there's no commentary in the sources about individual images (see Chandler's Ford shooting) for an example of a fair use image that is actually the subject of commentary) and none of the people involved are public figures so I don't think there's much hope of any more-relevant illustrations. That's mostly why I included the external link to the Thames News clip. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it sounds like there are no issues with images currently in the article -- ever the pragmatist, that was the main thing I wanted to check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chris[edit]

"Instead, she went to a neighbouring fat" - amusing typo there :-)
"taking the sister and both daughters hostage" - both daughters? Only one has been mentioned up to this point.....?
"Walker ventured away from the flat door" - I presume this means he went outside? The current wording is ambiguous as it could mean that he retreated further into the flat
"but was not allowed to enter the Jacqueline's flat" - stray "the"
"Walker eventually released his daughter" - given the previous sentence, could you clarify that he didn't release her out of the window?
"He peered into the window of neighbouring flat" => "He peered into the window of a neighbouring flat"
That's what I got. An interesting read - I was a teenager when this happened but don't recall it at all. Maybe I was too busy with my Christmas presents to watch the news...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, thanks very much for having a look and for spotting my typos! Believe I've addressed everything but please let me know if there's anything else that needs fixing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anarchyte[edit]

I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment but here are some passing comments. I think "D11 was established following the shooting deaths of three police officers in 1966" should be before or incorporated into the "For pre-planned or protracted operations" sentence. It seems slightly out of place at the moment, and I think giving the backstory first would improve the flow. Also, should "it was professionalising and developing its capabilities" be "it professionalised and developed its capabilities"? This uses less words. I'd also like to see the definition of "D11" explored slightly, at least in the lede. I don't live in England so I'm not familiar with their naming protocols, and going from "the Met's firearm wing" to "D11" is not intuitive. If this is still open in a couple weeks and you're strapped for reviewers, feel free to give me a ping and I'll take a better look. Anarchyte (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anarchyte, thanks for the feedback! I've reworded the background a little bit. D11 is a fairly arbitrary designation; most central departments of the Metropolitan Police have one and they tend to change with force restructures every few years (D11 became PT17, then SO19, and so on). It doesn't mean much but it gives an opportunity to vary the prose a little. If you have time to do a full review, I'd appreciate it but I understand IRL constraints all too well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the first bit of Siege, it is ambiguous who "her" is when two women have been mentioned. I assume it's Marlene, but I don't want to change it myself just in case.
"Armed with a large kitchen knife, he took Jacqueline, her daughter, and his own daughter hostage" -- who is "her daughter". Is that Jacqueline's daughter?
What happened to the other child in Rescue?

Anarchyte (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Anarchyte! I'm afraid I reverted you slightly on "professionalising and developing"; in 1985 they were in the middle of a process of maturing, as exemplified by the fact that this was the first time they shot anyone. Alas, progress was mostly reactionary, but I'm trying to document some of the incidents that prompted change. The other child was released before the rescue, as covered in the "siege" section. Believe I've addressed everything else, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the other changes. How does "continued professionalising..." sound? Anarchyte (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte To me at least, it begs the question "continued from what?" as this is the first mention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'll have another read over within the next few days and then I'll vote. Anarchyte (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One author of a history of the unit felt" - missing a word somewhere? Isn't clear.
Do we know Marlene's surname?
"Guided by commentary from an observer" - is this an uninvolved observer, or a police officer etc?
The redirection link Anthony Long (police officer) seems out of place. It doesn't talk about the officer in that much detail, so it's a bit of a surprise. If you think it's relevant, perhaps a short statement in parentheses about Azelle Rodney (and then link through that name instead) would be better.

Once these are resolved I'll be happy to support. Anarchyte (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Fixed the first and third. The second, I tend not name non-notable individuals who get caught up in notable incidents though no fault of their own, and the last, Long needs his own article really; he's undoubtedly notable, having been involved in another notable shooting besides Walker and Rodney and written a book about his experiences. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the prose. Anarchyte (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thryduulf[edit]

I have now uploaded three photographs of the location that can be added to the article if desired.

Although not mentioned directly in the text, the news report linked in the article showed the flat in question to be on the top floor and to the right of the staircase. The doors, windows and balcony railings have been replaced but it otherwise seems little changed externally. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple footnotes state "Smith (2011)" but the bibliography references no such publication - there are works by Stephen Smith dated 2013 and 2019, and one by Maurice Punch dated 2011. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, thank you for the photos! I've inserted two of them into the article. And thank you for pointing out the referencing error, I've fixed that now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The picture captions use only "Poynter Court" (the building name), the map and lead section of the article just use "Gallery Gardens" (the street name). To improve the context I suggest adjusting the first picture caption to "Poynter Court, in Gallery Gardens, ..." and expanding the map caption to note that "Poynter Court is the building oriented east-west at the south end of the street" (not necessarily those exact words).
Walker was presumed to be dead but regained consciousness a few minutes later, when he was arrested, 29 hours after barricading himself in the flat. I found this sentence awkward and had to read it a couple of times. I think rewording it to "Walker was presumed to be dead but was arrested when he regained consciousness a few minutes later, 29 hours after..." would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, both good points and I've addressed both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further suggestions, so support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

Lead seems a bit long for such a short article
- I always struggle with leads! It's difficult to decide what information to cull. See what you think now.
"The Northolt siege was a hostage situation which developed in Northolt, West London, England, on 25 December 1985 and resulted in the shooting of Errol Walker, the first shooting by an officer from the Metropolitan Police's dedicated Firearms Wing (D11)." - might suggest splitting into two sentences? Seems a bit long for the lead
- Done.
"One officer found Walker lying on a sofa, holding the knife to the child, and fired three shots. Walker was knocked unconscious but both he and the girl survived." - I notice you don't state explicitly that he was hit; might also briefly mention where if you think that's relevant
- I've made it explicit; the location (or at least what was hit vs what was aimed for) might be a little too complex for the lead.
I do think it's a little shady that his wife is not named in the lead. Minor change, but an important one I think
- She wasn't directly involved; in fact, now I've culled the lead, she's not mentioned at all.
"Walker continued to commit crimes, now including armed robberies." - I'd replace now here, since I think it reads as "currently" and that's not what you're actually trying to say --> what about expanding to armed robberies or something like that but more concise?
- Done.
"Walker visited Marlene and the four-year-old child multiple times over several weeks but was not allowed to enter Jacqueline's flat.[6][7]" - because of a restraining order or equivalent, or just bc the sister did not allow it?
- The latter. Restraining orders weren't really a thing in the 80s and domestic violence wasn't taken very seriously by the police (victims were usually given tea and sympathy then advised to pursue a civil claim against their assailants; thankfully things are better today).

This is an engaging, well-written article. I intend to support once these comments are addressed. ceranthor 18:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceranthor, thank you very much for the review; I'm glad you found the article engaging. I hope I've addressed everything to your satisfaction but let me know if there's anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only remaining suggestion would be to remove the second sentence in the lead since you state near the end of the lead that "although the Firearms Wing had existed for almost 20 years, Northolt marked the first time one of its officers had opened fire, and the first use of stun grenades by British police." Nice work here. ceranthor 15:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for the suggestion. I think I prefer it the way it is because that's the main reason this incident is notable; had the shooting been done by local officers or by D11/its successors in a later era, I doubt it would have attracted as much attention, at least from academics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. No formatting issues, sources are reliable, no links to check. I did add ref=none to the cites as you're not using sfn. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 12 December 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) 22:55, 13 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2022 [29].

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector[edit]

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This highway in Atlantic City, New Jersey runs for less than 2.4 miles (3.9 km), yet it has a pretty interesting (and controversial) history. First proposed in the 1960s, planning didn't begin for over 30 years, until casino mogul Steve Wynn proposed building a new resort, but only under the conditions that a new highway be built to it. The project had many opponents, including local residents (whose homes were eventually demolished for its construction) and Donald Trump (back in his casino days). Politicians supported the project and it was ultimately built, carrying up to 25,000 vehicles per day.

I've always had a fascination with Atlantic City and highway infrastructure, so I started working on this article in 2007. I got it promoted to both GA and A-Class in 2008, then I didn't touch the article for many years. Finally, after 15 years and 2 peer reviews, I am ready to submit this for FA nomination!

Image review[edit]

How does this article comply with MOS:ICON?
File:Atlantic_City_Expy_Connector.svg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to answer your first question. The only icons in the article are highway shields, which are automatically rendered through the ((jct)) template, and I don't see how they would not be compliant with MOS:ICON. Regarding the Connector shield, I have updated the file description to note that it was first designed/published in 1964. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on why you feel they would? They don't fall under the points under #Appropriate use. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel they are noncompliant. The use of highway shield icons in infoboxes and junction/exit tables is standard for highway articles (both in the US and other countries). Every highway article in WP:FA#Road infrastructure uses these icons. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the same information is conveyed immediately afterward in all cases which is the idea behind MOSICON. --Rs chen 7754 22:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire[edit]

Nice article. Two quick things that jumped out at me, though:

The opening of the connector also shifted business from casinos along the Atlantic City Boardwalk to those in the Marina district. The eight casinos along the boardwalk in 2001 were down to four by 2016.

This is misleading. The cited article happened to be written in the year that was the absolute nadir of the AC casino industry in general. List of casinos in New Jersey indicates that there are currently six casinos outside the marina district; 2016 was weird because that was when the Taj Mahal was closing down to be reopened later as Hard Rock (which was not surprising), and when the Revel had closed down but not yet reopened as Ocean (okay, this one was more feasible to think that Revel was maybe dusted forever in 2016). Additionally, the Borgata is also the best-run casino in town and the second-most modern; it's making the Marina location look better simply by happening to be there, equivalent to hyping up the coaching staff of a successful basketball team that also happens to have some star player on it. Maybe, but maybe it's just that's where the star is currently playing. I recognize that the Press article does suggest such a shift, but I think we can use editorial discretion and write that off as an artifact of the very specific time it was written. I think we can use the article to endorse the idea that easier access made the Marina area more lucrative, but the idea that it somehow made the Boardwalk casinos worse off would require a more recent source IMO.

Critics dismissed the project as the "road to nowhere".

Okay, on one hand, spicy magazine-style quotes are good to avoid a topic from getting too dry, but... this was a pretty unfair jibe. When casual readers think "X to nowhere", they often think of the likes of the Gravina Island Bridge that would have connected 50 people with a bridge. Brigantine isn't exactly nowhere - 10K people live there, so even if there were no casinos in the Marina at all, it's not like this kind of project would have been totally troll. Up to you on whether to keep this, but it might suggest there was more to the claims of it being a "private driveway" than was really accurate. SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I took out the "road to nowhere" sentence, which was easily expendable. Regarding the first comment, I could rewrite these sentences in the context of the news article itself (i.e. In 2016, The Press of Atlantic City published an article that discussed how the connector affected the city's casino industry..."). I don't want to entirely nix the last 3 sentences of the article. What do you suggest here? –Dream out loud (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing that quote works for me.

On the "Connector caused the boardwalk to shrivel to only 4 casinos" issue, one way to think about it is that the Connector has existed for 21 years, during which for a year and a half or so there were a mere 4 casinos at the boardwalk. And our source happens to be written during that year and a half - when that ThePressOfAC article was written, as far as the author knew, those closed Boardwalk casinos would never reopen, and maybe more would close. That isn't what happened, though. I dunno, it feels like citing an article written during the dot-com crash of 2000-2001 wondering whether a particular tech company would survive - when we know that said company did survive and later recovered its market capitalization, if possibly after making changes (per Whelan's comment). It sucks we don't have a newspaper article written in 2018 or later specifically on the topic of the Connector and Marina-Boardwalk balance, but alas, ThePressOfAC like most local news is a skeleton of its former self. If you're not comfortable with discussing the later history of the Boardwalk area (which would contradict the implication in the "only 4 casinos" comment of continued decline) for fear of WP:SYNTH, I'd rather cut that section down some instead. Maybe something like this (this is a suggestion, not a mandate, feel free to adjust):

The opening of the connector improved business for casinos in Atlantic City's Marina district. State records of 2016 showed that the three Marina district casinos had an average annual gross revenue of $134 million, compared to $70 million for the casinos along the boardwalk, the traditional center of Atlantic City gaming. Transportation analyst and former SJTA executive Anthony Marino cited the connector's ease of access to the Marina district casinos as a factor in their success and a challenge for boardwalk casinos; Whelan said it forced boardwalk casinos to reevaluate their business models.

