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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [1].

Powder House Island[edit]

Nominator(s): jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an island that simply couldn't stop exploding. When I first created it, it was a tiny little geostub with a funny name, but when I got access to better sources, I figured out that there was a whole litany of historical drama centering on it. I even managed to find some halfway-decent images. I have never made a featured article nomination before, so I'm not quite sure what to expect, but hopefully the explosion isn't audible from Cleveland. jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Sdkb[edit]

Hi JPxG! Skimming the article, here are some initial thoughts:

That's all for now. This is certainly a niche topic, but it's always amazing how much information there ends up being when you dig hard enough, and this is testament to that. Best of luck with this nomination! ((u|Sdkb)) talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll get to it. I have never done one of these before -- the typical way people do it with GA reviews is to just leave responses to each bulletpoint under the bulletpoint, so I'll do that here as well (let me know if you'd prefer I leave them all below in one block). The stuff I haven't responded to, I'll get to in the morning. jp×g 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about this. Surprisingly no one said anything so I just didn't realize for two weeks.
Lead:
  • ", in southeast Michigan." - Is it worth mentioning the country, especially given its proximity to Canada?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was constructed in the late 1880s by the Dunbar & Sullivan Company in a successful attempt to circumvent an 1880 court order forbidding the company from storing explosives on nearby Fox Island during their dredging of the Livingstone Channel." - I would suggest splitting this into two sentences. I get what it's saying but this currently reads as unwieldy to me.
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the area of the island?
    • The area of the island itself isn't reliably documented; the closest thing I have is the size of the parcel containing the island. This is 0.91 acres, but if you look at the county's website you can see that the parcel is slightly larger than the island. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 1906, 20 short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite exploded" - I'd also reword this sentence, given that "In 1906" and "20 short tons" are numerals that are very close together. However, I recognize it may be a little hard to rephrase this.
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " owned by the State of Michigan. " - State government of Michigan?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Department of Natural Resources'" - I presume state government (as opposed to the national government), right?
    • This and the above thing made clearer (now just says "owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, managed by its Wildlife Division as part of the Pointe Mouillee State Game Area, and accessible to the public for hunting and camping"). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • " Powder House Island is in Wayne County, and is contained within Grosse Ile Township" - In general it may be useful to mention the state once more in the body. Which leads me to this point: currently, the comma is unnecessary since the second half of the sentence isn't a standalone clause, but if you added "Michigan" after "Wayne County" (i.e. "Powder House Island is in Wayne County, Michigan, and is contained...", then it's no longer unnecessary.
    • Made some changes for clarity's sake which I think address this. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Its coordinates are 42°06′26″N 83°08′09″W[1];" - I don't think you need to cite the exact coordinates inline unless it's particularly controversial. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure we need the coordinates in the prose at all; if the coordinates do need to be cited, they should go after the semicolon.
    • Fixed the refpunct thing, although I would also be fine with only including the coordinates in the infobox/title bar. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " closer to Lake Erie than to Lake St. Clair, " - Which are relatively to the south and north, respectively?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and around 200 ft (0.04 mi; 60 m) from the water border with Canada" - In this case, I'd definitely include the fact that the island is in the U.S.
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Bois Blanc Island" - Still in Michigan? I presume the other islands to the north, west, and south are also in Michigan, but I'm asking since the border with Ontario is to the east.
    • Fixed (I had somehow messed up and linked to the Michiganian Bois Blanc Island in Lake Huron, rather than the Canadian island in the Detroit River). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (and takes around five minutes to traverse on foot)" - This parenthetical is unwieldy in its current location. Perhaps this should be moved to after the description of the dimensions. (On a side note, it takes less than a minute for me to go 200 feet, but that's irrelevant here.)
    • Removed (that source was also giving an impossible figure for the size of the island, so I think they made a typo). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " gave its elevation" - Above sea level?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: In case you didn't notice the above comments. (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Took a crack at it, what do you think? jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this.
Background and first explosion:
  • "In the late 19th century, the Dunbar & Sullivan Company had a number of government contracts" - Did they bid for them and get the contracts, or did the government just designate it?
    If I ever get around to writing Dunbar & Sullivan Company it may be possible to glean some information about the bidding process for that contract -- it seems most likely to me that it was a competitive contract, but I can't say for sure (none of the sources go into much detail about it).
  • "The resultant shock wave destroyed all structures on Fox Island, leaving a crater 60 ft (18 m) wide and 16 ft (4.9 m) deep, shattered the windows of nearby houses, and was clearly audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north" - I think this should be reworded or split into two sentences. "Leaving...shattered...and was audible" are not consistent verb forms. Unless you meant to say this as a list with semicolons: "The resultant shock wave destroyed all structures on Fox Island, leaving a crater 60 ft (18 m) wide and 16 ft (4.9 m) deep; shattered the windows of nearby houses; and was clearly audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north." Then again this may be better as two sentences anyway.
    Good idea. Done.
Injunction and second explosion
  • "In March 1880, an injunction was issued by the Wayne County chancery court in the case of Walter Crane v. Charles F. Dunbar et al., forbidding Dunbar and Daniel B. Reaume (the operators of the company) from "storing nitroglycerine or any other explosive material on Fox Island"" - First, what was the case about? Can it be briefly explained? Second, I think the parenthetical phrase could be better integrated into the sentence by, I suppose, rewording the sentence so the parentheses are not necessary.
    It was regarding the explosion on Fox Island in 1879, which is about as much as I can get out of the sources here and on Fox Island (Detroit River). Phrasing re: the operators has been fixed.
  • "In order to continue work on the channel, it was necessary to store the explosives somewhere; Dunbar and Reaume requested that the injunction be dissolved,[8] but another explosion occurred at the Lime-Kiln Crossing worksite in September 1880, which shook houses in Amherstburg "to their foundations", and could be felt in Essex Center 16 mi (26 km) away.[15]" - This should also be split into 2 sentences, at the semicolon. I even wonder if it should be 3 sentences, since this is super long.
  • "Essex Center " - where?
    I checked, and the center of the town (not the county) of Essex, Ontario is indeed sixteen miles away, so have amended the link.
A little more later (and more quickly this time, I promise). – Epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Whaddya think? jp×g 02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Construction of new island
  • " While this allowed work to continue, it was not a permanent solution, and the scow had limited capacity; Dunbar & Sullivan had to purchase raw materials and manufacture dynamite, Hercules powder, and other explosive materials themselves at the work site." - This is another sentence that I think would be better off as two sentences. Is the part about "limited capacity" related to Dunbar & Sullivan's need to purchase other stuff at the work site?
    Indeed.
  • " While Dunbar & Sullivan had been forbidden to store explosives on Fox Island, the location of the worksite meant that there were few other places to do so. " - Few other staging areas, I suppose.
  • " to which the 1880 injunction would not apply (having only stipulated that Dunbar & Sullivan not store explosives on Fox Island specifically)" - This has a small grammatical error, though technically it's correct. The parenthetical phrase applies most closely to "the 1880 injunction" not "would not apply", so e.g. to which the 1880 injunction (which only stipulated that Dunbar & Sullivan not store explosives on Fox Island specifically) would not apply.
    Fixed.
  • "the primary difference between the two sites was that one of them had not existed when the ruling was made, and was therefore (ostensibly) not subject to it" - On a side note, this is hilarious. I feel like it's precisely the type of technicality that the government authorities would approve.
    It's epic, to me.
  • Also, should It is unclear why government engineering authorities approved of this reasoning... be combined with the previous paragraph?
    Indeed.
  • There is a duplicate link to "scow" in the fifth paragraph.
    Fixed.
  • " While it was initially referred to as "Dunbar Island"" - I was about to recommend replacing "it" with something like "the island" since, grammatically, "it" is closest to "the dynamite operations of Dunbar & Sullivan" (the nearest noun phrase). But that would be repetitive. In either case, this sentence should be rephrased.
    Rephrased a bit.
  • " 20 short tons (18,000 kg) of dynamite was stored on the island" - This should be "twenty short tons ... were".
    Fixed there and elsewhere.
  • " "you could throw a cat through the cracks"" - Cracks of the shanties?
    Cracks of the shanties!
    Lmao Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third explosion
  • " An "immediate cessation of pleasure" occurred among people in the immediate vicinity." - Who is this quote from? If we're going to use a quote rather than a narrative description of how people started panicking like the plot of 2012, there should at least be some attribution.
    Attribution given.
  • " which would need to be rebuilt with many scowloads of stone and mud" - It should likely either be "which would later be rebuilt" or "which needed to be rebuilt", since the fact that the island needed to be rebuilt is in the present, not the future.
    Done.
  • " An article in the Trenton Tribune would later falsely state that the explosion happened in 1907" - Might the date of this article be relevant?
    Indeed.
Second injunction
  • " Henderson requested that Dunbar & Sullivan be permanently enjoined from storing any dynamite in the Detroit River, which was denied by Judge Swan" - I'd recommend using active voice rather than passive voice here.
    Done.
  • Also, who are judges Swan, Richards, etc? Why are their names important?
    They aren't particularly relevant, but I've included Richards's name because he's being quoted for the opinion. Can remove if you want though.
    I would either include their full names or remove the mentions. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a citation for John K. Richards as judge of the sixth circuit court in Cincinatti at the time. jp×g 01:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with some advocating for a total ban on dynamite storage in the area. " - Do we know any approximate percentages, any specific people who advocated for such a ban, etc? It may not be relevant, but is that information available?
    Not that I could find, although I could dig through a little further if needed.
    Yeah, I would do a little more research into this, just to make sure you haven't skipped anything important. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded a little on it. jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Townsend's proposal for a compromise entailed constructing three additional islands, to store a total of 60 short tons (54,000 kg) of dynamite divided evenly between them" - The comma here is in the wrong place. It doesn't belong after "additional islands", but a comma is needed after "short tons...of dynamite".
    Rephrased.
  • " In the summer of 1911," - Per MOS:SEASON I would rephrase this. Obviously a North American summer, so "in mid-1911" would work.
    I think it's a little relevant (work on the channel mostly happened during the summer, as the Detroit River freezes up in the winter). I can change it if you want.
    Sadly, the MOS recommends against this, even though the summer is relevant. The alternative is "In the North American summer of 1911", which is very awkward, or "During the summer, in mid-1911", which is very redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did what I could (it says "mid-1911" now). jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In January 1912, a contract was carried out to fill its ice houses" - Why did the island have ice houses? Also, perhaps this should be a new sentence.
    My understanding is that it was to chill the explosives so that they could be handled safely, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. I do know that they were used in the manufacturing process somehow.
Completion of channel and subsequent use of island
  • " would soon come to an end" - I think it suffices to say "soon ended".
    Rephrased.
  • " In the 1920s, it was using nearby Stony Island as a central part of its dredging and excavation operations" - For staging, I suppose.
    For staging...
  • The last paragraph seems abrupt. Do we know anything about when the island was abandoned as a residence, or when the Michigan government took over? Do any structures still exist? The mid-1930s to 1980s is a large era that isn't covered here; were there no sources that talk about the island during this time?
    It's tragic, but I absolutely could not find dick about the island between those years. It seems that once the channel was dug, there was not much of anything going on there -- Wayne County's property records are kind of a pain in the ass so I can't find anything about transfers of the parcel either. I'm not sure what kind of reference work (outside of, say, USGS maps) would even cover random uninhabited sub-acre islands in the Detroit River in a meaningful way.
    Oof, that sucks. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some good news -- I was able to figure out some more kool faktz about some stuff that kinda-sorta went on through the 1960s (mostly the completion of the channel deepening project and a failed 1961 proposal to expand the island). At least it's something... jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG, these are all the comments I have so far. Sorry for making you wait a month, since I tend to keep forgetting about stuff like this. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Gottem. jp×g 07:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Expanded the last section a bit and addressed a couple other minor things, take a look. jp×g 03:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Just a few more things.
  • For the paragraph beginning "In December 1932, channel-deepening operations began again, this time being carried out by a George Mills Company of Ontario", how many of these quotations can be reasonably paraphrased?
Took a swing at it. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another suit with similar complaints was filed against the Arundel Corporation in 1938." - Do we know the outcome?
Unfortunately, I could not find anything on it. Newspaper results for the corporation aren't very prevalent after this period, as I suppose they didn't get up to any similarly fascinating projects afterward... jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Work on nearby shipping channels would continue through the mid-20th century, including a project to deepen the Amherstburg Channel in the late 1950s" - Why is this phrased as "would continue" rather than "continued"?
Bad habits. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enlarging them up to the boundaries of shipping channels." - Enlarging the islands, I assume?
Indeed. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks all good now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a second look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For various definitions of tomorrow. @Epicgenius: Check it out. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Per the outcome of this discussion, would you be willing to remove the template calls to ((tq)) above or replace them with the less costly ((green))? Hog Farm Talk 15:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sure. I just removed the template calls altogether. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trainsandotherthings[edit]