SnowFire (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a rewrite of the last 3 sentences based on your feedback. I think removing the details about the "suffering" of the boardwalk casinos was a good idea. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: Any further thoughts? --Rs chen 7754 02:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been very busy the past few weeks - travel & such. It's a good article! I can vouch for it from a Southern New Jersey perspective, if not the minutiae of Roads Wikiprojects. All the sources I checked seemed to check out if there's a desire for a reference check. On the icons issue above, that seems a wider issue than just this article - it seems like something that should be taken up with at a Wikiproject level, lest the author be stuck with two clashing sets of recommendations. Anyway, a few last nitpicks:

Hazardous materials are prohibited on the connector.

Genuine question: is this relevant enough to mention? It's in the Infobox, yes, but seems a bit minor to me (disclaimer: I don't really edit roads articles). If it's standard to mention this in articles on roads, go ahead and keep it, it just seems a little too in-the-weeds for most people who don't plan on driving trucks full of explosives into a tunnel.

however the SJTA said the design was a "compromise" to allow for a full interchange at Bacharach Boulevard and provide access to the convention center.

No need to quote compromise, right? It was a compromise, no qualification required.

fell from 15 minutes to four.

Is there some MOS guideline about not using inconsistent numeric types in short succession? Unsure. If there is, maybe "15 minutes to 4" for consistency-within-sentence even if four can be spelled out if it was on its own. SnowFire (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire All suggested changes have been made: removed mention of hazardous materials, removed unncessary quotes, changed numerical spelling. By the way, MOS:NUMNOTES does says that in comparable values, numbers should be written consistently. Would appreciate your "Support" on this nomination! Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on content. Note that I did a partial source review as well and happy to check the other references if desired, but the refs I did check checked out. SnowFire (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller source review[edit]

I went back and gave it a more thorough look-through, checking all the refs I had access to. In my opinion, the best and most important sources are the Press of AC articles. This is an obscure topic so I understand there's a larger degree of primary-ish sources than preferable in better covered topics, but I don't believe that the primary sources are used particularly inappropriately. As stated in the earlier discussion, I disagree that the corporate contractor sources used earlier were that problematic, but it's entirely possible Rschen knows something more about WikiProject Roads level expectations than I do - like I said, I'm approaching this from a South Jersey perspective than a roads perspective. But it seems like Dream's removed that content so maybe moot now.

I will say that there are certainly more citations to random technical documents than would be ideal, but so it goes. On the Trump/Wynn feud book, I'll add that 2001-era Donald Trump was not yet 2016 Donald Trump- he had his name on 3 casinos, sure, but his actual stake in them was far from 100%, and he certainly didn't have much influence over the NJ legislature. Wynn was a richer and bigger player in the era. I don't think there needs to be any more content on Trump's opposition - it's entertaining and he liked getting media attention at the time, but it wasn't some automatic deal-killer or anything, much as Trump might have liked to think to have had that much influence.

has a posted speed limit of 35 mph (56 km/h).[7]

Strictly speaking, this is a reference that the speed limit was 35 mph in 2001. The YouTube dash cam video seems to show it's still 35 mph, and this may well be too boring to find a source on, but it might be nice for a more recent source to verify this is still true.

Exits along the route are designated by letter from A to I.[8]

Nitpick: The Press article merely says "has lettered exits but skips for some reason from Exit B to Exit E," and the later referenced map doesn't seem to have the letters on it. I don't actually care myself, but if you want to be a stickler, see if one of the maps has the letters to verify it goes to I? But this is nitpicking.

a request for qualifications to developers interested in developing H-Tract, a former landfill site in the Marina district.[15]

Citing a primary source like a legal ruling directly isn't great. If this is truly the only source, oh well, but a better source would be nice. Also, it should be noted the ruling calls it "Huron North" not "H-Tract", as do most of the sources I checked... it's called H-Tract elsewhere, I take it? Or is that just a subsection of Huron North? Maybe worth straightening out.

Wynn obtained the property from the city following his proposal to construct Le Jardin, a $1 billion casino resort.[16]

The "Culture of Corruption" book says that Wynn wanted to build to Le Jardin, yes, but it doesn't verify that Le Jardin and Huron North are the same thing. This article in the Le Jardin blurb verifies that Le Jardin was "on the Huron North Development Area site", but not that Wynn owned the entire Huron North (H-Tract?) area. I don't have access to the 1995 " "Link Between Expressway and Route 30 Proposed" article, is this information confirmed there? This might need some clarification, and not implying Wynn owned the whole area if it turns out he didn't.

Also, while we're here, citation 16 has "pp. 267–9". Per MOS:PAGERANGE, I believe Wikipedia prefers both numbers spelled out, so 267–269. SnowFire (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed source review. Here are my comments:

Speed limits aren't something that usually change. Ref 6 confirms that the speed limit is still 35 mph, but I don't think it's necessary to update the citation in the text.
To show the exit letters, you can look at Ref 4, which shows that the final exit is designated as Ramp I. This also shows that the exit letters correspond to the ramp letters. You can also see it on Google Street View.
I agree that citing a legal ruling for an article like this isn't the best option, but I haven't been able to find any other sources that discuss that pre-planning stages of the highway. I did replace one of the citations with a new source, which also cites that the land was called "H-Tract". Le Jardin and Huron North are not the same thing: Le Jardin was the name of the proposed (unbuilt) casino and Huron North (aka H-Tract) is the land where it was to be built. This report also confirms that the H-Tract and Huron North are synonymous. (I also learned that it should be written with a definite article as in "the H-Tract" which I have since updated.)
The one reference was fixed to comply with MOS:PAGERANGE.

–Dream out loud (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - Can you add a repeat of reference 4 (the map) after the line "Exits along the route are designated by letter from A to I," then? Just saying that the ref currently after the line doesn't technically go that far.
  - This might be nitpicking, but you've written "The city of Atlantic City issued a request for proposal to developers interested in developing the H-Tract, a former landfill site in the Marina district.[15] Wynn obtained the property from the city following his proposal to construct Le Jardin, a $1 billion casino resort." That's the part I'm asking for a reference on and what I really meant by "verifying Le Jardin and Huron North are the same thing," sorry if I was unclear. Of course Le Jardin was Wynn's proposal, but.... Did Wynn outright own Huron North / the H-Tract (like the bolded article passage currently suggests), or did the government own it and merely grant Wynn the rights to develop it? The court case you've cited here, as well as the existing references, seem to echo that Le Jardin would be in Huron North, but not that Le Jardin would cover all of Huron North, nor that Wynn owned the property outright. If anything, I would argue that the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc. case you've cited hints the reverse: it's not merely trying to injunct building the connector, but also "development of the Huron North Redevelopment Area." I'm not a land use expert, but that seems like a difficult claim to make if Wynn truly owned the H-Tract out-and-out; a proposed injunction forbidding development of city/state property would make more sense. (And regardless, I would suggest throwing an extra verifying reference or two on the sentence... as noted before, I don't think the "New Jersey's Culture of Corruption" passage quite covers everything being claimed.)
  - Per Rschen's comment below, you might need to get somebody else to do at least a cursory source review as well if you want his !vote. (But thanks for replying to mine!) SnowFire (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated Ref 4 as requested.
    
    This article states "Wynn acquired a 150-acre piece of land for $1", implying the city sold it to him for that price. This article also mentions that the land was "given" to Wynn by the city. So it's clear that it was his land at the time. I don't think the details of the the transaction are necessary, but I'll add in the source I just linked.
    
    Rschen seems to have an issue with just one source, but has already given his support to the promotion.
    –Dream out loud (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Rschen7754[edit]

I do intend to review this article. --Rs chen 7754 21:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 44 is a deadlink.
Lead - Locally, the freeway is known as... I know it is not usual to cite anything in the lead, but is this cited anywhere else in the article?
RD - not sure what you mean by "averages"
C and D footnote can probably just be integrated into the article text.

More later. --Rs chen 7754 02:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know Ref 44 is a dead link, hence it is tagged with ((dead link)) as per WP:KDL. I have not been able to find an archived link or an alternative citation.
"Locally known as 'the Tunnel'" is cited in the final section.
"Averages" refer to the fact that most of the highway has two lanes in each direction. There are small sections where is it one lane or three lanes per direction.
C and D footnotes will be removed. I don't see a need to mention them in the article text, as per additional comments below.

–Dream out loud (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the dead link I don't know how that is handled in FAs so I'll let others comment on that.
Are there statistics on the present day traffic counts?
You mention environmental concerns having to do with wetlands - were there any more details as to the specifics? i.e. destruction of habitat, effects on certain species.

More later. --Rs chen 7754 20:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 is the most recent traffic count data that I was able to find
Sources about environmental concerns in the wetlands do not go into much more information so I don't have anything additional to add there

–Dream out loud (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy, second paragraph - the first few sentences seem out of order. This makes it sound like Trump was opposed to the connector, which led to his being opposed to the casino. I assume it is the other way around.
I am a little surprised that the book itself is not referenced as a source.
Reference 39 doesn't seem to point to anything relevant (broken anchor) and I am not sure that it would be a valid citation for this purpose anyway (being a corporate website).
Similar concerns with reference 43. It seems like a construction company talking about what they did on their own website, which is not exactly neutral.
From the URL, reference 44 might fall into the same category.
$6.4 billion - probably should have inflation, but not sure this is a relevant detail for this article
Following the opening of Borgata in 2003 - the casino, I assume.
This concludes the review. --Rs chen 7754 03:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Trump was opposed to the connector because it would lead to the creation of a new casino. The first sentence states the fact that he's opposed to it, and the second sentence states why he was opposed and what he did about it. I don't really see how the sentences should be switched around.
- I haven't read the aforementioned book. Since the connector is the main subject of the book, it wouldn't make sense to cite the entire book (which is over 200 pages), so instead I cited a review about it.
- Ref 39 has been fixed with an archive link.
- Regarding ref nos. 39, 43, and 44, I don't see how using them as citations is a violation of WP:IS. The information cited here are facts about the project (e.g. number of workers, depth of the trench, type of technology installed), and not opinions or something that goes against a neutral point of view.
- Detail about "$6.4 billion deal" has been removed.
- Yes, the opening of the Borgata casino was in 2003. No need to state that it is a casino because that was already done in the previous section.
–Dream out loud (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the references, those are basically WP:SPS and do not fall under any exceptions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the construction sites is to promote their work. I do not see how they can be used here. --Rs chen 7754 15:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a peanut gallery comment on Rschen's concerns: On the carbon monoxide clearing system reference, I don't think a dead link with no archive is problematic in FAs, myself, since that link was merely a mirror of what was presumably a physical document prepared by the company. That physical document is what's being cited and there was a courtesy link to the source which is, annoyingly, currently dead. Besides, it's a supplemental reference anyway since that line is also referenced by the SJTA press release. (The only possible qualm is that the sentence links to Intelligent transportation system, but the SJTA press release merely calls it a "system." Oh well, not a huge leap to guess what kind of system it meant.) On the contested "official" sources: I think the important thing is that it comes down to whether the claims are promotional or not. The bit about dewatering being done (ref 43) seems a useful reference - the reference is merely saying that the company worked on dewatering which was necessary for the connector, which is both extremely plausible (Absecon Island is like 2 feet above sea level at that point) and an unlikely thing to lie about. For reference 39, I think the trench stuff is similar to dewatering, it'd be bizarre to lie about and is merely sourcing facts about the project. The worker count is a bit shakier (how were they counting?) - I personally don't think it's an issue but can see how that might be perceived as promotional (if it turns out that they were counting every hot dog vendor or the like). I do agree that "largest design–build project performed by the State of New Jersey and the largest public–private partnership project" isn't appropriate to source to the company and that sentence should be exclusively sourced to secondary sources, e.g. mirror what Delaney wrote and nobody else. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on SnowFire's comments, I removed the facts from the Yonkers source that could be disputed (i.e. number of workers, largest PPP in the US). –Dream out loud (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics can be inflated, processes used can be exaggerated, and the rationales can be made up. I am still of the opinion that those sources need to go (and in at least one case the sentence is cited to something else as well). I am also concerned that the book was not consulted and am worried that the article is not comprehensive. On a broad topic like a US president, omitting one book out of many is not a big deal, but on a narrow topic like this one, there probably are not many books around so it is. --Rs chen 7754 01:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book mainly details the feud between Trump and Wynn, not the highway itself. I don't think we need to go into more details about their feud here, which is already discussed in the Controversies section with other references. About your concerns for the self-published sources, I'm going to refer back to what SnowFire said above. Additionally, WP:ABOUTSELF clearly states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" as long as it is not an "exceptional claim" or any reason to doubt its authenticity. What's being cited here are small facts about the construction: the fact that a dewatering process was used, the depth of the trench dug, and that intelligent transportation system technology was installed. None of these claims have any reasonable doubt and it does not involve claims about third parties or events not directly related to the source. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the abstract [30] I am not so sure - isn't the feud an essential part of the history of the road? As far as the sources, I am happy to defer to the source review, however I cannot think of any road FA that uses construction company sites in this manner. (Keep in mind that the FA criteria require "high-quality reliable sources"). --Rs chen 7754 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I came across the Moretrench source (40) on a project profile page on the Federal Highway Administration's website.[31] I hope that can attribute to its validity. I was also able to replace the Yonkers source by using the Moretrench source a second time. So that just leaves a reference by Kapsch (43) which is only included to cite the fact that intelligent transportation system (ITS) technology was used. Other sources discuss the technology implemented by don't specifically mention "ITS" by name.