Lead

More comments to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one is kind of interesting. I don't think there is a lot of consensus on it being a proper place name (in the decades I lived there, anyone who said it just meant the southeastern part of the state). Some fairly heavy-hitting RSes have it lowercase (the State of Michigan, as well as the two papers of record, the Detroit News and the Free Press). With local news channels it's kind of uncertain: Channel 4 has it uppercase, Channel 2 seems to alternate, Channel 7 has it lowercase. But capitalizing it seems to be a minority position (frankly, I think Southeast Michigan may need to be corrected, but that's neither here nor there). jp×g 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have at the moment, I'll take a second look once you've reviewed these comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have been made, except for a couple. Firstly, I'm not sure about offering a conversion for "a couple hundred yards", because with the lack of precision it would end up being something silly like "a couple hundred yards (a couple hundred meters)". I can't think of a better way to phrase that. Secondly, the name change -- I could not find any concrete sources on that. People just used the two interchangeably for a while; the 1907 court case says "Powder House Island", and it appears on the 1906 USGS map as "Powder House Island" (both of which seem to be fairly official contexts), and by far the predominant name is "Powder House Island". On the other hand, Wayne County's parcel records in 2021 say "DYNAMITE ISLAND". Thirdly, I don't know how relevant this is, but I am not sure about what jurisdiction the Wayne County chancery court fell under in 1880 (whether it was a separate entity to the circuit court or whether it was a subordinate department). jp×g 21:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will leave comments soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, ping me once you get through Epicgenius' comments, and then I'll review. I don't want run crosspurposes with their review. Hog Farm Talk 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Wassap. jp×g 07:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apparently the way you do it is change spell=in to spell=In (lol). jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, so removed. jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, so I will go with Lime-Kiln. jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not in that source; not terribly relevant to what's being said so I have removed the "Dynamite Island" part. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not ideal. It's pretty hard to prove a negative; I spent quite some time trying to find proof that went either way, but I don't think anything would even qualify as evidence short of a "Project To Build Additional Islands Cancelled" headline. That said, there's not a single source that says anything remotely to the effect that there were multiple islands (and all of them refer to Powder House Island in a decidedly singular sense). I guess I could phrase this differently, like this:
"However, these islands do not seem to have been constructed; future references to the area do not mention these islands, and they are not shown on subsequent maps of the area."
I am open to doing something else, though. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about "However, no such islands appear on survey maps from 1906 through 2019"? Hog Farm Talk 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this was just a miscellaneous error (which it looks like I got rid of while doing unrelated fixes). jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds smart; have gone ahead anf fixed it. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is Dunbar & Sullivan (was clearer when the section was smaller, but it's been expanded since so I will rectify). jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. The only thing it's supporting is that Dunbar & Sullivan went defunct in 1987, which isn't blisteringly relevant anyway. I went looking for some sources to support this, and found this article about them doing something in 1987: "Harbor dredging under way". Kenosha News. Kenosha, Wisconsin. 1987-07-07. p. 7. Retrieved 2022-01-14 – via Newspapers.com.. I dunno -- seems sus. Maybe I can find something else, but for now I will just take it out. jp×g 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Update: They were "winding the company down" in 1989, per this (which says a bit about their history, and some about Stoney Island as well). This talks about where their locations were in 1975 or so. jp×g 08:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nailhed's article does, and has a ton of pictures of it: do you think I should include that as a source? jp×g 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nailhed looks RS, but I'll see what I can find. This says that Sterna hirundo lived there back in 1993, but that might be too old to be worth including. And there area next to the area was apparently a walleye spawning site in 1982. Not really finding anything from the last 20 years, though. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give this another look-through once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dope. I will get on it. jp×g 07:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG nudge (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's up. It's me, JPxG, the guy who always gets around to stuff... jp×g 05:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, here we go. @Hog Farm: Check it out :) jp×g 08:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, if anyone could get a hold of this document, we could probably get another FA out of all this. jp×g 08:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of state right now, will check back up in a couple days when I get back. Hog Farm Talk 14:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: - I've made a couple replies above, although I'd like to give this another read-through, which unfortunately I don't have time for immediately. I'll try to get back to this in another day or two. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off on the second run-through until Ealdgyth's comments below are addressed; a couple were things I was going to comment on as well and I don't want to double dip. Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting back to this, sorry for the wait.

This should be clarified further, which I'll do. Essentially, all survey maps and satellite imagery agree on it having the same size (≈200' × ≈50'). Wayne County has a parcel recorded for the island that covers 0.91 acre, (as it also includes some adjacent water). This is already explained in the Geography section, so I will remove the infobox data. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That cite is more in regards to what the sentence says later about the injunction; I'll add a cite to the Federal Reporter source that goes over more regarding the actual decision to construct the island. It seems straightforward to me that, if the island was constructed, the decision to construct the island must have been made prior to that, but you're right that this isn't backed up by the injunction itself. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take another look once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 05:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPxG, just a reminder that Hog Farm is still waiting for your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support. I agree with Ealdgyth here that the sources aren't ideal for a topic like this, but like the nominator I haven't been able to find really anything better. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG any response to these comments? This article has been open for quite a long time and I'm not seeing a consensus to promote at the moment. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I'll be on it today. jp×g 23:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Okay, I have gone through and made some modifications; what do you think? jp×g 05:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some and replied to others ... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got those :) jp×g
I've struck the above resolved issues. The issue of the primary nature of the sources, I'll leave out for other reviewers. Unfortunately, while if this was Ealdgyth-pedia, I'd say the use of sources here doesn't meet our high quality standards because I think it's too close to an actual work of history (rather than encyclopedia building), its a gray area and I suspect it's up to consensus of all the reviewers and the coords. I'm uncomfortable with it, but I can't point to any policy, guideline, or FA criteria that explicity prohibits it. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JPxG, any further comments or actions in the light of Ealdgyth's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None beyond the ones I already gave (and the changes I already made) regarding supplementary references from online databases and TWL affiliates. So far I've incorporated everything I could find in all search results from both names on Newspapers.com, the Detroit Historical Society, the Grosse Ile Historical Society, Google Scholar, DeGruyter, Gale eBooks, Gale Academic OneFile, Edinburgh University Press, Cairn, JSTOR, Nomos, Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Oxford Reference, Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford Academic, PNAS, ProQuest, and a normal Google search. jp×g 23:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Twenty short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite exploded in 1906 after two men "had been shooting with a revolver" near it; while there were no deaths (and only minor injuries to the two men), windows were shattered 3 mi (4.8 km) away and the explosion was clearly audible from 85 mi (137 km) away." That sounds very exciting but given that there's no finding that they caused the explosion (and the Sixth Circuit said the cause was unknown), is it really worth putting in the lead?
  • "21 April 1895" Why is day month year being used in an American non-military article? Also other dates.
  • "United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati" This is the Sixth Circuit and I would say so. Also, you don't seem ever to cite the actual case opinion and I'm not sure you've reviewed it, since it contains information about Powder House Island. For example, that the state owned it at the time of the explosion, and that two boys were fishing and their boat was destroyed though they were not much hurt. There may be other info as well. It is here. By the by, you would cite it as: Henderson v. Sullivan, 159 F. 46 (6th Cir. 1908), and if you were citing to a specific page or pages, it would be Henderson v. Sullivan, 159 F. 46, XX (6th Cir. 1908) where XX represents the page numbers or numbers. (the page numbers from the original, which I can't seem to find online, are bracketed in the text). Let me know if you need help with this, since I'm a lawyer, I'm picky about such things.
  • The history of the 1908 injunction seems to ignore that, according to the 1908 decision, the case was filed in state court but removed to federal court (I'm guessing because it happened in a navigable waterway that impacted interstate and foreign commerce, but I'm only guessing). And technically the Sixth Circuit did not grant the injunction, but instructed the lower federal court to grant one.
  • " Powder House Island is shown largely unchanged on survey maps throughout this time.[60][35][61]" Did you intend for the numbered citations to be out of order?
I'd prefer to avoid it, but on the other hand, they are being given in chronological order (the citations are <ref name="usgs1936"/><ref name="usgs1940"/><ref name="usgs1952"/>). I don't know if there is a way to avoid this, but if there is I'd be willing to do so. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I'll give it another look when you're ready for me to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'd call an ignorantia juris situation; when I was adding the stuff about the court proceedings it wasn't quite clear to me the proper way to phrase (and cite) everything, so I appreciate the help. I will try to work with what you've given me here, and I'll let you know when I have something. jp×g 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of things that would be easier if I had gone to law school, there is currently a real-life issue I have to make sense of (and a couple Signpost articles I have to write) over the next couple days, so I may not be available for editing much during that time. jp×g 08:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. The real-life issue ended up working out fine, somehow, and the other stuff is fine as well. jp×g 22:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I've gone through your comments :) jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. It's the same case, I mis-typed the volume number. Yours is a better link than mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On another look, I'll Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh[edit]

Comments[edit]

Perhaps, that is it! Nice work! Didn't know that so much can be written about a 930 m^2 island! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at these general comments as well, JPxG? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks[edit]

Will do Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Per Special:Diff/1071059481, do you need further spot-checks in addition to the ones given by Ealdgyth above? I'll be happy to do if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do please, yes. Note the instances above where Ealdgyth wasn't happy that the source supported the text. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I'll do! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version reviewed: [2]

Indeed; some sources mentioned this distance vaguely, but the survey maps are the most reliable indication of what the actual distance is (text sources have given different figures for its area, for example).
I really don't know if maps are the best sources, but as it is from United States Geological Survey, I'll assume they are reliable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "without warning" here, what I mean is that it wasn't deliberate on the part of the company -- it could also say "unintentionally" and be basically the same.
I've gone ahead and changed it to "unexpectedly".
Article text revised.
The source for the opinion is in ref 31 at the end of the sentence ("Appeal to the Courts: Island residents decline to argue dynamite matter"). Ref 30, to the biography of John Richards, is to confirm that he was the judge presiding over that court at that time (the US Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit, from 1903 to 1909). Otherwise, all ref 31 says is "Judge Richards".
In that case, suggesting to move both the references to end of the sentence, to imply that they jointly support the entire statement. But that is a minor point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References to a "ton" in US publications mean 2,000 pounds, but it's necessary to distinguish between this and the British "ton", which can either be 2,000 (short ton) or 2,240 (long ton).
For some reason, the DNR website is not letting me access the map, and the archive link is not showing it either, so I will have to figure out a workaround for this.
Okay, I managed to get a version of the DNR map from the Wayback Machine (had to use a prior archive from 2020 for some reason). It does show that Powder House Island is contained within the game area -- to make this clearer you can look here, where I've superimposed the DNR map on a USGS survey map. I will add a ref for Stony Island having been used by D&S.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: No response from JPxG from a week. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Hi! Thanks for the comments -- I'll be on it tomorrow. jp×g 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no issues! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four to six days later... jp×g 21:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right. @Kavyansh.Singh: Check it out now :) jp×g 00:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as spot-checks are concerned, they look OK now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [3].

Lake Estancia[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prehistoric lake in the Estancia Valley of New Mexico, a state in the USA. Like many valleys in the western USA, changes in precipitation and evaporation patterns caused the Estancia Valley to fill with water during the last Ice Age: Lake Estancia. It is now gone but its deposits have been used to reconstruct past climates for the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Does a picture like this[5] give an impression of the general are?
Maybe, but it's looking away from the area that the former lake covered. Also, vegetation during the lake stages was quite different from that today; I am not sure how representative it would be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The intro and article bodies should be able to function as separate, self-contained texts, though, so both presentations, abbreviations, links, etc, should be repeated in both. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually the "French" looking spellings that are UK English, such as "colour/flavour/favour" instead of "color" etc., "catalogue" instead of "catalog", "metre" instead of "meter". FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I think this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be mentioned, if it isn't already? FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that (beyond the playas) they are ever discussed in the context of the lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, could the sources for the info be added to the file description on Commons? I'll continue the review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I made some tweaks. Let me know what you think -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can work something out from that, would be good to have a little bit of definition? FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Approaching four weeks and just the single general review. Unless further movement towards a consensus to promote within the next couple of days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Imma ping the editors of the last three FACses if I may. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So long as the notification is neutral. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a lot on my plate, so no promises, but I might be able to leave some comments. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry- this one's a bit out of my depth, and digging into it would take a bit more time than I've got. My apologies, but it looks like you're cruisin' regardless! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma[edit]

Was pinged on my talk page, happy to provide a review over the next few days. First observations:

More to follow once I get to actually read the text :) —Kusma (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this appears well-researched (but I have not really looked at sources) but in need of improved writing. Too much unexplained jargon, too many sentences that are more difficult to parse than necessary. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

The nominator generously (and very neutrally) requested my comments on my talk page. More that happy to help! Following are few comments, nothing major. Most are just suggestions:

That is it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Support, pending minor formatting issues which can easily be fixed. Overall, excellent article on difficult technical subject. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Femke[edit]

No energy for a full review, but I was wondering if the climate section shouldn't use more modern sources.

Source review by A. C. Santacruz - Pass[edit]

Take note that between you beginning the review I've actioned Kusma's points and added some sources in the process. Also, what do the numbers in this list refer to? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers referred to citation numbers in this version of the article, and I'll check now for any sources added since then. I noted the numbers as a way to help myself keep track of where I was in the source review, but that probably should've been done in a subpage of my userpage and then moved here only the ones where I found issue (it's my first source review so I definitely did things inefficiently). Sources all seem reliable and appropriately cited, comments above are minor issues rather than mistakes of serious consequence.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A._C._Santacruz, can I take that as a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I had to make that explicit. Source review passed, Gog the Mild. For my first source review it was kind of cool to kind of follow Jo-Jo Eumerus's research in this condensed, goal-oriented fashion. I would usually never read geography academia (even though my great-grandfather was a PhD in Basque Geology, which is in the same neighborhood) but I genuinely enjoyed the topic. Interesting stuff! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment[edit]

There are some hyphens in the referencing which should be replaced with en dashes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe[edit]

Buidhe, you happy? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment has been addressed adequately, not supporting or opposing. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [8].

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article in terrible shape last December and decided to rewrite it based on recent research. It went through a very thorough GAN by Vaticidalprophet and a copyedit by Bafflegab. (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Reviewing this version:

Actually, that is it! What a great article on such an important topic, very well written and thoroughly researched! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second look; version reviewed:

That is it; most of the comments are suggestions. Rest, it is simply a perfect article, fully deserving of that bronze star. Thank you very much for your efforts! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied by the changes made. Very happy to fully support this FAC! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Vaticidalprophet[edit]

Commented thoroughly at the GAN. I left the door open for potential FAC comments, but upon reread have nothing more particularly to say, and I'm sure I've put you through enough at this point :) I support this article for promotion. Given the discussion on talk about further reading (which I saw due to still having the article on my watchlist) I agree with Kavyansh it might be worth making it clear in the wikitext via ref=none or hidden comment that the exclusion is intentional, perhaps explicitly suggesting there the creation of a bibliography article as compromise, but this isn't about article content per se. Vaticidalprophet 03:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lkb335's Proposed edits[edit]

I made an edit that was reverted. In the edit summary, Buidhe suggested that changes should be proposed here rather than made in the article. Apologies for not knowing this; I had thought that we could just make changes to the article, regardless of proposed FA status. I've never made edits to an FA candidate, and was thus not aware of this. Apologies.

I had changed (and once more propose changing) the sentence "One theory holds the Nazis' rise to power was fueled by a backlash against interwar Germany's relative tolerance of alternative sexualities but according to historian Laurie Marhoefer, this played only a minor role." to "One theory holds that the Nazis' rise to power was fueled by a backlash against interwar Germany's relative tolerance of LGBT people; however, recent scholarship disputes this." A few reasons behind this:

1. The term "alternative sexualities" seems an odd choice to me. It implies (unintentionally) that all sexualities besides heterosexuality are "alternative," which itself can be considered a loaded term. The idea the heterosexuality must be the norm is one that queer activists have been pushing back on for some time.

2. Marhoefer is not the only historian to push back on the idea that the Nazis rose to power due to backlash against Weimer-era tolerance; to support that contention, I cited an additional source.