Regarding The War at the Shore book source: I looked at some other abstracts ([32][33][34]) which don't even mention the connector at all. It seems the main subject of the book is the Trump–Wynn feud, and we already have a few sentences discussing that. There's no reason to go into more details about their feud here, because everything relating to the construction of the connector is already included here.

–Dream out loud (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the book, on second thought I am concerned that it was not written from a neutral standpoint (author worked for one of the casinos) so it might not be so good after all. --Rs chen 7754 17:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still do have concerns about the Moretrench source, however the citations to it are not exceptional claims. Other reviewers do not seem to think that it is an issue so I will not stand in the way of promotion. That was my only concern, I think the article is good otherwise. --Rs chen 7754 02:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and no general supports. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Barely 18 hours have gone by in between your comments - it does give the impression that you are eager to get rid of this nomination. Could you possibly wait a bit longer? --Rs chen 7754 17:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I am rarely keen to get rid of a nomination. What I wanted to communicate was that the general support since my first post had gained you a little time and to quantify it. Clearly I failed. And, er, 39 hours. So without my second note you would be thinking that you were within 9 hours of the lower boundary of my first notification; I have, effectively, reset the clock. Apologies again if this did not come across.

Have you considered putting a neutrally phrased request for a review on the talk pages of editors who may be interested in this sort of article or may be otherwise well disposed towards the nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could personally review it myself, however as someone who has contributed heavily in the topic (and considering recent rhetoric across the site) I am concerned that my review would be weighted less. --Rs chen 7754 17:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that, Rschen -- it's good to have reviewers well-versed in the topic, as well as one or two more removed from a subject to help ensure accessibility of language and so on. Your review would be welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your insider opinions would receive considerable weight - can't beat an expert review, although I agree with Ian's mild caveat. We coordinators are remarkably uninfluenced by rhetoric. Please have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi u|Rschen7754)), I was wondering if you were intending to review this, but feel no obligation. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I have reviewed it however there seems to be some significant issues. Still trying to see if there can be a resolution. --Rs chen 7754 01:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me know how that turns out. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: There is a disagreement over the use of a few sources to the point where I cannot support. Since a source review is still outstanding I would suggest that it be allowed to continue to provide an additional opinion. Outside of those sources I would have no issues supporting. --Rs chen 7754 01:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Kapsch source referencing the highway's ITS. I believe that was the only remaining source that you had an issue with. If there are any other sources please let me know. I also agree with the statement above that The War at the Shore may not be a good source to cite directly due to possible NPOV issues. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still have concerns about the Moretrench source as well. --Rs chen 7754 01:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can we\ get a source review for this FAC? It seems there's only one source that is contested. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud and Rschen7754: As stated before, I already did a source review - if an informal one, but I did read all the non-archived Press of AC articles used as references and verify they were good, as I did on the major SJDOT press releases. I've given it a more thorough look now, see above. Rschen, if you want a third set of eyes not mine, I won't be offended (since we disagreed above on the contractor sources), but I gave it a reasonably close look I think. SnowFire (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the recent scrutiny (for example, at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Roads) I think more scrutiny would be preferable. --Rs chen 7754 18:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872[edit]

You should define the abbreviation for South Jersey Transportation Authority in the lead when first mentioned rather than waiting until the route description.
In the lead, I would mention that NJDOT assigns the connector the Route 446X designation.
In the route description you spell out “Atlantic City Expressway” then abbreviate it at “A.C. Expressway”. I would be consistent here and just spell out the second instance in full
I also noticed the “A.C. Expressway” abbreviation again in the history.
You do not need to link in image captions to terms that are already linked in the prose, such as “Atlantic City Rail Terminal” and “Borgata”
“A shortage of materials and delivery delays in late 2000 delayed the connector's opening from May to July 2001”, you use “delay” twice in the same sentence.
Do we really need the notes section? The only note I see worth keeping is about the length. The nicknames in the notes can be integrated into the lead and I don’t really see a need for the notes about the skipped/out-of-sequence exit letters.

Overall, a decent article. Willing to support after these few issues are addressed. Dough4872 03:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut gallery comment: I'm not the nominator, but I don't really agree on some of these changes. Strong disagree that which regulatory body assigns the Route 446X designation is relevant enough for the lede. The lede is designed for a general audience; it needs to be the most tightly written section. The exact regulatory body assigning a technical name that is never used in common parlance isn't relevant. I also don't see the problem with using "AC Expressway", which is a very common short form of the road (see Electric vehicle fast-charging station open on AC Expressway for a 2022 news article using that form in the headline as one example). Image captions are explicitly okay to repeat links in prose and this is often helpful, as they're shorn of context. Finally, everything in "Notes" is all minutiae that certainly shouldn't be in prose. I can see arguing to delete it entirely, but including stuff like how the exit lettering scheme is slightly wacky in parts in text would just be bloat. SnowFire (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we do want to use the “A.C. Expressway” abbreviation, it needs to be defined as not all readers will understand that it is short for “Atlantic City Expressway”. I think we don’t need to make note of all the quirks in the exit lettering scheme in either the prose or a notes section as the reader can infer from looking at the exit list. Dough4872 04:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Yeah, sorry, I was going to make a ninja edit to fix that after I realize I misread you on that part about exit identifiers in the notes. My bad there, I think we agree on that.) SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- SJTA abbreviation added to lead
- I agree with SnowFire that it is not necessary to mention NJDOT in the lead
- Abbreviation for A.C. Expressway has been added to Route description section (this is a common abbreviation, as automatically rendered in ((jct)) and seen on highway signs such as this one)
- Unnecessary links have been removed from image captions
- Fixed sentence about delays
- Notes section shortened and merged into References
- Originally the two alternative names were in a footnote so I could avoid having four names in the lead sentence. I've since revised that, but I'm not sure the best way to format all four names in the sentence so please let me know how it currently looks.
–Dream out loud (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article looks good now. Dough4872 12:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Your use of the website/work and publisher parameters for web citations doesn't seem consistent. For example, [3] uses the publisher parameter but not website; [46] uses website but not publisher.
[50] is missing the "url-access = subscription" parameter.
You have [30] marked as requiring subscription but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Sources are reliable and formatting is fine otherwise; links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The work parameter was used for newspaper/magazine websites, while publisher was used for non-media websites (i.e. SJTA, FHWA), so you should see some consistency there
[50] does not seem to require a subscription, although all the other Press of AC links do require one
Las Vegas Sun links no longer seem to require a subscription, so I've removed the parameter from those citations

–Dream out loud (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. OK on the parameter use, and yes that link does seem to be outside their paywall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 12 December 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) 14:14, 13 December 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 article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2022 [35].

Boring Lava Field[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the FAC plunge for the first time in 3 years by my measure. This is part of a series of articles I've been working on over the past decade off-and-on related to the Cascades Volcanoes. I recognize it still needs alt text and I'm hoping to get to that ASAP, but I think this is otherwise more or less ready to become an FA. Looking forward to comments to improve it further! ceranthor 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JJE[edit]

"moderate climate with wide temperature variations " sounds like a contradiction.
Changed to "subject to Portland's moderate climate with variable temperatures and mild precipitation." I just went by what the source said. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" mark notable tributaries " is weird prose.
Changed to "tributaries for the Columbia River include the Washougal and Sandy Rivers." ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Larch Mountain-Oregon from Washough-Washington.JPG wants a better source.
Struggling to find a USGS source. Might email the author and see if she has any idea if they were from USGS or the source is incorrect. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it looks like Lyn Topinka recently passed away, so I went ahead and replaced the image. ceranthor 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:JuandeFucasubduction.jpg and File:Bobs mountain.jpg sources are broken.
Source found for JuandeFuca. Working on Bobs mountain.
Replaced the Bobs Mountain image. ceranthor 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no ALT text.
Will get to that ASAP. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. ceranthor 14:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to some, working on others. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Believe everything is now resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the rest of the prose, it seems OK. No obvious omissions in the article, either. Structure, stability, length, media are fine. Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and help! ceranthor 13:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

The tables are missing captions, col scopes, and row scopes per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I believe I have fixed the issue. Thank you, ceranthor 20:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fredddie[edit]

This is my first foray into reviewing an article about geology, so hopefully my comments will benefit readers who also don't know a lot about geology.

Geography
- I know when you say elevation, you mean above mean sea level, would a wikilink help?
  - Added a link to elevation. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology
- "...and flooding has gotten worse over time.[28]" Has worsened?
  - Changed as suggested. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it common to list every sensitive species? The first time I looked it over, I thought the language suggested that it wasn't an exhaustive list, but it read like one.
  - It's what I've done for other volcano FAs. It's hard to find reliable sources describing the wildlife exhaustively, so it's a compromise that I've found works in previous FAs. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's fair enough. I've been told recently that personal and project standards don't matter, only policies matter, so it's good to see that they do in fact matter. –Fredddie ™ 23:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History
- Right away you say indigenous twice in a row, I would replace one of them. Your choice.
  - Changed as suggested. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Metric isn't my forte, but shouldn't acres convert to hectares? You'd get 22.63 acres (9.16 ha).
  - Changed to hectares. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 50,000,000 US gallons to 50 million US gallons (190×10^⁶ L)?
  - To clarify, are you suggesting changing the scientific notation? ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  More suggesting 50 million instead of 50,000,000 for readability. I suppose 50 million US gallons (190 million L) works. This is not make-or-break. –Fredddie ™ 23:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - - @Fredddie: I think I fixed it. Let me know if it needs a little tweaking. Thanks for your helpful comments! ceranthor 14:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oregon and Washington vents
- Why are Mount Scott and Brunner Hill the only ones to have notes in their respective tables?
  - Those are the only ones that I thought merited having notes. Would it be better to just add footnotes to those two and remove the column? Open to suggestions. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That might be better. Some IP might come along and fill up those empty cells with trivia. –Fredddie ™ 23:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. –Fredddie ™ 05:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Implemented changes and responded to a few. Thanks for your helpful feedback! ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the updates, so I will support. –Fredddie ™ 04:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! ceranthor 00:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

You could write a good April Fool's blurb with a name like that!

They are located in the western portion of the U. S. state of Oregon. We've established the country in the lead but it's reasonable to assume most people know that Oregon is a state so maybe lose that bit to improve flow?
at Larch Mountain,[15] with most vents reaching an elevation of 660 to 980 feet (200 to 300 m) don't use ", with" like that to join two independent facts. You could split the sentence or use a semicolon.
Can we split the geology section up a bit more? There are seven paragraphs, some of them quite chunky, before the first subheading, which makes it look a bit daunting.
encompass a wide area, with Boring Lava deposits averaging As above
(located 20.5 metres (0.0205 km) northeast of Portland I suspect that was supposed to be miles!
Recent research suggests that eruptive activity at the Boring Lava Field began How recent? I wouldn't normally question relative times in an article like this, but the 1990s are mentioned earlier in the paragraph, which is relatively recent by some standards.
extending to its current expansive state about 1 million years ago MOS:NUMERAL isn't entirely clear on this but I'd suggest either "one million" or "1,000,000" to avoid juxtaposition with figures in surrounding sentences.