3. Given 2., I think "recent scholarship" makes more sense to use.

I had also changed:

"In 1931 and 1932, the Social Democrats revealed Röhm's homosexuality in an attempt to discredit the Nazis.Adolf Hitler initially defended Röhm but the scandal weakened his place in the party. The Röhm scandal was the origin of the long-lasting but false idea the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals, a recurring theme in 1930s left-wing propaganda."

to:

"In 1931 and 1932, the Social Democrats publicized Röhm's homosexuality in an attempt to discredit the Nazis and sow dissent within their ranks, though this was already common knowledge among Nazi party members. Adolf Hitler initially defended Röhm but the scandal weakened his place in the party. The Röhm scandal was a recurring theme in 1930s Soviet and SPD propaganda, and was the origin of the long-lasting but false idea that the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals."

My reasons behind the above changes:

1. A key goal of the SPD's outing of Röhm was indeed to try to cause strife within the Nazi party, and I feel as though this section should reflect that.

2. While the Röhm scandal was indeed a recurring theme in propaganda by the SDP and Soviet Union, as far as I am aware, the "gay fascism" myth was part of propaganda used by either the Soviet Union or SDP. This section of the article cites Whisnant's 2016 book, which in turn cites for the relevant information an article by Herzer. The main discussion thread of that article relates to myths of exceptional homophobia within the German left in the late 20s early 30s as compared to other political groups. Herzer does mention many times that the SDP and Soviet Union used Röhm's sexuality as a propaganda piece; he does not refer to them using the myth of "gay fascism" as a propaganda tool. As such, I feel as though the sentence should be reordered to make that clear.

Apologies for any incorrect assumptions above; this area of scholarship is not my specialty.

In their rationale for reverting my edits, Buidhe explained that they were removing "incorrect or excessively detailed edits (Rohm scandal has its own article)." I had not thought that I was inserting any incorrect information or becoming needlessly detailed, but rather fixing errors in the article. For any mistakes I have made, though, I apologize thoroughly.

On another note, we have been discussing on the talk page the potential inclusion of a Further reading section. We have yet to come to a consensus there, and I would appreciate further input.

Thanks, Lkb335 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lkb, the incorrect edit was piping "Czech lands" to "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia", because the Czech lands also include the Sudetenland. As for the other proposed edits:

  1. "Recent scholarship" is very vague and it is not the case that all "recent scholarship" agrees on this point, see [9]. Furthermore, what the backlash was hypothetically against was not just male homosexuality but other "deviance" such as prostitution by women. I've rephrased to "backlash against perceived immorality" in order to be clearer.
  2. Herzer's conclusions do diverge from that of other reliable sources on the same topic. Most agree that the Soviet Union and SPD (and others, such as the KPD or various exiled anti-Nazis) did not just stir up the Röhm scandal but also promoted the Nazis as a whole as corrupted by homosexuality. For example, various Nazi leaders such as Hitler, Rudolf Hess, and Baldur von Schirach were speculated to be homosexual, and the Reichstag fire was postulated as the result of a homosexual conspiracy starring Edmund Heines. See Gay Nazis myth#Origins. I've added another source. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I agree with that justification.Lkb335 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, I feel as though I am too new to WP and inexperienced in FAC discussions to form an informed opinion. Staying neutral. I will, however, note that there are still some awkward phrases in the article that I think should be changed (though this is largely stylistic, and based entirely on personal preference):
Lkb335, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. It is always difficult to judge what is a stylistic preference as opposed to what is "of a professional standard". I note that after consideration you have been able to come to a formal judgement, for which thanks again. Both your comments and your support will be taken into account when this nomination is closed, Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, leaders of the SS that was a rival to Röhm's SA, supported the purge to assert their control over the Nazi police state." The clause "leaders of the SS that was a rival to Röhm's SA" is quite awkward, and really does not flow well.
  • The sentence "Some homosexual Nazis ceased participating in the party and others, former perpetrators of violence against Nazi opponents, became victims" is less awkward as "Some homosexual Nazis ceased participating in the party, while others, themselves former perpetrators of violence against Nazi opponents, became victims."
  • Done
  • "It was common knowledge among the homosexual community and German youth in general that non-penetrative sex was not a crime so many accused would admit to such expecting to be released." would be probably be better as two sentences: "It was common knowledge among the homosexual community and German youth in general that non-penetrative sex was not a crime. As such, many accused would admit to the lesser charge of non-penetrative sex, expecting to be released."
  • Reworded
  • "the law also introduced harsher penalties for male prostitution, sex with a man younger than 21, or with a student or employee" the way this sentence is currently written, it could be interpreted as saying there are harsher penalties just for being "with a student or employee;" as such, change to "the law also introduced harsher penalties for male prostitution, sex with a man younger than 21, and sex with a student or employee."
  • "From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as one of its top priorities" when reading this sentence for the first time, I thought it was using police as a plural noun, not a singular, and was thus confused by "its" later in the sentence; I think you can avoid any possible confusion here by changing this line to "From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as a top priority." One could argue that that changes the meaning of the sentence; if so, another, different edit could also work. This is really minor and could just be a problem I have that no one else does.
  • Done
  • "Himmler approved of such methods, arguing without them, homosexuality would spread unchecked in all-male Nazi institutions." I'm a proponent of including 'that' liberally; here is one place I would insert a 'that.' "Arguing without them" can be read as Himmler arguing without the methods, whereas "arguing that without them" removes that possibility.
Done
  • "The use of concentration camp imprisonment increased; after 1937, those considered to have seduced others into homosexuality were confined to concentration camps. Persecution of homosexuals was an opportunity for career advancement for lawyers and policemen." These sentences either don't belong together or should be separated by some kind of transition; they're topically different enough to require them, in my opinion.
  • moved
Again, all of my gripes are very minor and could rightly be ignored. It's just personal preference at the end of the day. Lkb335 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More suggestions:
  • "Even castrated men could serve in the Wehrmacht." The "even x could serve in the Wehrmacht" language feels improper here; this is a discussion of military conscription, yes? Making it sound like an opportunity is perhaps not how this should be described. For both this sentence and the one preceding it, I would change the language to something related to the draft or conscription. In addition, unless this sentence refers to castrated homosexuals being drafted into the Wehrmacht, this feels to me outside the scope of the article.
  • Done
  • "The army differentiated between innate homosexuals, who were to be punished, and those who suffered a one-time lapse of self-control." change to "The army differentiated between so-called innate homosexuals, who were to be punished, and those who were said to have suffered a one-time lapse of self-control." This sentence could probably use some elaboration, in addition. How exactly did the military tell the difference between the two?
  • Rewritten
  • "After the annexation of Austria in 1938, the persecution applied to homosexual men in Germany was quickly applied and coordinated by the Gestapo until shortly before the beginning of the war." and the later "The use of regular police after 1939 did not help Austrian homosexuals, and both regular and special courts applied draconian punishments, including the death penalty." Both kind of awkward; I'd combine them into something like "The Gestapo extended the persecution of homosexuals to the newly-annexed Austria in 1938. Gestapo-organized persecution lasted until shortly before the beginning of the war, at which point the regular police took over. Even then, regular and special courts applied draconian punishments to homosexuals, including the death penalty." Even that is somewhat awkward, there might be something better.
  • Rewritten
  • I'd change "Criminal prosecutions of men for homosexuality almost doubled during the Nazi era in Austria." to "Criminal prosecutions of men for homosexuality in Austria almost doubled during Nazi rule."
  • Done
  • "the old Austrian criminal code, which was much more favorable to men charged with a homosexual relationship, applied to non-Germans." Change to "the old Austrian criminal code, which imposed less-severe punishments on men charged with a homosexual relationship, applied to non-Germans." Neither code was really favorable to homosexuals.
  • Done
That's enough out of me, I think. I do have concerns that similar awkward phrases appear throughout the rest of the article, but I don't think any possible issues there would detract from the article so much as to prevent it from reached FA status. Support. Lkb335 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments and support! (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize preemptively if these comments demonstrate incompetence or cause offense; they are the most extensive I have made for an FAC thus far. I earnestly believe in them, but as usual am willing to talk about or concede on them. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality; voice of Wikipedia
Below are highlighted pieces of prose that I've clipped because I do not find the content within them to be presented neutrally (a disclaimer for the honor of the nominator and my friend: Buidhe's stance on Nazism is "it is a horrible abomination" and her work over the years on this topic has been unerring). These clippings are taken (presumably) from Nazis or otherwise explain their views, which ordinarily we cannot chase with "[which was/this is] the worst shit ever" or a more civil, neutral, and/or comprehensive version thereof.

The approach taken in this article seems be to let the Nazis and speak for themselves and likewise the odious character of their ideas. This is the approach I too would take. But. The euphemism "enhanced interrogation" is presented, rightly, in quotation marks, but "shot while trying to escape" is not. Some Nazi nonsense such as "voluntary" castration is presented with quotation marks, others are not.

So, I believe that the way to include these things but divorce them from the voice of Wikipedia is to use more quotation marks or reword certain sections to make explicit that what is included without the use of quotation marks are Nazi, not Wikipedian, ideas (like [...] it was initially seen as a temporary re-education measure.). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vami, part of this is that MOS:SCAREQUOTES are not supposed to be used. Although clearly I did not follow this 100%, I guess it can be difficult to demarcate the opinions associated with the article topic with the non-opinions of the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 12:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your detailed review! I'll let you know when I've got through all of these comments. (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Very pleased to Support now :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'll pick this up. I look forward to forensically dissecting the sourcing tomorrow, UTC. Are spot checks required? SN54129 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Noting for the record that I have insufficient German to focus on those references.[reply]

And that's that. As for the sources themselves, the books utilised are all published by respected houses (LIT Verlag, Campus Verlag, Der Gruyter, Bloomsbury) or university presses (Cambridge, Toronto, Nebraska, Yale, Columbia, Harvard, and I suppose even Oxford), and likewise are the full-length works the chapters are extracted from. Likewise, the journals are all established peer-reviewed academic publications. A thorough search of library and scholarly databases indicates no substantial commission of any work that one otherwise expect to be used. No spot checks; coords get paid for that sort of thing.
Source review = pass.
Obviously, though, I must oppose this article's promotion on the grounds that it has far too many footnotes.
Cheers, SN54129 17:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After an editor's first successful FAC spot checks are not usually required, but any reviewer can check any sources they wish, for any or no reason. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [10].