That's it. Nothing too concerning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for your helpful comments. Working on the geology section. I think everything else is fixed. As a reply to the recent research comment, the paper I cite was from 2009, so maybe you suggest replacing with "more recent", or do you think it's fine as is? ceranthor 17:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Added two more subheadings. Since Jo-Jo Eumerus has also written a lot of volcano FAs, I'm curious to get their feedback on the subheaders as well. ceranthor 17:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think subheadings are useful in general for breaking up blocks of prose. But you've addressed all my nitpicks. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not picky on the subheaders, they seem OK although you may want to keep the ecology, history and recreation subheaders together. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your feedback, and thank you HJ for your support. ceranthor 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Don't use fixed px size
File:Boring_lava_allen_map.png: I'm a bit confused by the sourcing here - the original work appears to be from a state rather than federal government body, correct? Also see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I removed the fixed px size, but wouldn't it make more sense to expand the map pixel size since it's not readable at the default? As for that map, the original source is [36], so I believe the map was created using the information from the Ore Bin article to which that url currently redirects. I'm not sure I follow the last bit; I didn't make the map myself, and the author is deceased now. Are you suggesting that we should replace that map? ceranthor 02:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can scale the map (or any of the images) using |upright=.

So the issue with the licensing is this: the current tagging is based on the image being a US federal government work. However, that source indicates that it is derived from a US state government work (Volcanoes of the Portland Area, Oregon). If the image was, or was a derivative of, a state work, the given tag doesn't apply. So there are three options: determine that it is in fact a original federal work, not a derivative; determine that there is some other reason that the image is PD, and update the tagging to reflect that; or remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up the original map and the image here is not a derivative work. It's pretty clear the uploader used a different underlying map and different icons than the one displayed by the Oregon agency, even if the information is sourced from the Oregon map. I've pinged them here, we probably need some kind of uploader licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The map was made by Lyn Topinka for the USGS, then, so it should be ok then I think, right? She recently passed away otherwise I'd be happy to reach out to her to clarify the situation. ceranthor 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if it's not a derivative work as the source suggested then that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thanks, I think I've implemented your suggestions then! ceranthor 18:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy[edit]

"The area typically does not experience frost, with more than 200 frost-free days annually." This seems a little confusing, as it reads like Portland still has frost for roughly half the year.

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of history about Portland (first 2 paragraphs in the section) that doesn't seem to relate to the Boring Lava Field. I don't think it needs to be included unless trade/business related things happen because of the Boring Lava Field.

I think it provides important context. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"it marks the deepest train station" Wouldn't it just be easier to say that "it is the deepest..." Same for "Gresham marks one of just a few places..."

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The migration rate for volcanism within the field is an average of 0.37 inches (9.3 mm) ± 0.063 inches (1.6 mm) per year relative to the motion of crustal blocks in the region,[53] using the last 2.7 million years as a starting reference point." It's not really clear what this means. My understanding is that the location of the volcanic activity is changing relative to the location on the plate, but this seems like a pretty small change considering that the volcanism is not centered in a single location. Additionally, there should be an explanation for why this is happening.

The explanation is in the prior sentence, which states, "The uneven distribution of vents within this forearc suggests a local zone of crustal expansion, indicative of northward movement and clockwise rotation of a tectonic microplate that leads to gradual northwest-trending propagation for the field over time." The sentence you highlighted just provides the rate of migration relative to the baseline crustal block motion.

I rewrote these sentences to use less jargon and hopefully be a little more approachable. My version is "The uneven distribution of vents within this forearc suggests a local zone of crustal expansion. Over the last 2.7 million years, the volcanic field has irregularly rotated clockwise and migrated to the northwest at an average rate of 0.37 inches (9.3 mm) ± 0.063 inches (1.6 mm) per year relative to the surrounding crust. This northwest trending is consistent with other faults in the nearby area." I also removed some citations, as I found all of this information on page 1305 of the Fleck 2014 source. Does this work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that works for me. ceranthor 13:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would either explain high-K/low-K, or simplify it with something like potassium-rich.I would also state why it's significant (such as showing that there is lava that is similar to other Cascade lava and lava that is different). A reader not familiar with igneous rocks won't understand the significance of how much sodium and potassium is in these rocks.

I added a footnote to explain the terminology, and I believe the two following sentences explain the significance. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the journal article with the information, but are the tholeiitic lavas similar in composition to lavas from the High Cascades? I think that would help give some context to the reader, as it's not clear why the lava is presumed to be from there. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the journal article says that. I changed to "Given their similar compositions, some of the low-K tholeiite deposits likely originated from vents closer to the High Cascades[...]" - how's that? ceranthor 14:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"that the calc-alkaline sources are more refractory." There should be an explanation on what refractory means.

I added a footnote. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the lava being refractory relate to the different compositions? I would change the sentence to say who Shemphert is (something like "a volcanologist at X institution") and then state that they proposed two different mantle sources, as the rest of the paragraph is about the different compositions and what the cause for that may be. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different chemical compounds have different levels of ease of vaporization. Rephrased to "J. M. Shempert, a geologist at Portland State University, proposed that mantle sources for the two different lava types may be different and that the calc-alkaline sources are more refractory." ceranthor 14:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"producing steep head scarps with heights of 66 feet (20 m)" 66 feet seems too exact for a large-scale geologic boundary; is that the tallest recorded, the average, or a ballpark figure?

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of the Boring Lava vents are known to cut off hydrogeologic units in the surrounding area" Can't this just read "vents cut off hydrogeologic..."

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are very exact distances (20.5 miles) for a summit crater and Bobs Hill and Battleground Lake. I'm assuming both of those large features are bigger than a tenth of a mile, so I think these should lose some significant figures.

The distances are taken directly from the sources, so not sure losing sigfigs will help. I think they're actually relatively loose approximations of distance from Portland, which is the most obvious landmark from the area. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to just use 20 miles then? Since neither Portland or these locations are a single point/small area, it's not clear from where these 20.5 mile lines begin and end. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would kind of be original research, though, since the source says 20.5 miles. I'm inclined to keep it as is; I don't think anyone is using this article to determine the exact distance between the two points. ceranthor 14:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent research suggests that eruptive activity" Rather than say recent, maybe say what research conducted was (e.g. the type of radiogenic dating used)

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are four uses of the Evarts et al 2009 p.257 reference in a row in the second paragraph of eruptive history. That can be combined.

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"geographically, younger vents and associated deposits lie in the northern portion of the field" Remove "geographically", as the sentence already mentions geographic references.

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "according to the USGS", as that is a major geological organization. I would just cite their page.

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"magma at Battle Ground Lake in Washington" Shouldn't this be "lava at Battle Ground Lake"

Source says magma - I believe it's underground so therefore magma. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "Battle Ground Lake" or "Battleground Lake"? Both are used in this article.

The former; now fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"to form the eponymous maar volcano" I'm assuming there is a Maar Volcano there that all other maar features are named after? Shouldn't this be capitalized for the proper noun?

No, the eponymous maar volcano refers to the maar at Battle Ground Lake. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why "eponymous" is being used in this context then. What is the name of the volcano? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Ground Lake. See [37]. ceranthor 14:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonetheless, according to the USGS," I would remove this. "Nonetheless" is a bit of a weasel word and the this makes it seem like the low probability of an eruption is a USGS opinion, not a scientific conclusion.

Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the probability of any future eruption low, or just one in the near future? The article makes it seem like future eruptions are low, but then says they're likely to occur every 15,000 years.

I'm not sure how to phrase this differently. The source states "Since activity started 2.6 million years ago, it is rare that 50,000 years passed without an eruption. However, all existing Boring Volcanic centers are extinct and the probability of an eruption in the Portland/Vancouver metro area is very low." So I think all future eruptions are low, but historically they had been occurring at a frequency such that 50,000 years passing is unusual. Does that help clarify at all? ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the information on the field itself not being considered extinct? That source makes it seem like the volcanologists consider the likelihood of future eruptions very low, not just eruptions in the near future. I would remove that last sentence then, since it comes across like casting doubt on their prediction, when it sounds like that is the scientific conclusion by the experts. I would also combine the first two paragraphs and maybe shorten the effects of a possible eruption, as it sounds like they are unlikely and hypothetical. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the source text is that the existing vents are extinct, but the magma that formed the field could very well lead to future eruptions. Any future eruptions, however, would not occur in the immediate Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. Does that make sense? ceranthor 14:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the recreation section; it reads a bit like an advertisement (albeit for a free place) when it includes potential activities and hours of operation. Since this article is about the lava field itself, and not a state park, I don't think it needs to be here.

As above re the history section, I think the recreation provides important context, and presumably the article should act as a resource for human activity in the area as well. I did some copyediting to tone down some of the language re advertisement, though I think offers is fine to use since the only alternative I can think of is "has." I cut out the quote as it did seem a bit crufty/advertisement-y, is it better now? ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Excited to see a lava field article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: I've fixed most of your comments and replied to a few others. Thank you for your helpful feedback! ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: I think I've responded to/implemented your responses. ceranthor 14:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hi -- welcome back to FAC. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

~~FN 91 has no access date.~~
~~Some dates are still in YYYY-MM-DD format.~~
~~You have ((citation)) and ((cite)) families mixed; they give inconsistent formats so we need to pick one or the other.~~
In the past I've used this approach for FAs and hasn't been an issue. I only use it where there's not a clear cite template, and most of these are government publications/reports. Is there a Cite report template that would work here? Happy to use if so! ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ((cite report)) should work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks, will make use of that in the future for sure. ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Missing the publisher parameter for Fleck et al. 2002.~~
~~Publisher locations are given in a handful of cases but most are omitted -- they're optional but it should be consistent.~~
~~Werner (1991) is a master's thesis -- what makes it a high-quality reliable source? Same question for Swanson (1986).~~
This was discussed at the peer review. Both have been cited by other academic articles (Swanson 17 times, Werner 4). I think both are sufficiently reliable, but I am open to further discussion. ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swanson is fine per the citations; Werner seems borderline -- can the citations to Werner be used to make a case that the thesis is considered reliable? If not I would suggest cutting it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Google Scholar and it's now up to 8 citations including books and published papers as recently as 2020, what do you think? ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~The archive links for FNs 42 and 43 are not working for me; can you check that they work for you? They might just be very slow.~~
It doesn't look like they work anymore, but the current linked urls do. Should I just remove the archive urls? ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they're not working I think you might as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removed. ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for helpful comments as always. I replied to three with follow-up comments/questions. Believe I fixed everything else. ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Fixed 2/3. Replied to your note about the Werner source. ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for helpful comments, Mike. ceranthor 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just giving Gog the Mild a ping that source and image review have been completed. ceranthor 20:08, 12 December 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) 20:20, 12 December 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 article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 December 2022 [38].

Your Power[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Try not to abuse your power / I know we didn't choose to change / You might not wanna lose your power / but power isn't pain."

Content warning - this article is about a song dealing with abuse of all kinds. Most importantly, sexual abuse - there is a focus on older men who sexually exploit young women. The lyrics are simple, yet its power lies in its message's simplicity. It's very political (many critics drew connections to #MeToo), but it's also personal (it references Eilish's own experiences with abuse as a child), highlighting the universality of power imbalances. It was considered one of the best songs of 2021, as well as one of Eilish's best songs. Read the article and you will see why!

Now for the meta-commentary - this is the third Billie Eilish-related article I have taken to FAC and fourth overall! This song also is where I got my username, and is one of my favourite songs by her. "Your Power" holds a special place in my heart, and to see its article grow so much has been extremely cool :D Can't wait for what you think. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review by Sammi Brie[edit]

There are four freely licensed images, all with CC licenses or cropped from CC licenses, and album art with an NFUR. All images have adequate alt text. There is also a 15-second song sample with NFUR.

This article passes on media review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt review on the audio + photos, @Sammi Brie :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 12:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

"In it, she sings alone" - in it doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
- How so? "it" refers to the video, i.e. "in the video". Nothing seems off about it.
Finneas is over-linked in the infobox. I suppose it might have been done intentionally because it does not match his real (full) name in the songwriting credits.
- You would be correct in that assumption
"Eilish revealed" - I suggest not using words like reveal as it has an unencyclopedic, suspense-dissolving effect.
- Changed wording
"Set for release 3 months later, on July 30" -> "Released (three months later) on July 30". Three months later in parenthesis because I think you could even leave that part out but it's optional.
- Removed "July 30" instead of "three months later" to avoid overwhelming readers with specific dates. I kept "set for release" because it maintains the section's chronology better than saying "released on July 30" - we'd be jumping to April 27 then weeeeeks later to July 30 then baaaack again to April 28 in that case. By saying "set for release" we can just easily gloss over that future date, which is better because the album's actual release is irrelevant for this article about a song.
"She talked to the interviewer, Laura Snapes, about how her life had greatly changed since she was a child, the negative aspects of fame, and her struggles with self-acceptance." This reads rather awkwardly because three things are listed; the first one contains a verb but the rest don't ("talked about how her life changed..., the negative aspects...").
- The list has been modified to fix the parallelism
Music and lyrics section lists the song as a folk ballad but the infobox only folk. I suggest specifying it in the infobox.
- "Ballad" is not a genre, which is why the infobox says only folk.
"stripped-back" is rather informal. If it was used like that in the source(s), I suggest using it in quotes.
- Changed wording
"Other critics compared it to songs by the band America[34] or singer Phoebe Bridgers" - why not and instead of or?
- Fair enough, that's better
"She sings about being gaslit" - gaslighting is colloquial.
- Removed the word

More soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this FAC, @FrB.TG! Glad to come across you in enwiki again. And congrats on getting Alejandro (song) promoted - seems like getting Fame Monster song articles the bronze star has become your long-term project in the encyclopedia? If so, I wish you well in the endeavour

‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Although that is was the plan, I'm not sure how much longer I can keep up. For one thing, I don't have some of the resources to access restricted sources that I once had. For another, I don't have that much time for such an ambitious endeavor. -FrB

"Your Power" has received accolades for its lyricism. I would get rid of the has as it's unlikely the song will win any more awards at this point.
- Extremely good point.
She urged viewers to "protect our young women at all costs", and ~~she~~ reminded them
- Removed
"Worldwide, it sold about 8,600 digital copies and was streamed about 64.2 million times." It's not clear if this is first-week sales or overall sales (which I doubt).
- Considering the presence of "during its opening week" I assumed that folks would get that the entire paragraph was about first-week stats. Though thanks for pointing out this ambiguity. Hopefully that part is clearer.
"22.2 million", "9.6 million", "4,500 digital"... - WP:NBSP
- Added the template
"It ~~also~~ entered the top 10 in Australia"
- I'd prefer keeping the word so that the paragraph's transition from the song's UK chart performance to the song's AU chart performance does not come abruptly.
"Like with the music video, she performed the song in the middle of a desert." Was it actually in the middle of a desert or rather a stage that was designed to look like one?
- The sources say, plainly, that it was in a desert, so I'm confident that they filmed in an actual desert. From watching the video, I don't notice anything in the background that suggests a backdrop.
"The venue where the video took place was the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles" -> "The video took place at the venue Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles"
" selected to convey the intimate, Old Hollywood aesthetic ~~that~~ she envisioned" - redundant FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed both, having trimmed the sentence for concision.

I believe all of your comments above have been addressed, @FrB.TG. Feel free to read through the article again if you remain unsure of your final stance. Thank you once again for the helpful comments! ^^; ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 10:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"At the age of 18, Billie Eilish won five awards at the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards held in 2020. These include Album of the Year for her debut studio album, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019)" => "At the age of 18, Billie Eilish won five awards at the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards held in 2020, including Album of the Year for her debut studio album, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019)" (just reads a bit more tightly)
- Not done; there are 4 almost evenly-spaced commas, and while the sentence does read more tightly, it also feels more unwieldy and hard to read.
"Eilish disclosed she would begin" => "Eilish disclosed that she would begin"
"Eilish announced the album's title" => "Eilish announced that the album's title"
- Not done for both. The following sentences read okay without the additional word.
"Set for release 3 months later" => "Set for release three months later"
- Right, mos:num. done
"Acoustic guitars serve as the song's instruments" - the credits also mention bass, synths and percussions, so the guitars aren't the only instruments and therefore this should probably be "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's main instruments" or "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's primary instruments"
- Done - that was an astute catch!
"On the singles chart by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" => "On the singles chart published by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)"
- Definitely reads better this way
Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for returning the favour @ChrisTheDude, and thank you for the kind words :) I have some free time today this busy week, so I promise to get my review on the Matangi FAC wrapped up soon - really appreciate the continued patience! See you soon ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 05:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert and/or complain if I screw anything up.

I tweaked a sentence in the lead, but checking the information in the body that supported it I think being cited as 80th best song of the year is hardly an accolade. I doubt I could name as many as 80 songs from most years, and my 80th favourite song of any given year is probably a song I don't like very much. I think I would cut this sort of thing from the lead unless it's a bit more flattering than 80th.
- Sorry, but I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. Lots of songs from lots of varying artists and genres come out every year - as such, general music magazines with a large editorial team like Billboard will be covering a lot of ground when it comes to what their staff like. It's a different paradigm from an individual person's rankings (such as your personal ranking), who can only process so many releases. Other reliable publications like the NPR, the LA Times, The Fader, and Pitchfork have done top 100s as well. - Elias
  - Yes, it's certainly not a bad thing to be in those lists, and absolutely it can be mentioned in the article. I'm only saying that putting that in the lead isn't really giving the reader an accurate sense of how the song is received. If the song failed to make a top-ten list somewhere, would you bother to mention that? The other change I made that see you've put back in is "publications like"; can we find another way to put this? Perhaps "such as" instead of "like"? "Like" implies the other publications are of similar status (high quality, national distribution, high readership. The Guardian list had it at 7th of 20 which is good enough to mention. How about "Named the 7th best song of 2021 by The Guardian, the song also appeared on several top 50 and top 100 lists from other publications"? That last is in case you feel it is necessary to mention those lower rankings -- i.e. if we make it clearer the praise is a bit less it isn't misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh! You were referring to which rankings were eye-catching enough to be mentioned in the lead. In that case, I more or less see where you're coming from. I will be changing it to "Named one of the best songs of 2021 in Variety and The Guardian" once I get back into my main account at home. Three things: 1) Willman of Variety ranks "Your Power" higher than the list by Billboard, so it seems more appropriate to mention there; 2) I replaced "by" with the preposition "in" - saying "named ... by Variety" feels off because only one critic curated that list; and 3) I re-removed "publications like" to keep things concise and because six lists feels too little a number to warrant a "such as". BTW, I don't deem it necessary to mention the lower rankings since the second paragraph is big enough as it is. - Elias
~~"She debuted the first live rendition": "debuted" is redundant with "first".~~
- Used more concise, less confusing wording - Elias
~~I wouldn't bother to link "verses" (in the lead) and "lyrics" would be a bit more natural in any case.~~
- Changed
"She prefaced...that": "preface" isn't a verb of speech, so you can't use it to report speech in this way. It has to take an object, which is the thing that is being prefaced by something -- e.g. "she prefaced her comments with an introduction".
~~"Its lyrical themes discuss...": a theme doesn't discuss anything; lyrics can discuss things.~~
~~"struggles that young women face...such as misogyny, power imbalance, and emotional abuse": those things aren't struggles, they're difficulties, or dangers. They can be struggled with.~~
- Reworded the relevant parts for all three comments
"...revealing its track list and release date. Set for release three months later, it contains...": a bit repetitive re the release date, and any reason not to give the exact date here? And why switch to present tense for "contains"?
- Re. not listing the exact release date, see above. Also, "contains" is in present tense because saying "the album contained 'Your Power' as a track" implies that the song used to be in the album but was somehow taken off. In other words, "Your Power" will always and forever be a track from the album, so we use present tense. - Elias
  - You make good points, but I think omitting the date feels odd and there might be a way around that be combining the two sentences, which might also let us avoid the tense issue. How about "On April 27, 2021, Eilish announced the album's title was Happier Than Ever, with the release scheduled for XXX XX and "Your Power" as the twelfth song on the track list."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your suggestion reads a little weirdly IMO (e.g. how can an album title be released?), and to put it short I can't think of a way to combine the two in a way that doesn't come across as clunky. Instead of combining stuff, how about I remove mentions of the release date altogether? "On April 27, 2021, Eilish announced the album's title was Happier Than Ever, and she revealed 'Your Power' as the twelfth song on the track list" hits three birds with one stone. It addresses 1) your concerns about the tense change (which IMO is too nitpicky because I think tense changes for a single sentence in a paragraph are okay under certain circumstances), 2) your comment about the repetition, and 3) my opinion that the album's release date is not relevant for this article about the song. - Elias
~~"teased the visuals": I'm sure this is standard usage in some media, but it's a bit journalese -- can we expand it a little?~~
- I have a hard time figuring out what you mean when you say "expand it"; I would appreciate suggestions on how to change it
  - I think it means that she released one or images revealing some part of the visual presentation of the album. I'm suggesting a change because this use of "tease" has not yet made it into most dictionaries, though no doubt it will -- it's a modern usage. E.g. see m-w.com or collinsdictionary.com; neither includes this meaning. Some readers won't understand this usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see - I do understand your point that "teased" may sound a little too unencyclopedic in the context of a song. Changed to "previewed"
"It is the third single": again why the switch back to present tense -- we were in past tense for the previous sentence? And it sounds a bit odd to say it was the third single, since it was the first one after the announcement. It might read a bit more naturally to say that two previous singles had been included on the track list for the newly announced album.
- This switch in tense, although somewhat jarring I agree, is necessary. You cannot use past tense to describe facts that will always be true no matter the time frame, as I said above. Don't Smile at Me will always be Billie's debut EP. 1989 was Taylor's fifth studio album the day it was announced, the day it was released, and of course the day you are reading this. - Elias
- Re. calling it the "third single", when you have multiple music publications 1 2 3 4 calling it the third single (with more calling "My Future" the first instead 1 2 3), you might as well go with this choice especially since it has way simpler wording. Plus, it's not like singles being released to promote an album before that album is announced is an unheard-of thing - "Me!" was released before Lover was announced, for example. - Elias
  Well, you agree the tense change is a little jarring, right? Technically correct statements can still read oddly, and rephrasing so that the problem goes away can make prose read more smoothly. Yes, it's the third single from the album, no question about it. I'm not going to press this point -- you clearly think carefully about your prose and I don't want to spend too much time on stylistic nuances that are deliberate choices on your part, so I'll strike this and another suggestion above where we're having a similar conversation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Eilish called it one of her favorite songs she had written to date": could shorten this to "Eilish said it was one of her favorite songs" -- "called" seems unnecessary variation, and the rest is surely understood by the reader.
- I'd prefer we keep the current wording there because by removing those parts, we lose the sense that Eilish is clearly referring to the favorite songs she made. When someone reads about X singer's favorite song, their first thought is not "ooh what's the song they had the most fun making?" - for all we know X singer could have a favorite song (by anyone) that isn't by them. So saying it's one of her favorite songs, no other clarifications attached, can be misleading. We also lose the sense that an artist can continue making new bodies of music and find their new favorite creation in the process. - Elias
  - Yes, fair comment that one wants to make it completely clear she's talking about her own work -- because of the context of the paragraph I thought it was obvious but perhaps you're right that it's safer to be explicit about it. But "to date" is unnecessary; we don't expect her to say her favourite song is one she'll write next year. I still don't like "called it", either. Can we structure the sentence so that a single verb of speech handles both halves, making it possible to just use "said" or "saying"? E.g. "...Eilish said it was one of her favorites among her own songs, and that its candid and personal lyrics..."? Not saying that particular phrasing is the way to go, just that we could splice the halves that way. Having a second verb of speech in the middle slows the sentence down a bit. This is probably another stylistic disagreement, though, so it's fine if you don't want to change it. Though I really think "to date" should go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is probably for the best to remove "to date" given its redundancy. And ftr I do like your suggestion - I'd just remove the comma before "and" per this essay on comma usage. Somewhat tangential, but I re-split the "this is about..." quotation into another sentence - to connect the two in a single sentence implies that the quotation directly demonstrates what is being described in the former half of the sentence. And that quotation does not exactly communicate that she felt vulnerable about the song or that she called it one of her favorite songs she wrote. - Elias
Not crazy about "mentioning how its candid..." -- "that" would be better than "how": "how" implies we'll be told the manner in which it made her feel vulnerable, which is not the case. And "mentioning" again seems unnecessary variation -- "said" would work. "Said" is almost invisible and rarely needs to be varied.
- Agreed with you that "that" is better than "how". Although I won't change "mentioning" to "said" because you already suggested we substitute it for a previous word in the sentence :") - Elias
  - Well, you haven't changed *anything* to "said" yet! But I would argue two uses of "said" in consecutive sentences in just as invisible as one. It absolutely disappears for a reader, which is what you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I haven't... yeah, you're right! brainz too fried lately - Elias
'~~She continued: "This is...' I think you could cut "She continued" and just use the colon to connect to the previous sentence.~~
- Done
  - Actually, I changed my mind about this... - Elias
I don't think "worldwide attention" is fully supported by the citations. Yes, she broke a record for Instagram likes, and I'm sure they came from everywhere but North Korea, but a reader isn't going to interpret "worldwide attention" that way. In fact why are the first two sentences in that article relevant to an article about the song?
- After further thought I realize that yep, that detail is absolutely not relevant. Removed
  - I was also thinking that we didn't need to mention the interview at all but I was wrong -- the interview is the source for the quote so it's reasonable to mention it. But I think we could cut the interviewer's name; the reader gets nothing from it, since the lack of a link tells me Snape is not notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. Any chance to cut down on words is a chance I'd take. Her name has been axed - Elias
      - Looking at this again, "talked to the interviewer" is redundant with "gave an interview"; can we rephrase to eliminate one or the other? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Trimmed - Elias