Tell All Your Friends[edit]

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primary contributor: MusicforthePeople

Happy holidays, Wikipedia. This article is about the debut album by seminal emo band Taking Back Sunday, released in 2002. Although it received little radio support and charted very modestly, it sold at a steady pace, and became the band's best selling record. It became a gold record in America in 2009. In addition to its singles, it featured the emo staple "Cute Without the 'E' (Cut from the Team)" and the album was likened to Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory (2000) as an exemplary effort for its genre.

I am not the primary contributor to this article. That honor belongs to MusicforthePeople, who initially nominated this for good article status five years ago. As it turns out, I was the one who reviewed that nomination, but I have been mostly hands-off since then, with anything I've done being very minor. From the attitude I got earlier this year at the FAC talk page, I believe this should not be a problem.

MusicforthePeople and I are close colleagues, and we had a chat earlier this year about how both of us have so many good articles but neither of us can really take much credit for a Featured Article. They began making preparations to make this a featured article, but decided the process was not worth the hassle. I then offered if I could begin the process in their stead, and they accepted the offer. Me fulfilling this nomination and seeing it on the front page one day will be fulfillment of a dream seeing his work there. This will also be my first FA attempt in four years; my last attempts ended in failure, so hopefully I have learned from there. I appreciate any reviewers' time! dannymusiceditor oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • Done
  • Done
If I recall correctly we attempted to investigate this issue at GAN but were unable to find anything further than what we've dug up. I will give it another look to see if anything has surfaced since that time. dannymusiceditor oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. If further information cannot be found, then "personal issues" is fine. It could be a case where this was not disclosed to the public (which is perfectly fine and probably the healthiest thing). Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
Aoba47, got a question here. I'm reading the essay and working on it now, but point number two seems rather difficult. I had an idea, but don't know if it falls afoul of original research. I was going to lead it off with Reviews of Tell All Your Friends dating from near the time of the album's release were generally positive. but the guideline seems to discourage that and I don't know what I'd look to do instead. This album was not collected by Metacritic, which is what I typically source that opinion to. dannymusiceditor oops 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be safe to add a sentence about the album receiving positive reviews since this section is almost all positive reviews (with some mixed ones but not any outright negative ones unless I have missed them). I would work on the wording though. The "dating from near the time of the album's release" part is unnecessarily wordy. I'd use something like Tell All Your Friends was generally well received upon its release. I hope that is helpful, but please let me know if I can clarify anything further or anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
I've switched this to "Best-of lists, influence and retrospective reviews" – is this better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a clearer header to me, but I would also see what other reviewers say about it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I will look through the article again when all of my above comments have been addressed. Let me know if you have any questions, and have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We will be sure to follow up on this. dannymusiceditor oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Just so you know, it is discouraged to use the done template as it can slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I'd also remove the templates used above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I have done some significant retooling of the article's reception, hopefully in accordance with the essay you provided me. I also added some new information I thought would be not only pertinent, but helpful and important background. Is my work enough to garner your support? dannymusiceditor oops 01:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the ping and the update. The section does look better. I'd remove the star ratings from the prose as done in this part (and awarded the record four out of five stars) as it does not add much to the prose and this information should already be in the table. Once that is done, I will look through the section again. I hope you are having a great 2022 so far. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with my review. Everything looks good to me now. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • That might be a good idea, actually. I have a song in mind which would work, and I know what I need to do for the licensing and rationales once the file is uploaded, but I may need assistance with actually creating the sample itself - is there someone I could look to for that, if MusicforthePeople doesn't do it here? Also, I hope you're alright with me making a section out of your heading, since Aoba's list was rather long. dannymusiceditor oops 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I added a clip here. This is the first time I've uploaded audio, so let me know if I need to adjust it. MusicforthePeople (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the FUR the parameters marked "n.a." should be filled in, and some of what's currently in "not replaceable" might work better in "purpose of use". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the file source link. MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition is fine but suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the alt text. MusicforthePeople (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has only picked up a single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't interviews be considered RS since they're interviewing one of subjects (a member of the band in this case)? MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the publishing of the interview is a big part of the process - does the publisher have a reputation for accurately reporting interviews? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed since its only sourcing a minor detail. MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the standard at FAC isn't just meeting WP:RS, but being "high quality" - just as the prose for an FA is better than average, so should the sourcing be. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those are high quality, else they wouldn't even be there. This is an indie record which barely cracked the charts and had almost no radio airplay, what are you expecting? Billboard journalists in 2002 weren't going to pick up some random Long Island indie label's debut record and put it in the magazine. Some of these you've questioned are actually (or at least once were) print-published sources. Those kinds of sources didn't appear until years later after the band became successful. The one I could see an argument for removing was the Allmusic biography; we already have another source covering the information, and I see it is supposedly a last resort per WP:ALLMUSIC. dannymusiceditor oops 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely being a print source does not make a source reliable for wikipedia purposes - if that was so, WP:DAILYMAIL wouldn't exist and we'd be using The Daily Mail. As for the fact its an indie record, I did actually take that into account. The subject matter does dictate whether the sources given are going to be high quality or not. I clicked through to all the sources if they were available (not just the ones I"ve questioned), or checked out the wikipedia page on a source if available. Some of the above may meet the bar for "high quality" but it's not clear to me that they do. You can demonstrate their high quality by showing that they are experts in the field, or that other high quality sources use them as sources, or in other ways. It's not impossible, but it's also part of the FAC reqs for sourcing to be "high quality" - with that of course having some leeway for subjects - I certainly don't expect academic journals or university presses for indie records, but I do expect them for historical or scientific articles. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you asked, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'm not sure there is a strict by-step process, but they are generally thoroughly discussed (or not if a source obviously isn't usable), and background checks on the sources actually come down to proving they are "experts in the field", as Ealdgyth mentioned. Ultimate Guitar, CMJ, Rock Sound, Drowned in Sound and AbsolutePunk in particular gained consensus that they have established credentials; see the linked discussions for those. The others I would be happy to show you, what exactly are you asking me to look for? If they weren't "experts in their field", I would not expect them to be listed there, but if there's anything I can do to show that, I will. dannymusiceditor oops 15:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So... I go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for the first source I questioned - CMJ New Music Monthly - I assume it's "CMJ" on the chart - which links to a "2014 discussion" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 49 in this archive. However ... there's no discussion in the discussion. I searched the page for "CMJ" and there is one mention on the page - in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 49#What makes a single a single? where it's listed in a bunch of other external links. Okay .. so lets see the second one - Rock Sound - the chart says Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_32#Review_publications:_Rock_Sound,_Spin,_Metal_Hammer,_Vibe,_Mojo,_Kerrang!_and_Q a 2009 discussion - which is not exactly showing how this is a "high quality" source for FAC purposes. Europunk's not on the chart. Absolute punk's on the chart, but says "only use staff reviews" - which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of its reliablity, much less being "high quality". Ultimate punk's listing says "Only cite articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere." - which, again, isn't a ringing endorsement of its meeting WP:RS, much less being of a higher standard. ChartAttack has no listing of any discussion on how it got added to the chart. (oh, sorry for the bad pun). Punknews says "use staff reviews only". Drowned in Sound says "only use staff reviews". The Fader has no discussion linked in the chart. Nor does Melodic.net (I"m assuming that's "Melodic" on the chart). I'm going to take it that the allmusic source will be removed. I'm not trying to shoot down the nomination - just trying to make sure the article is the best it can be, and that includes using the highest quality sources possible for its subject. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that some of these don't have discussion, I just wanted to point the others out. The Allmusic biography indeed has been removed, but I still believe the album review is perfectly valid. As for the others, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. The BBC loves Rock Sound, among others, and that is a sound endorsement (ba dum tss) in my opinion. Punknews, Drowned in Sound, Ultimate Guitar and AbsolutePunk had/have a forum and the ability to self-publish content, which is to be ignored; this is what is being alluded to in the discussion of staff, and just because that is allowed should not mean the sources should be excluded from consideration of expertise. I believe such clear-cut portions of the site designated usable and to avoid should validate its use here. On the AbsolutePunk discussion, did you actually click on it and read the whole discussion? I remember MusicforthePeople and I participating in that discussion, with them doing the most heavy lifting. If better sources exist for the same content, I would be happy to replace them, but I'm not seeing the issue here. If there are any publications I haven't addressed in your previous reply I'll get back to you on those. I believe that this article is the best it can be, among source choices. dannymusiceditor oops 18:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, though. I can see Rock Sound - the BBC usage pushes it enough to make it "high quality" for the subject matter, but the others are not convincing to me. The bar isn't "reliable" .. but "high quality". We're looking for experts writing for them, that other sources thus use the source for their coverage. Just because the Album project decided to list some sources on a page (and keep in mind, that page isn't for "high quality sources", but just the plain "reliable sources") doesn't make them high quality unless we can see why they meet the FA criteria. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's where we hit a brick wall - I think that for them to be listed, they are considered "high quality sources". In any case, would credentials of staff at these websites on other publications sway anything? According to founder Jason Tate's LinkedIn, he oversaw the company while it was a part of SpinMedia, who also operated Spin and Stereogum, among others. I would think that to secure such a publishing agreement, the company would have to be recognized as legitimate enough that they would be experts, right? Still working on the others, just wanted to give an update on that one while I found it. dannymusiceditor oops 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Danny, wearing my FAC coordinator hat, it seems to me that Ealdgyth is right and you aren't. Unless Ealdgyth has any further input I would suggest that you take that on board before I look to close this nomination, which will be in the near future. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest with you, Gog, I feel like I'm not being paid enough attention to. I am actively trying to work out solutions and I'm waiting on a response - did you look at the evidence I provided below? dannymusiceditor oops 05:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this - but it said in the hatted section "More on other sources will be coming" so I assumed there was ... more to come. Nothing I saw below was hugely game changing, but I was waiting on the totality of the information rather than rushing to oppose on sourcing issues. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I was assuming I might get some clarification that I was at least on the right track before I completed it. Sorry to keep you hanging. Anyway, I've completed the list, but Melodic might be moot. dannymusiceditor oops 19:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was a bit delayed - I had a husband home for a few days and spent some time with him. I've struck a few above - the main issue is punknews - and give the other issues being resolved (the lists helped a lot, so it wasn't wasted at all), I think I'm comfortable saying that other reviewers can decide for themselves on these last ones. Marking this one complete in my book and unwatching. Thank you for the effort and listing, may I suggest you copy these over to the album project page for future reference? Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source backgrounds from DannyMusicEditor