More later, or possibly tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All pending comments above have corresponding replies now. - Elias, 14:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've responded or struck above; I'll wait to post more till we've settled a couple more of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the replies have their own replies now! The replies are making friends! :D - Elias, 05:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Continuing:

~~"Acoustic guitars serve as the song's primary instruments": suggest "Acoustic guitars are the song's primary instruments".~~
- Done - Elias
~~"Critics observed a difference between its acoustic sound and the sound of Eilish's older works": suggest "Critics observed a difference between its acoustic sound and that of Eilish's earlier works".~~
- Changed "older" to "earlier" to make it seem more natural, though I kept "the sound of Eilish's..." because "its acoustic sound and that of..." implies "the acoustic sound of Eilish's earlier works". Which is not the point being communicated by the source - Elias
  - So the earlier work was not acoustic? It's a bit surprising to have four citations just to say this is an acoustic song and her previous work was not acoustic. Perhaps multiple critics pointed this out, but it's such a straightforward observation I don't think it's necessary to reinforce it with the extra citations; and in fact I don't think you need "critics observed", if I'm not misunderstanding. The previous sentence mentions the acoustic guitars, and something like "Acoustic guitars are the song's primary instruments -- a contrast with Eilish's earlier work" might suffice. Or "...with the electronic sound [or whatever is correct] of Eilish's earlier work". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes - while this is not the first time Eilish did a song backed predominantly by acoustic guitar (Party Favor (song) and I Love You (Billie Eilish song) come to mind), she did release "Your Power" at a time when most of the music she had put out thus far was electronic pop/goth pop/avant garde pop/whatever pop. Her breakout studio album was pretty much this. - Elias
    - And yeah, you are right that something like "this sounds different from her previous work" is an analysis uncontroversial enough to not warrant "critics observed" followed by a bunch of citations. I removed those bits and merged them with the previous paragraph - Elias
~~"contrasted the production to what he described": should be "contrasted with"; "contrast to" is only used when "contrast" is a noun, e.g. "in contrast to her earlier work".~~
"sonic influences": this is a modern journalistic usage and I would suggest avoiding it in favour of something like "musical influences". It sounds very odd to someone not used to reading music websites.
- Good points. Reworded for both - Elias
~~Unlink verses and chorus.~~
- Unlinked - I probably overestimated how technical-sounding these terms are in the context of a song article. - Elias
~~"With a duration of around four minutes,[49] the video": suggest "The four-minute video".~~
- Trimmed although with a different approach in mind. - Elias
"Meredith B. Kile‍ of Entertainment Tonight interpreted the scene as a metaphor for how authority can feel constricting": I don't think we need Kile's name, and I think a couple of words could be cut. How about"The Entertainment Tonight reviewer interpreted the scene as a metaphor for the constricting nature of authority"?
- That flows better than the sentence I had in mind! By the way, the source reads "perhaps a metaphor for the suffocating power of the song's subject" - she was not making a sweeping assessment about the nature of authority in general. "the constricting nature of mishandled authority" would be a fairer summary of her point. - Elias
  I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Becky Zhang of Los Angeles magazine drew a connection between the music video for "Your Power" and the one for Britney Spears's "I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman" (2002). In terms of visuals, she compared the two on the basis of their sepia color schemes, their panoramic cinematography, and their performers' being alone throughout the video." Here I think it's worth keeping Zhang's name, since we need to mention here again later in the paragraph. However I'm not clear what it means to say "she compared the two" -- did she point out correspondences or similarities? And I think this can be compressed a bit. How about "Becky Zhang of Los Angeles magazine commented on similarities between the music videos for "Your Power" and for Britney Spears's "I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman" (2002), including their sepia color schemes and panoramic cinematography, and their performers' being alone throughout the video."
- The paragraph has been condensed and clarified to address this comment - Elias
  - I slightly reverted my edit that incorporated this suggestion - "including" here implies that the three similarities listed are three out of many, many, more. However, really, those are the only three points of comparison she made in the source. - Elias
"Other critics opined that the lyricism in "Your Power" was a testament to Eilish's songwriting skills": does this mean more than "Other critics praised Eilish's songwriting"? This phrasing takes "lyricism", which is praise, as a given; if we want to say that the song is lyrical, we should make it clearer that it's the opinion of these critics. And "opine" is said-bookism. If we want to keep "lyricism", how about "Other critics praised Eilish's songwriting for its lyricism"? You have this combined with another critic's comment at the moment, so maybe "Other critics praised the lyricism of Eilish's songwriting, which Jason Lipshutz of Billboard thought was...".
- The point of that sentence was to show some critics thought "Your Power" showcased Eilish's songwriting talent (" though her life may be very different now, Eilish's talent for the alchemical process of making deeply personal matters into profound and empathetic music remains as strong as ever, if not more so. That skill was already present in ... 'Your Power' ") - not merely a praise of the songwriting in "Your Power" by itself. Whereas the latter opinion states that Eilish wrote a good song, the former opinion establishes Eilish as someone with a pattern of making songs with good lyrics. - Elias
  - I see -- that's the intent of "testament", then; fair enough. I still would like to change "opine", if we can. Can we make it "praised" instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - changed to "found" - Elias

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitrary break[edit]

Incidentally, I see you've been converting my colon indents to asterisks -- can I ask why? I only noticed because I almost never use asterisks to indent except at the first level. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I do this because as someone who gets overwhelmed easily with long walls of text I thought this was a good way to keep track of which pending replies I've already addressed, without having to strike them - which I believe is reservef for when the reviewer feels like the replies are no longer a concern. - Elias

Fine with me if you want to keep on doing it, but I wouldn't be surprised if you run into editors who don't like you changing their indents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Some music journalists also favored how "Your Power" portrayed abuse as...": to favour something is to prefer it, so I don't think this says what's intended.~~
- Changed to "appreciated" - Elias
"They applauded the songwriting for mixing Eilish's personal life with political commentary about the different ways abuse of power is perpetuated everywhere, such as how prominent figures in the music industry still hold a high degree of influence despite receiving numerous allegations of workplace harassment." I think there are some opportunities to improve this sentence.
- They're applauding the lyrics, not the songwriting, surely? Or at least they're applauding the song, not the writing of it, if the lyrics are not the only focus of their comments?
  - I meant to say that they liked Eilish's approach to writing the lyrics - to combine her own experiences with the experiences of others while writing "Your Power". Though I do agree "praised the lyrics" would sound more natural - I reworded the previous sentence to "appreciated how Eilish portrayed abuse" to preserve the meaning I wanted to convey - Elias
- And "different" doesn't really work with "everywhere"; the point is either that the abuse of power is perpetuated everywhere, or that it can be perpetuated in different ways, but both together makes less sense. An "and" might fix it (I haven't read the sources so don't know if this can be supported): "...commentary about the different ways abuse of power is perpetuated, and the ubiquity of the abuses" -- again I'm not suggesting this particular wording, just giving a possible structure.
  - Rewrote to reflect the sources more precisely and address the clunky wording. - Elias
- If you keep the second half of the sentence, I would cut "receiving"; it's an anodyne verb for such an serious point.
  - Excellent point. Cut - Elias
- Everything after "such as" is not in the lyrics, which is a problem because the first half of the sentence implies the point can be drawn from the lyrics. The only thing in the lyrics that seems to speak directly to this is the word "contract", but that could just as well refer to the film industry, and even that's not very direct. Perhaps this is the reviewer's commentary, or something from an interview with Eilish? If so we should make it clearer where this interpretation is coming from.
  - Changed to "political references" - "Will you only feel bad if it turns out that they kill your contract" is the most politically charged line there (notwithstanding the fact that by its very nature the lyrics have prevailing political undertones), and I agree that it's not in-depth and explicit enough that "commentary" does not feel right to describe it. - Elias
"Several of them analyzed the song within the context of #MeToo": I think we could shorten this to something like "Several journalists cited #MeToo" or "made reference to #MeToo". But this also feels like exactly the same point made in the previous sentence. Can these two sentences be connected more directly?
- It's not the exact same point - #MeToo pertains to sexual abuse by powerful men, whereas the previous sentence deals with general abuse of power within the larger context of society. The cited Vulture source brings up verbally abused politician aides for example. So connecting these two sentences cannot be done, and I want to keep complex, lengthy sentences to a minimum considering this section already has loads of them - Elias
- I would also prefer keeping it as "placed the song within the context of #MeToo" because the intended effect here is that "according to journalists, Eilish is directly contributing to the ongoing discourse around #MeToo through 'Your Power' ". We somewhat lose this sense when we simply say "cited #MeToo" or "referenced #MeToo" - it implies that all the reviewers merely namedropped the movement without further insight or analysis. A line like "Your Power captures the zeitgeist of the #MeToo era — not so much championing so-called 'cancel culture' as the growing climate of consequence" is more than just referencing it! - Elias
~~"felt like its" is a bit colloquial. I think "Many reviewers felt the simple musical style..." would suffice.~~
~~"...and soft vocals successfully emphasized the emotional impact that she sought to convey with her lyrics": suggest "effectively" rather than "successfully".~~
- Changed wording for both - Elias
"contrasting it with the perceived harsh and uncomfortable nature of the songwriting": why "perceived"? Shorthand for "what they perceived as"? I don't think that's a useful way to compress it, if so. And again I don't think you mean the songwriting; you mean the song, or perhaps the lyrics.
- Rewritten for clarity - Elias
'Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen of The Sydney Morning Herald analyzed why she found this difference in tone effective: "The clever trick employed here is that the delivery of these cutting sentiments often sounds sweet, which makes them feel somehow even more acidic."' I think this could be shortened -- we don't need to both explain what she said and then quote what she said. How about 'For Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen of The Sydney Morning Herald, the "clever trick" that made the difference in tone effective was that "the delivery of these cutting sentiments often sounds sweet, which makes them feel somehow even more acidic."
- That seems good enough. Done - Elias
~~"Publications have regarded" seems an odd way to say it. Would it be more natural to say '"Your Power" has been included by many publications in lists of Eilish's best songs"?~~
- That's too wordy and I don't exactly agree it sounds less clunky than the current wording. - Elias
"It was placed in the top 5 of listicles by Uproxx (4) and Rolling Stone (3), published in 2021 and 2022 respectively". I think I'd avoid using "listicle", but if you decide to keep it I'd link it. Suggest "It was listed as the fourth best of her songs by Uproxx in 2021, and the third best by Rolling Stone the following year" to avoid the need to use those parentheses; I think this version also makes the connection to the previous sentence clearer. And if we could join this to the next sentence we could simplify some more: how about "It was listed as the fourth best of her songs by Uproxx in 2021, and the third best by Rolling Stone the following year, while Consequence, NME, and MTV Australia all ranked it as one of her top 15 songs."?
- Rewrote the Uproxx/RS sentence - parentheses should be removed, and it is also now active voice to make it read less oddly. - Elias
~~"In addition, several publications...": suggest cutting "In addition"; the sentence makes the difference clear.~~
- It's not about whether it helps clarify the difference so much as it's about serving as a transition word to avoid an abrupt speed bump in the paragraph flow. - Elias
'"Your Power" received accolades for its lyricism': you cite awards, but "lyricism" is a particular quality -- intense or beautiful expressiveness. As far as I can see those citations don't really support the use of the word.
- Changed to "lyrical themes" - Elias
"The song received another nomination at the 2021 VMAs, specifically for Best Direction." Suggest "The song was also nominated for Best Direction at the 2021 VMAs".
- I'd prefer not to change it so that it flows more smoothly with the preceding sentences and to avoid making the next sentence have the exact same sentence structure. - Elias
  - Can we combine the sentences somehow to allow us to avoid the duplicate structure? It's awfully wordy to say "she got another nomination, and specifically it was". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should be rewritten now - Elias
"In the process, "Your Power" debuted and peaked at number 6 on the Billboard Global 200": can we do without "In the process"? And how about joining this with the next sentence: '"Your Power" debuted and peaked at number 6 on the Billboard Global 200, giving Eilish her second top 10 in the two charts after "Therefore I Am", which peaked on both charts at number 2'.
- "In the process" is there to directly connect the sentences beside it - the amount of streams and digital sales was responsible for its debut. If we remove it, it would become ambiguous when "Your Power" debuted/peaked on the Global 200 - was it during its opening week? Was it way later? - Elias
  - How about '"Your Power" debuted and peaked that week at number 6...'? "In the process" seems oddly technical in tone to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since the technical tone seems to be the issue here and not the existence of a transition word itself, I swapped "in the process" out with "consequently". I hope this is satisfactory. - Elias
~~'"Your Power" received 2.1 million streams from UK listeners...': active voice seems smoother to me: 'UK listeners streamed "Your Power" 2.1 million times...'.~~
- Done - Elias
~~"Upon the week's conclusion": suggest "At the end of the week".~~
- Changed to "by the end of the week" - Elias
'It also entered the top 10 in Australia, her twelfth song to do so. On the singles chart published by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), "Your Power" debuted at its peak position of number 9.' A bit repetitive; can we combine these sentences?
- I was a bit stumped on how to address this but I hope the newly combined sentence does the job well enough. - Elias
"had garnered over 150 million streams": "garner" is another word that would be a said-bookism if it were a synonym for said; it only gets used this way in music journalism. Suggest "had been streamed over 150 million times worldwide".
- Done - Elias
The long list of countries in which the song reached the top ten is tedious to read and repeats information in the table further down the article. If a handful of these are particularly noticeable, I would suggest mentioning them and dropping the others as not worth the repetition.
- I want to keep every country namedropped there if that's okay with you. The main theme in that section is "Your Power" reached top 10 in a whole bunch of places worldwide - something mentioned in the lead - proving that it was indeed a commercially successful single as the section's thesis statement says. That in mind, mentioning only the US, UK, and Australia feels like a cop-out and focuses unduly on one part of the world. However, I removed the chart positions because they're not as widely covered in media as the US, UK, Australia, and Global 200 ones, and because as you said it makes the sentence more tedious to read and repeats information in the table below. - Elias
  - I think I can live with that if you really want to keep it. As a reader, though, I would prefer to see something like "It eventually topped the national singles chart of Lithuania[93] and reached the top 10 of over a dozen other countries around the world", with the chart giving the details. I think a reader would understand more quickly that this is an impressive achievement. And I'd suggest changing "As time passed" -- the point being made is the end state, not the process of time passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have relegated the list into a footnote, readding the peak positions for clarity. Huh. Honestly, the paragraph does read way more smoothly this way. - Elias
"Accompanying her was her brother Finneas O'Connell, who played the acoustic guitar and provided additional vocals." Suggest "Her brother Finneas O'Connell accompanied her on acoustic guitar and provided additional vocals".
- Done - Elias
~~The image file for the hotel hallway image doesn't say it's in the Biltmore Hotel; do we know that's the case? And was it this particular hallway?~~
- It's obviously unlikely it was that particular hallway: the photo is there to illustrate how the Biltmore Hotel looks from the inside, not to point out the exact location of filming. And given that the person who took the photo added "Category:Millenium Biltmore Hotel" to the file page, I am pretty confident that it is indeed the Biltmore Hotel. - Elias
"was deliberate with choosing the color palettes for the set design": I think this would have to be "deliberate in her choice of", but what does "deliberate" add for the reader? If we say she "chose", we've said it was deliberate. And how does this connect to her synaesthesia? I can imagine that her colour choices had synaesthetic implications but I don't think we can leave that completely to the reader to figure out.
- You figured out what it meant! Yes, the sentence should have been more direct with the relevance of her synesthesia here. This has been addressed - Elias
"juxtaposed against": "juxtaposed" already implies "against"; suggest "juxtaposed with". Actually this might be a BrEng vs. AmEng usage, so ignore me if you want on this one -- I think "juxtaposed with" is right on both sides of the pond, but "against" might be AmEng only.
- I'm keeping the wording. - Elias
"Eilish, who used the song as the tour's midpoint interlude": I think you mean it was the midpoint interlude for the concerts on the tour, not for the tour. If that's not right I don't know what you mean.
- You're right - that makes more sense. - Elias
~~"in defiance of the overturning of Roe v. Wade": perhaps "in protest against" instead of "in defiance of"? She's not really defying it, is she?~~
- Changed the wording, which should make it consistent with how the lead describes this - Elias

That's it for a first pass. Sorry about the slow progress of the review; I'm a bit less busy now so should be able to follow up more quickly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie - no worries about the pacing

These comments have been extremely helpful so far, and it makes me grateful you were provide such thorough justifications for your comments. I'm also glad we were able to see eye-to-eye on some comments I chose not to implement. I have replied to every single point raised above. Take your time with the next passes; hope you have a nice weekend! - Elias, 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

The MTV award is titled differently in the lead vs the body - which is correct?
- Went with "Video for Good" in the lead to match the body - Elias
FN5: author name spelling doesn't match source
- Fixed - Elias
Why is the Indie88 ranking significant enough to warrant mention?
- Well, don't really have a good answer for that, other than "this seems like an RS (radio station) so let's include it" ... replaced with a source from Stuff, which is the largest news website in NZ and lists the song in a higher ranking (-ish) - Elias
Be consistent in whether radio stations are italicized or not
- KIIS-FM is now italicized - Elias
FN72 is missing authors
- Added - Elias
FN129 is incomplete.
- Incomplete in what sense? - Elias
  - Now FN131. Incomplete in that a web source should have at least one of |work= or |publisher=, and this has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - |publisher= parameter has been added. Let me know how the source review stands now. - Elias

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. Responses to everything above. - Elias, 23:09, 3 December 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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:35, 11 December 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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2022 [39].

Artemy Vedel[edit]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Ukrainian composer, little known outside his own country, who composed mainly liturgical works based on Ukrainian folk melodies, and who made an important contribution in the music history of Ukraine. The article received peer review comments from Gerda Arendt and Tim riley. All feedback comments would be, as always, much appreciated. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

I suggested at PR that a section on recordings could be added. I still think it would be a useful addition, but a quick check on existing life-and-works FAs about composers shows that some, including such big fish as Mahler and Mendelssohn, have been elevated to FA without one, and so it must I think be accepted that the lack of one here is not cause for objection on grounds of FA criterion 1b (comprehensiveness).

@Tim riley: I need to be pointed in the right direction with this one. There lots of recordings of Vedel's music that could be listed, but the information about them all comes from commercial websites, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable source that provides the information I need. The detailed WorldCat information available is already in the article's Authority Control, so there's not need to duplicate it higher up. Thoughts? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor comments on other points:

I assume the italicised sentence in the second para of the lead is inadvertent?

Yes, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a double full stop at the end of the lead.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last para of the Imprisonment and death section, in "There was uncertainty about exactly when Vedel died ... The cause of Vedel's death ..." the second mention of Vedel's name could with advantage be replaced by a pronoun.

Agreed, done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Musical style section "Musicologists consider Vedel ... " is rather a sweeping assertion. The authors of the cited article so consider him, but that is not really enough to justify the implication of unanimity here.

Implication now gone. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is something of an anticlimax: "In 2016 the Ukrainian government announced its intention to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Vedel's birth in 2017". The reader may be forgiven for asking "And did it? How?" If you don't know and can't find out I think you should either say so or omit the existing sentence.

I think I've spent more time looking for how his anniversary was commemorated than was actually spent commemorating it. Sentence deleted accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in again with a view to supporting. – Tim riley talk 10:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments Tim, and I'll do some research on recordings, with a view to adding to the article if possible. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the FAC coordinators are happy for me to contribute to the article having already supported its elevation (Ian, Gog or colleagues, what say you?) I shall be happy to run up a Recordings section for your consideration. Alternatively, if you fancy trying your hand at it, follow the link to WorldCat I put in my postscript to my comments at the peer review. Tim riley talk 19:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, not a problem. Go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog. I'll run up a draft section on recordings in the next day or so on the usual lines, for the nominator's consideration. Tim riley talk 22:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alas having waded through the numerous entries in WorldCat for recordings of music by Vedel I find they mostly consist of multiple reissues of two recordings of a couple of pieces. I can't find anything like enough to base a Recordings section on, and I really must apologise for supposing there would be. Sorry, everyone, and I unconditionally withdraw the suggestion that we can have a Recordings section at all. Tim riley talk 22:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a final read-through I am happy to add my support. Good prose, clear exposition, evidently balanced and well sourced. The illustrations are no doubt as good as possible for this out-of-the-way subject. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 22:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

I am happy with the changes made during the PR and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Suggest adding alt text

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Артемвй_Ведель,_меморіальна_дошка.JPG: as Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work. Similarly File:Dvoeznamennik_17c_GIM.jpg, File:Дніпрові_кручі_у_Києві.jpg

File:Артемвй_Ведель,_меморіальна_дошка.JPG is of a modern sculpture, which appears to mean the image cannot be used. Did you have a particular tag in mind?

When was it created? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2008. (citation used in article). Did you have a particular tag in mind?

No - I agree without more information it seems unlikely the sculpture is PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed, it's place now taken by the commemorative stamp. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dvoeznamennik_17c_GIM.jpg; File:Дніпрові_кручі_у_Києві.jpg; - Looking at c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Ukraine#Freedom_of_panorama, which includes a statement about copyright protection for 3D works "expiring 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here". This appears to make them public domain images. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need explicit tags identifying why they are PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дніпрові кручі у Києві.jpg - own work by Alina Vozna, tagged accordingly.

The own work tag covers the photo - what is missing is something for the architecture. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Understood, but as the buildings date from the 11th-18th centuries. I, is there a specific tag available? I have searched for the correct PD tag for old buildings (including anything in photographs in FA architecture articles), without any success. Please, what is the correct tag I have to use? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can confirm that all of the architecture pictured was erected in the 18th century or earlier, then ((PD-US-expired)) would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dvoeznamennik_17c_GIM.jpg - now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pre-1811_map_of_Podil_(Kyiv)_-_cropped.svg: which rationale is believed to apply for Ukrainian status, and what is the status of the original work in the US?

Not sure, image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kharkov's_Collegium_XVIII-XIX.jpg needs a US tag

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early ~~19th~~ 20th century, or earlier. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but where though? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kharkiv. It was published in the supplement to Dmytro Bahaliy's 2-volume История города Харькова за 250 лет его существования (1655-1905) (History of the City of Kharkov: 250 years of existence (1655-1905)), which was written in the first two decades of the 20th century.

When was that work published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1912 (see link). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кирилівський_монастир_на_мал._Ф._Солнцева,_1843.jpg is incorrectly tagged, as is File:Vedel_-_manuscript_of_Concert_No._12_(first_page).jpg

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the former, the date given in the description is both more recent than 100 years ago and after 1927 - is that not accurate? If no, when and where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The artist, Fedor Solntsev, died in 1892. I have corrected the date given on the WikiCommons page, as 1943 is an error. The tag is (I believe) correct. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a painting, so I'm unsure if a publication date (other than 1843, the date it was painted, as stated on the WikiCommons page) is appropriate. Also, I don't think the place it was painted is known, but it is likely to have been somewhere associated with the artist (e.g. his studio), and I don't think this information is relevant. Am I incorrect?

You are correct - what we care about is publication, as defined here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I may have found what was needed—this link states that the watercolour appeared in an 1843 publication, now held in the V. G. Zabolotny State Scientific Architectural and Construction Library in Kyiv. I've amended the text in WikiCommons to explain this. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кошиць_Олександр.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death

Tag sorted, the author is unknown, so I have put this. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Kyiv, then part of the Russian Empire. Koshetz is wearing his seminary clothes, so it would have been taken there at the time he was a student. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That helps to identify when the image was created, but we need to determine publication in order to assess US status. Is that known? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked hard, but nothing has come up, so for the moment the publication date is not known. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what is the first publication that has been identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any examples of books that includes the photograph, only online examples, as listed in WikiCommons. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The current tagging is based on the work being published before 1917 - if we can't demonstrate that, the tag will need to be changed to something that can be supported. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't know which tag you might be referring to, I've replaced the image with one that I believe has no issues (this), although I would have preferred to use the one of him as a younger man. Did you have a specific tag in mind? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, Amitchell, is this the only outstanding image query? Can we resolve, if we haven't already? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been replaced, so we can proceed on that basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nikki, just needed to know the new image checked out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:UA055-17.jpg: the Ukrainian tag states coins and banknotes are PD, but not stamps. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Ukraine#Stamps incorrect? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Probably worth amending the tag's language to reflect the information provided there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can try and get that done, but it's not something that needs to be done for this nomination, is it? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Smerus[edit]

Nice article - but a couple of points:

a) the lead seems to me rather 'top-heavy' and over-detailed - you may want to consider thinning it out. Do we need, for example, Koshetz's comment on the difficulty of performance quoted twice in the article?