AbsolutePunk

  • As previously mentioned, founder Jason Tate operated the company under oversight of SpinMedia.

Ultimate Guitar

  • Amy Sciarretto – see bottom of the CMJ section

Drowned in Sound

Punknews.org

  • First and foremost, co-founder Scott Heisel, has worked for Alternative Press for a decade, as his involvement in Uproxx and Substream Magazine. (source: [26])
  • Aubin Paul (co-founder) has worked for Exclaim! (source: [27])
  • Brian Shultz has worked for Vice, The A.V. Club and Substream Magazine (source: [29])
  • Ben Conoley has worked for Alternative Press and Exclaim! (source: [31])
  • Bryne Yancey has worked for Alternative Press, Bandcamp Daily (source: [32] / [33])
  • Chris Moran has worked for The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, Yahoo, and a few others (source: [36])
  • Xan Mandell has worked for AMP (source: [39])
  • William Jones has worked for AMP and Skratch Magazine (source: [40])
  • Brian Cogan has worked for The New York Post, Chunklet; written or co-wrote the books The Punk Rock Encylopedia, The Encylopedia of Popular Culture, Media and Politics, and co-edited Mosh the Polls: Youth Voters, Popular Culture, and Democratic Engagement. (source: [44])

CMJ

  • Michael Tedder has worked for The Village Voice, Spin, Salon, The Orlando Sentinel, few others (source: [52])
  • Christopher Weingarten has written a book for the 33 1/3 series (source: [55])

Chart Attack

  • Jordan Darville has worked for The Fader (source: [57])
  • Jesse Locke has worked for Vice, Pitchfork, Bandcamp Daily, The Ringer, Exlcaim!, Now, Slant, many others (source: [66])
  • Charlotte Cardin has worked for Exclaim!, Fashion (source: [67])

The Fader

  • Nick Felton - see the top of the CMJ section
  • Brandon Callender has worked for Pitchfork (source: [72])
  • Salvatore Maicki has worked for i-D, NPR, Paper, various radio stations (source: [75])
  • Matthew Trammell has worked for The New Yorker, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, few others (source: [77])

Melodic

  • Ola Gränshagen has worked for AOR Classics, RockUnited (source: [84] / [85])
  • While Johan Wippsson and Nick Anastasia have mostly focused their journalism career working for Melodic, they have worked with the publication for extended periods - 22 and 16 years each with the business, respectively. (sources: Nick and Johan)
  • Done the above two. MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ealdgyth: The Melodic ref was sourcing the amount of copies sold; would this press release be a better alternative? [87] MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm very familiar with the album and saw TBS live a couple of times, and saw Nolan with Straylight Run more times than that. My comments:

  • The background section could be the background section for the TBS article. Can it be focused a bit more on TAYF? Do we really need to know where DeJoseph's final show was?
  • This better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the separation of a guy and a girl.[35]" Perhaps a little informal? And you should be clearer on what you mean by separation.
  • " A Yahoo! Group with over 1,300 Taking Back Sunday fans could download demos of "Bike Scene" and "Head Club", which it was hoped would increase sales.[47] " Not sure this makes grammatical sense.
  • "on the bus". I'd guess that to be the band's tour bus; did Nolan overhear?
  • For the above three, is this better? I'm presuming that Nolan overheard but I don't recall if that was mentioned in the source (I don't have it at hand currently to check). MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2022 [88].

Papuan mountain pigeon[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of Papuan pigeon. There isn't all that much research on it, so a rather short article, but there is an interesting breeding display described. AryKun (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Schrader Range, but may breed throughout the year across its range." Can the dual use of "range" be avoided?
    • I can't really think of another word to use instead.
  • "although some can sometimes have as many as 80 individuals." perhaps "though some groupings can have as many as 80 individuals"
    • Reworded.
  • "Gymnophaps" can the two discussions of this genus in the Taxonomy section be consolidated?
    • I don't get what you mean by two discussions?
The two times the genus name is mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Papuan mountain pigeon is found on New Guinea, its surrounding islands, and the Bacan Islands in the Maluku Islands." Is there an extent to which this is duplicative of what has been said before? Also the end reads oddly.
    • It isn't really duplicating anything before it, earlier mentions of distribution were subspecies-specific. Removed "in the Maluku Islands" to help it read better.
  • "but a juvenile and a male with enlarged testicles have been collected in June elsewhere" This reads slightly oddly. Is this one bird or two? If two, possibly the word "adult" should be tossed in there. And do juvenile birds breed?
    • I've added "adult male", to help clarify that it was two birds. Juveniles don't breed themselves, but do indicate that there was recent breeding activity.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support---Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, there's been an image added since you did your review, could you check? AryKun (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I've read through twice and can find nothing substantive to criticize. One minor point is that you don't give a publisher location for Gibbs, Barnes & Cox, but you do for the other two books you cite; it's best to be consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added location to the Gibbs ref. AryKun (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Changed.
Parentheses are used to indicate that a species was described a genus different from the one it is currently classified in (eg exsul was originally described as Columba albertisii exsul) Added footnote to make this clearer.
Done.
Done.

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! A citation for the note added might be better, but that is a minor point. Rest, supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

This probably falls under WP:SKYISBLUE, also the fact that it's in Gymnophaps is cited, and Gymnophaps is in Columbidae.
The fact that Gymnophaps is in Columbidae is not cited either here or in the Gymnophaps article, and is not common knowledge for non-experts. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added bit in the taxonomy section, although I still feel this is excessive. AryKun (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed first.
Removed url and archives for the two books.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2022 [89].

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I run towards the end of articles on the Edwardian phase of the Hundred Years' War I hope to get to FA, I am hoping to go out with a bang. Described as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War", a modest Anglo-Gascon force set out on a major raid through south-west France. Six weeks later the French believed they had them cornered and, refusing to negotiate, attacked. The battle of Poitiers is for another article, but the campaign concluded with the French king being escorted back to Bordeaux as a prisoner. This went through GAN a little while ago and I believe it ready for the rigors of FAC, so tilt your lances at it and let us see who is last editor standing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, note that I have added a new map which you will wish to check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's fine. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Another fine article on the Hundred Years' War from Gog. A handful of very minor carps and cavils on the prose:

  • "Do we need the words "carried out" in the first sentence?
Expurged.
  • "a long drawn out battle" – I don't dispute Gowers's maxim "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I think you want two of them here, though I may be wrong (or mad).
These are not mutually-exclusive propositions. Hyphenated.
  • "captured the French King" – capitalised "King" here, but uncapitalised in the first para.
I have uncapitalised in both instances when when his name is immediately given, and capitalised in both cases when "French King" is used to mean "John II". That's my understanding of MOS:JOBTITLES. I may be wrong; I am certainly mad.
  • "The only significant French possession" – and what did it signify? I think you mean important, substantial or some such.
Signifying nothing, used in the sense of "important, notable" which my Oxford dictionary claims has been a usage since 1761.
This is Fowler on significant:
The dictionaries give important as one of the definitions of significant, but to use it merely as a synonym for that word is to waste it. The primary sense of significant is conveying a meaning or suggesting an inference. A division in the House of Commons may be important without being significant; the failure of some members to vote in it may be significant without being important. There is no important change in the patient's condition means that he is neither markedly better nor markedly worse. There is no significant change in the patient's condition means that there is no change which either confirms or throws doubt on the previous prognosis.
And this is Gowers:
This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large when one is dealing with numbers or quantities or other mathematical concepts. For one thing it has a special and precise meaning for mathematicians and statisticians which they are entitled to keep inviolate. For another, it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
How depressing that a venerable usage should be swept aside by a modern fad, but who am I to stand in the way of progress. Both changed.
  • "All of the fighting men were mounted" – no need for the "of", surely?
Removed.
  • "to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely" – I think perhaps you mean "dispersing" here.
I keep doing that! Thank you.
  • "the destruction being wracked in south-west France" – according to the latest (2015) edition of Fowler this should be either "wreaked" (preferably) or at a pinch "wrought". (Personally I prefer the latter, but I rarely presume to argue with Fowler.)
Having consulted two dictionaries, one with "Oxford" in the title, it seems an inoffensive use of "wrack". Nor am I sure why we should switch to the past tense. But changed.
  • "ordered them to also move towards Tours. He was also willing to fight" – you could lose one or both the "also"s here.
I use that too much. Both gone, plus two others.
  • "He still hoped to cross the Loire River" – we don't need to be told again that the Loire is a river.
I thought it a useful reminder for the inattentive reader, but gone.
I find it unimaginable that any reader could be inattentive when reading this page-turner of an article. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creep!
  • "search for passages of the Loire, but the River Loire, but as before were unable to find passable fords" – some extra and unwanted words have sneaked their way in here.
Oops. Desneaked.
  • "The camp fires of the French army" – the OED hyphenates "camp-fire"
Done.
  • "attempts … were still underway" – should be "under way" – two unhyphenated words – according to the OED.
I suspect the OED to be a little behind the times there, see eg its Cambridge competitor, but changed.
From Alan Bennett's Forty Years On:
FRANKLIN: Have you ever thought, Headmaster, that your standards might perhaps be a little out of date?
HEADMASTER: Of course they're out of date. Standards always are out of date. That is what makes them standards.
And Chambers' Dictionary is with the OED: it goes straight from underwater to underwear. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were no significant French forces" – what would these forces have signified?
In the sense of being "important, notable", see above. Significant, like many English words has several meanings.
  • "aiming to defeat them in detail" – I have not run across this phrase before and would be glad of an explanation of its meaning.
Defeat in detail, now linked.
Thank you. I've learned something today (in addition to all the interesting facts in your article, I mean). Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, they were dependant on the agreement" – when used as an adjective the spelling is "dependent"
Well, well. One of those that is smack your head obvious - once it has been pointed out. Corrected.
  • "senior advisors" – strange, and not especially welcome, to see AmE "advisor" instead of the customary English "adviser" here.
  • "over laden" – "overladen" according to the OED.
D'oh!
  • "Clifford J. Rogers" – we've been introduced to him earlier, when he was plain "Clifford Rogers" (and we don't need a second blue-link).
I completely agree and have removed it, but note the, erm, forceful opposition of Sandstein here
I think you have done the right thing, both as regards common sense and, which is not necessarily the same thing, the Manual of Style. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but neither was inclined to change their attitude" – singular verb with plural pronoun
Changed.
  • "one of John's closest advisors" – another AmE "advisor"
I blame my misspent youth. Corrected.

Those are my few quibbles. I'll look in again in confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again Tim. I breathe my usual sigh of relief at your having knocked the nonsense out of my prose. See what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly knocking the nonsense out! My cavils were so small as to be barely visible with the naked eye. I'm very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Clear, concise, well and widely sourced, highly readable, and, as far as I am any judge, comprehensive. And beautifully illustrated as usual. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. A pleasure to review; I shall be sad when there are no more new FACs for Hundred Years' War articles. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you do cheer me up, Mr riley. One of the things working on the Hundred Years' War has been preventing me getting to grips with is a dozen or more articles from the Second Punic War - Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, elephants etc. Hopefully you will enjoy them as much. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed[edit]

I'll do this in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name standardised and Wikilink moved.
And so?
And so I thought that was an issue until I read WP:NOTBROKEN just now. But for the sake of standardization, I think the author's name should be consistently either "Clifford J Rogers" or "Clifford J. Rogers". Since the period is used in the title of the article about him, that seems the logical choice. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done.
I hadn't noticed. Like all Wikilinks, one usually only links once per article. So I am inclined to remove this second link, but won't if you feel that I shouldn't.
I think you should feel free to follow your heart if you can't find clear guidance in the MOS (I couldn't), but if you want me to tell you, I would say leave the first author-link as well as the editor-link. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Left.
Done. Thanks.
Page numbers added.
Er, because of sloppiness? Fixed.
Link removed.
I am looking at a hard copy of the 1999 volume. The front cover reads "Trial by Fire: The Hundred Years War II". The title page reads "The Hundred Years War [line break] Volume II: Trial by Fire". I have gone, as best I can, with the cover version. WHich achieves what we both think is sensible. I could switch to the title page version if you think that preferable.
I looked up both volumes again in WorldCat using the ISBN and I find both books listed under the series name as well as under the volume name, so I think you're free to follow either, especially given your greater familiarity with the actual books. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both apostrophies removed
It is usual to give each reference to an encyclopedia or dictionary as a separate entry. The first one is listed as a book because I am not referencing an entry in the encyclopedia.
The latter.

Also – and I did not do a thorough check of your inline citations – I did notice that citation 18 is lacking a page number.

That is defensible, but inconsistent. Standardised.
Found another! citation 132. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha. Fixed.

After looking into the publications and authors listed, it appears that they are all high-quality and scholarly. I'm also seeing a good spread of names and publication dates mostly within the last 30 years or so, which tells me that it is less likely that outdated perspectives are reflected in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dugan, that is very good of you and much appreciated. All of your comments addressed, a couple with queries. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Only two issues remain dangling: the period following Rogers's middle initial and citation 132. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Sorted. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. I consider this article to have passed my review of the source listings, in terms of formatting and quality. Ping me if something else needs my attention on this review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Fixed.
Good point. Tweaked.
I have just finished bringing Battle of Poitiers up to (what I hope is) FAC standard, and have better figures for participants. A minimum of 14,000 French, with a minimum of 4,500 men-at-arms killed or captured. (Plus 3,800 commoners.) This is very well sourced and there is no hint of a suspicion that the numbers are exaggerated.
I have realised that my confusion over the figures was due to assuming that men at arms means common soldiers as opposed to nobles. Perhaps clarify for the benefit of ignorant people like me. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. You are very far from ignorant on this area. I have clearly committed the classic error of getting too close and assuming that specialist knowledge is generally known. I have added a footnote at first mention, do you feel that addresses the issue sufficiently?
Yes, that is unclear. Thank you. Rephrased. I have removed mention of "engaged", as you say, this is about the chevauchée, not the battle.

You say "2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms. 2,500 French nobles were killed", but no figure for those captured as in the infobox.

Er: "John was captured; as was the oriflamme; one of John's sons, Philip; and according to different sources 2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms."
Yes I misread this, partly due to starting the sentence with a figure, which I understand is considered bad practice. It helps to have a capital letter at the start of a sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I don't understand why, but it is frowned on in the MoS. Fixed.

2,500 nobles killed still seems too high as the lead implies that there may have been no more than 1,600 in total (12,000-10,400) engaged.

Nope. The sourcing is clear. The dead included the King's uncle, his standard bearer, the grand constable of France; one of the two marshals, the Bishop of Châlons and about 3,300 common soldiers. Those captured included the King, one of his sons, the archbishop of Sens, the other marshal of France, and the seneschals of Saintonge, Tours and Poitou. Hence Rogers describing it as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War" and France collapsing into the Jacquerie.
I had not realised that the figures were debated. Although I could have been more precise in my phraseology. I have reworded and replaced the source with two of the leading scholars of the Hundred Year's War, each of whom are discussing the number of fatalities in volumes specifically on the war. Note that both link the death rates they quote to just the period 1347-1350. Both indicate a death rate in Southern England during this period of around 45%, but I have fudged this in my revision.
There is no such article that I am aware of.
I don't know. The modern sources all simply say "bridging train". I would guess that they are all using the same Medieval source which is similarly uninformative, but that is OR.
If you are not sure what a bridging train is I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely sure what a bridging train is. It is a set of mobile equipment with which one can bridge a river. Why would one wish to know any more? This is summary style. One may as well say don't mention horses if one does not know their breed. Etc.
I misunderstood you. I thought "I don't know" meant that you do not know what a bridging train is. So how about "bridging train (mobile equipment for bridging a river)"? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a footnote. How is that.
It seems to me that that would further confuse rather than clarify. I have removed both "Further information: Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356" and the sub-heading 1356. Does that help?
Right, I think that I now have my head wrapped round it. The figures given in the lead and the article for French participants and casualties in the Battle of Poitiers should match. Those in the infobox do not. This is because the infobox is for the whole campaign, for which no sources attempt even an estimate of French participants and casualties. So all I can say is that they were more than those we know to have been present at Poitiers. Similarly for French casualties. I am open to suggestions for other ways of addressing this. (I considered taking French participants and casualties out of the infobox altogether, but this seemed a counsel of despair.)
All of your comments to date now addressed I think Dudley. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no sources try to estimate the number of French participants and casualties, I would not try to come up with that estimate ourselves. Better not to give any number in the infobox and let the reader know what is known later in the article.
Infobox amended accordingly.
Also there's a harv error: Wagner, 2006e & 53–54. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I added that source! I assume I forgot to click Publish or edit conflicted myself! Thanks Buidhe. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly on an OR basis, they seem a little high to me too. I wonder if the modern sources have been over generous in accepting contemporary figures. It is possible that the chroniclers' estimates for the dead weren't too far out, but included camp followers, miscellaneous civilians (farriers, armourers, blacksmiths etc), pavise bearers and others not included in the 4,000 combatants. I stress that this is pure OR, there is no hint of this in the modern RSs. And it is not actually inconceivable. The losing side in Medieval battles typically took horrendous casualties - pursuits were devastating - and common infantry usually had a high death rate, often much higher - it was unusual for prisoners to be taken and the wounded would be killed out of hand. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley, forgive me being frank, but your dubiousness is not relevant. I have sourced the numbers to two impeccable sources. Both using them very much in a military context and both specifying that the figures apply to the period before the chevauchée. I fail to see why if we have a scholarly consensus for something we should deliberately obfuscate in what we tell the reader. Re the numbers seeming low, I agree. But these only apply to the first outbreak of 1347-50, they do not claim to be the total of fatalities of all outbreaks of the Black Death. As you say above "it is only the first outbreak which is relevant for the chevauchée". Plus I have deliberately fudged the sources, slightly vague, claims of 40-45% fatalities in this wave in deference to what I took to be your disbelief that their was agreement that they were so high.
The Black Death is one of my subjects and I have read several books about it. There is no scholarly consensus. See for example Black Death#Deaths. Estimates for Eurasia vary from 75 to 200 million. Also notes g and h: one historian says 45-50% of the European population, but varying between 75-80 in Italy, southern France and Spain and closer to 20% in Germany and England, another historian says 60% in Europe. The lead has the best summary with 30-60% in Europe, but this would be difficult to source as it is a summary of the views of different historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Dudley. Curious, me too. Interesting that we should have come to so different opinions about it. Obviously the death rate varied, it would have been strange if it hadn't. Sumption, one of the sources I offer, gives 50% for Bordeaux and 25% for Paris and explains why they differ. I don't see that this distracts from his summary. And, surprise, Wikipedia is not a reliable source: you probably noted that the source for many of that article's fatalities was this. If this were an article on the Black Death it would be sources at noon. As it isn't I shall with great reluctance deprive readers of the clear consensus of military historians of the death rate in Western Europe in 1347-1350, which seems to be broadly supported by the wider modern scholarship. (A third high quality military historian who gives a number for this period, Harari, goes for "at least a third" for France and "up to a half" for England. Ie, the same as Sumption and Wagner. A moderately thorough search of the literature doesn't throw up any others.) See what you think of my revision. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John Kelly, The Great Mortality, p. 11, n. "Estimates of the Black Death mortality rate fluctuate almost as often as the stock market." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously have different opinions on whether the mortality rate is a matter of debate among experts. I can easily find sources giving figures ranging from a third (Philip Ziegler) to 60% (Ole Jørgen Benedictow). BTW some experts say that the rate was higher among the old and young, and lower among young adults. I wonder whether this would affect the views of military historians. But as you say, this article is not the place for a detailed debate on the Black Death. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Thank you.
I hadn't seen that. I have rejigged with this edit. Does that work?