Agreed - lead section trimmed down a bit. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

b) Where you are sourcing articles/websites in Ukrainian, you should make it clear in the citation that the original is in Ukrainian, and, most important of all, you must check your translations. Maybe you are using Google Translate? As examples

1) 'ТЕЛЕПЕРЕДАЧА «ОЧИМА КУЛЬТУРИ». № 28. НЕСУСВІТНІЙ АРТЕМ ВЕДЕЛЬ' does not translate as ' "Television "through the eyes of culture" – No 28 Non-world Artem Knowledge" but as ' "TV show "Through the Eyes of Culture" – No 28 The unworldly Artem Vedel"

2) "Ведель Артем Лук'янович – композитор, диригент, співак, скрипаль" does not translate as "Artem Lukyanovich in charge: composer, conductor, singer, violinist" but as (in English standard name order) "Artem Lukyanovich Vedel: composer, conductor, singer, violinist"

Please go through your sources and check the translations are accurate - otherwise this article cannot merit FA status.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! I thought I'd checked these, I have a friend who will help with this, I'll let you know when the Ukrainian has been re-checked. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in other languages all noted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus: Corrections to translations from other languages into English have been done—with thanks to Ата to helping here. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I am therefore happy to support the article as FA. --Smerus (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Finding little to say—content wise—I feel I can best help here with a source review. Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

I tweaked a few things
We sure its not transliterated as "Ihor"? e.g. Ihor Sonevytsky

I've changed any Igors into Ihor for Sonevytsky. There are Russians called Ihor and Ukrainians called Igor—and sometimes I have found both versions of the name for the same person—so it's not always clear what the transliteration should be. I'll do some double checking, and make changes if needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why no title case for the English title of Tylyk 2018?

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

No issues

Verifiability

I was unable to find an OCLC or any other identifier for Potemkin, and assume you don't know of one?

Yes, I looked in vain as well. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, especially considering we have direct online access to the publication anyways

For FAC coords: I have not done formal spot checks, but some were done by Smerus above & the nom has a history of FAs. Aza24 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 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) 13:06, 2 December 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 article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2022 [40].

SMS Friedrich Carl[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on a German armored cruiser built in the early 1900s that was mined and sunk in the early months of World War I, though most of the crew was evacuated by other ships. This article passed a MILHIST A-class review in 2019 and should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
- Done (though if anyone can improve them, feel free)
File:SMS_Friedrich_Carl_-_Max_Dreblow.jpg: what country was the postcard from?
- Given the subject and author, Germany is a reasonably safe assumption.
File:FriedrichCarlMiniatureDM.jpg: see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Models. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh, I always forget about the model thing. Removed. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, been a while PB, good to see you again....

Copyedited as usual, let me know if I misinterpreted anything.
- Everything looks fine to me.
Structure seems logical.
Appears comprehensive -- one query: I'm guessing we don't know from available sources exactly when the seaplanes were fitted?
- No, unfortunately
I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
I might get round to a source review later, let's see how things go.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, I always appreciate your eyes. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I take it that this is a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, pls take as leaning support, I prefer not to commit fully this early as prose can change with more reviewers and I like to do a once-over when consensus is forming... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support having checked the minor changes since I first reviewed and tweaked in a couple of places. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

The max speed given in the lead is higher than the infobox/text, and needs sourcing
- Corrected
Author formatting for Further reading should match references. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks Nikki! Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

"and her forward conning tower was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick." Perhaps 'and on her forward conning tower ...'?
- Works for me
"Friedrich Carl was in need of repairs". Is it known what needed repairing?
- No, Hildebrand et. al. don't say; it would have been most likely boiler maintenance but that's just an assumption
"Friedrich Carl had to tow two torpedo boats along with the coastal defense ship Odin and the torpedo boat S98 to Stavanger". Is that a total of three torpedo boats.
- No, just poorly worded - they traveled together. See how it reads now
"KAdm". Could this be given in full and translated at first mention.
- Good catch
"where Friedrich Carl accidentally collided with the British pre-dreadnought battleship HMS Prince George." Was any damage done to either ship?
- Presumably there was some minor damage, but Hildebrand et. al. don't say

Optionally you could say something like "It is not known what if any damage either ship suffered."

Seems reasonable enough - thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Friedrich Carl went into drydock at the Kaiserliche Werft (Imperial Shipyard) in Kiel for repairs in preparation for the coming conflict." Again, is the nature of these known?
- No, unfortunately - probably boiler work again if I had to guess

That trivia is all I have. Well up to your usual standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy ? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping - I had seen your comments earlier in the week but lost track of them. Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do that all the time. A minor suggestion above, but happy to support notwithstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Supprt by Pendright[edit]

Design:

Friedrich Carl was the second ship of the Prinz Adalbert class, which were ordered under the Second Naval Law of 1900

In this context, class is a singular collective noun and "was" seems appropriate here.

Fixed

The need to fill both roles was the result of budgetary limitations, which prevented Germany from building vessels specialized to each task.

The first clause is unclear to me?

Reworded, see if that works

It works - Pendright (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Prinz Adalbert design was based on the previous armored cruiser, Prinz Heinrich, but incorporated a more powerful armament and more comprehensive armor protection.

but "it" incorporated

Done

Friedrich Carl was powered by three vertical triple expansion engines driving three screws,
steam being provided by fourteen coal-fired water-tube boilers.

provided -> produced or generated would seem to be superior verbs

Went with generated

Construction through 1905:

Trials were interrupted in March 1904 when Friedrich Carl was tasked with escorting Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard the Norddeutscher Lloyd steamer SS König Albert on a trip to the Mediterranean Sea.

"The" trials

Done

The ship's sea trials were also officially ended at that point.

at this point

Done

In November, the crew briefly staged a mutiny against Cotzhausen, citing his inept leadership, though he remained in command.

Did the crew suffer any consequeces for this?

Not that Hildebrand report

Konteradmiral (KAdm—Rear Admiral) Gustav Schmidt, who was the commander of reconnaissance forces of the Active Battlefleet, transferred from Prinz Heinrich, making Friedrich Carl the new flagship of the reconnaissance squadron.[8]

"was" transferred

I don't think that's right - "was" implies someone told Schmidt to move.

I stand corrected - Pendright (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1905-1915

During the Kiel Week sailing regatta in July 1914, Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) Alfred von Tirpitz came aboard Friedrich Carl to observe the festivities, which coincided with a visit from the British Royal Navy.

a visit from the British Royal Navy ->

rather broad?

Specified the unit

A transisional word or phrase would help to link these two sequential sentenes

While Edward Goschen, the British ambassador, was visiting Tirpitz aboard the ship,...

Reworded

World War I:

Friedrich Carl was assigned to the attack force, and left Memel on 16 November to bombard Russian positions around Libau; at 01:46 on 17 November, while 33 nautical miles (61 km; 38 mi) west of Memel, she struck a naval mine that had been laid by Russian destroyers in October.

and "she" left Memel...
Rather a long sentence

Sometimes the German tendency for long sentences gets the best of me :)

Seven or eight men died in the sinking.[16][17][18]

Did any men die as a result of the mine strikes, or did the 7 or 8 go down with the ship. Any wounded?

Not clear from the sources, but I'd assume from the mines themselves. And no number of wounded, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: Finished - Pendright (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pendright - I lost track of following up on your last few comments, but they should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator request[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll review this, but my time is a bit fragmented over the next few days so I don't know how long it will take me to complete the review. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"of the Prinz Adalbert class, which were built" -- to my ear this should be "was built" since "class" is singular. Is this the usual usage in the sources?
- Fixed
@Mike Christie: For your information:
In American Engish, a collective noun can be singular or plural.

If the collective noun refers to the group as a unit, then it takes a singular verb. If it refers to the individuals in the group or the parts that make up the group then the verb should be plural.
I wrestled with this during my review and concluded from the above that the plural verb seened correct.

Pendright (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic and my BrEng vs. AmEng intuition is somewhat polluted as a result. If the original usage is to be found in reliable sources I'm fine with restoring it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were directed at your assertion that "class", a collective noun, is singular. A bit of research will show that a collective noun can be singular or plural.

In any event, my motovation was merely to impart information that you did not seem to be aware of-nothing more. Regards - Pendright (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"incorporated a more powerful armament": again just checking that this is standard usage in naval warfare sources. I would have expect "incorporated more powerful armament".
- The indefinite is redundant, good catch
My very limited knowledge of naval history says that mutinies are severely punished. You don't mention what happened to the mutineers -- is it known?
- Hildebrand et. al. don't mention what happened to them, unfortunately
"she again accompanied Wilhelm II, this time aboard" -- suggest rephrasing; this makes it sound as if Friedrich Carl was on board the Hamburg.
- Fixed
"It is not known what if any damage either ship suffered": suggest "It is not known if either ship suffered any damage".
- Done
"during which she accidentally ran aground": do we need "accidentally"?
- Not really, I suppose
"She remained in this role only briefly": it was five months, as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure we need "briefly". From the earlier narrative it seems that changing flagships wasn't that infrequent.
- Trimmed
"due to an accident with Yorck": at first I thought this was an accident involving both Yorck and Friedrich Carl, but I think it just means an accident that occurred to Yorck. Perhaps "when Yorck suffered an accident"?
- Works for me
"and on her return to Wilhelmshavn was decommissioned on 5 March for lengthy repairs". Again this may be terminology I'm not familiar with but I thought decommissioning was permanent, not a term for whatever state a ship is in during repairs. Our article seems to support that usage.
- Our article is biased toward current practice; at the time, it was routine for ships to be decommissioned frequently (the Germans decommissioned the bulk of their fleet every winter until the 1890s, for example).
“The years 1910 and 1911 followed a similar training routine to that of 1909, though Schultz had been replaced by”: no contrast is being drawn here so I would suggest another connector than “though”.
- Fixed

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your time. Parsecboy (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

No change needed, but I was surprised that a cruiser could be a scouting ship. I thought that they were always fast and lightly armed. You mention budgetary restraints, but would not light fast ships have been much cheaper?
- The Germans did build a handful of such ships in the 1880s and 1890s (see for instance the Meteor-class avisos) but most of them were disappointments in one way or another. There are a couple of things at play here - the simpler one is that larger vessels can handle rough seas and maintain speed better. The more complex one is that your scouts will inevitably run into your enemy's scouts, and you want yours to win that fight, so over time, you build larger and stronger scouts. This arms race ended with the British and Germans using battlecruisers for their fleet scouts by World War I.
"en route". Should this not be italized as it is French?
- Its origin is French, but "en route" is a pretty common loanword in English
I would move note a as you have not mentioned SK and L/40 at that point.
- Hmm, that must have been removed at some point inadvertently - I've added it back
"King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy visited the ship there" Which ship?
- Clarified
1905–1915. The section only goes up to 1914
- Good catch
"The winter of 1911–1912 was particularly severe, and so in early 1912 Friedrich Carl was used to rescue merchant ships". I would leave out the word "so" as it implies necessity.
- Done
No change needed, but were such frequent accidents normal?
- Yeah, it was fairly common for ships to be involved in accidents; the Germans lost quite a few torpedo boats to collisions with larger ships. If you click around to some of the other German cruiser articles, you'll see quite a few accidental groundings, collisions, and other accidents (SMS Yorck was a particularly unlucky one). It's worth understanding the historical context when you see the criticism leveled against the US Navy over the relatively minor accidents it's had in recent years (certainly nothing compared to the Honda Point disaster!)

And of course that was minor compared with HMS Victoria! Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed - or the German equivalent, which led to similar heavy loss of life and recriminations. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The ship's crew initially thought the shock of the explosion was from striking a submarine; they immediately altered course to return to Memel," The ship or the captain altered course, not the crew.
- Fixed
Looks fine. Just few quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dudley! Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

@Parsecboy: - I was giving this a pre-promotion read through and found a concern:

The body and infobox say she was laid down in August 1900 but the lead says August 1901

I think it should be good to promote once this inconsistency is taken care of. Hog Farm _Talk 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, HF, 1900 must have been a typo - it's been fixed. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:42, 2 December 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. Hog Farm _Talk 01:12, 2 December 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.