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks Dudley. It probably needed a good kicking. See what you think now. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Placeholder, should be done tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, finally got to finish my nitpicks. Enjoyed the read and surprised, for someone who knows next to nothing about the Hundred Years' War nor military terms, that I understood most. My inner 14-year-old did get a bit confused at mention of "Edward" -when you mostly use Prince- and wondered if Edward III had turned up (eg "Edward set out on 5 October", "Edward would march south", "with either Edward's or Lancaster's armies"). Here's my laundry list (sshhh), move it to talk page if necessary.

lede

Done.
I see the logic, so if you insist I will link it to Duchy of Gascony#Within the Duchy of Aquitaine (1053–1453), but as this is only four lines I feel it less useful than the current link.
No problem. I only mentioned as I saw it at "marched from Bordeaux in English-held Gascony 300 miles".
Done.

Background

See above.
Probably. Possibly. The sources don't opine. I get the impression that Edward was firefighting pressing threats and opportunities closer to home and it was a few years before he say down and actually came up with a proactive strategic plan. Gascony didn't get serious attention until it was on its last legs. But that's OR.
IMO this is waay into MOS:OVERLINK, but done.
Only thinking of the 14-year-olds.:) Happy for you to remove link.

Black Prince arrives

Done.
Done.
Not IMO. We are noting that he is a king of Navarre, not referring directly to him as the King of Navarre.
Done.
I have linked it to victual, which redirects to food which seems to me less than helpful, even leaving overlink aside.
Again for 14s but agree that link is not worthy. Victualler is slightly better but I'm happy for no link.
Oops. Done.
Done.

Prelude

Done.
Linked.
Done.
D'oh! Fixed.

Heading north

Oh! Good spot.
Ho hum. OK.
True. Done.
I would much prefer to leave them as is. I am trying to stress that it is the same thing, which may be lost if I synonymise.
Done.
IMO it is not close enough to either to merit a link. I could red link it?
Between what? If I am reading you right then John was under immense pressure to march against the Black Prince, but felt committed to capturing Breteuil before he did. The moment he paid the Breteuil garrison enough to persuade then to leave his army was off on its main job - protecting France from the English.

Retreating south

Very good point. Done.
I am never going to understand some schools of commaisation. I swear they look as if they are scattered at random, or the result of a speech defect. But I trust you, so done.
Done.
Done.

Battle of Poitiers

Er, why? I assume you are thinking of MOS:LQ[?] and we are interpreting it differently. "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." would seem to indicate that my usage is at least permissible.
Was just checking LQ as I couldn't see source. No prob.
You are having fun with me. Yes?
Always! Nah, I dislike over "commaisation" too. (I swear some editors would type "Last night, I slept.") I was actually surprised at some you did include. The two I mentioned seemed to need pairs.
Thinking about it, surely Oriflamme is a proper noun? If so it should not be in italics and should be capitalise. Either way I have been inconsistent.
The arbalists in question were not using arbalests, a later development using a steel rather than wooden prod. The Wikipedia article rambles off talking about a sub-set of arbalists, as Wikipedia articles often do, but as its lead says "An arbalist, also spelled arbelist, is one who shoots a crossbow" and it is the only article which covers all crossbowmen.
Ah, I did, but then lost it in a footnote. Thanks. Done.

Post-battle

Linked.
They were many and varied. Each captor negotiated individual arrangements with each of their prisoners. So, basically, no.

Aftermath

Done.
Done.
Added.

Notes

You are truly eagle-eyed. It is. (There is a map on page 343

Extra

Nice. I had messed up in the infobox. (I think. I am being stalked by a new editor who "improves" a hundred or so infoboxes every day.) Someone else seems to have "helpfully" changed south west to southwest. Both sorted. Thanks.
I did. I thought I had. Done.

Thanks for the article and your patience. JennyOz (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, wonderful stuff Jenny. Yet again I don't know how I can thank you. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK Gog, I have added some notes to your comments above simply to explain my thinking. Thanks for the tweaks and explanations. I am happy to sign my support. JennyOz (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: May I post a second nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2022 [90].

Katrina Kaif[edit]

Nominator(s): AB01 and FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Kaif's success could very well be the plot of a Bollywood film. Born in Hong Kong, she started modelling in London and impressed a filmmaker who cast her in his disastrous film. She soon became one of the most well-known faces in India. What she lacks in acting abilities, she makes up for by being a fantastic dancer, which is crucial in being a successful Bollywood heroine. In case you forget her name, you can get your answer here; it seems 200 million people did forget it.

I have closely watched this article's progress. Back in 2015, when its main contributor AB01 made it a GA, I felt that with some work, it could become an FA. Fast-forward six years later, it is still at that status. With my recent return to Wikipedia, I did some extensive further research to make it FA-level comprehensive. Sadly, its main editor hasn't been around for about five years, but to acknowledge his contributions, I am including him as a co-nominator. FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Most licensing looks OK, but File:Katrina Kaif and Vicky Kaushal.png is marked as still needing review. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review. Hopefully, a Commons reviewer looks at it soon although given the amount of images still needing review from January 2021, it is kind of worrying. FrB.TG (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sourcing[edit]

I have replaced the IBT and Daily Express refs, but TOI is considered a reliable source when it comes to reporting on the Indian film industry. Not to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FA-class biographies of Indian actresses. Looking at RSP, it says TOI is biased when it comes to its government but in this case, it is mostly critics reviewing her films. FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

Replaced with "commercial failures"; I don't think "commercially failure" will work since "failure" isn't an adjective.
Yes, an ironic typo in my comment :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have made these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
Thank you for the review. These are the changes I made in response to your comments. Do let me know if you there's anything else that needs to be done. FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I would like to start by saying that I have never heard of this individual, but that is unsurprising since I am an American who is 100% unfamiliar with Bollywood. Despite studying film in college, I have actually never seen an Indian film. I will try my best to do a thorough review. I will be focusing primarily on the prose as I do not have the expertise to really comment on the sources. My comments are below:

As a non-Indian myself, I do enjoy the occasional dose of Bollywood entertainment, though I suggest if you start watching a Bollywood film, you should not start with her films. She is a solid dancer though. You might enjoy Andhadhun; it's an engaging thriller.
  • Thank you for the recommendation! It is quite intimidating to jump into a completely different culture of film so having a suggestion for an entry point is very helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just some fans that keep adding "Indian" to her nationality, but you are right. I have removed the extra source from there and left a comment there to not change it unless it is backed by a reliable source.
  • Just to be clear, I did not have any issue with the citation in the lead. I was more so wanting to confirm my assumption. From my rather limited experience with biography articles, I have seen nationality having these kinds of issues (as it is somewhat reminds me of genre wars in music articles). Either with or without the citation works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but I find it absurd to source that in the lead (when we generally don't do it) just to please some fanboys.
Agreed.
There is some commentary on her finding success inspired many future foreigners to debut in Bollywood. I have added an analysis from the book Indian Film Stars: New Critical Perspectives in career section, i.e. she was cast in her first successful film mainly due to her biraciality.
  • Thank you for adding this information to the article! Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not.
  • That is what I thought, but thank you for the confirmation. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Boom is already linked in early life section and I though re-linking it would be OL.
  • You are correct. That would be over-linking. I somehow missed the original Boom link in the article so apologies for that. Please ignore this suggestion as I was incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might have to do with the fact that a great number of successful Bollywood actresses started out as a highly successful models who won international beauty pageants, but that is just presumptuous and would need to be explained here. I have removed the connection between the two sentences.
  • Thank you for the explanation. There are a great number of successful models turned Hollywood actresses, but there are also a great number of successful models who could not make that leap (either do skill or a number of other reasons). I think it was best to remove this connection because while it is possible, it is not as automatic as the original wording suggested (at least in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she was billed as the heroine of the film but she did not have much of a role other than look pretty and do some dancing here and there.
  • If she is billed as the film's heroine, then I am not sure how that would gel with the "small part" description. Were there any reviewers that identified her role in the film this way? Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the length of my comments so far. The prose is very engaging and I am very much enjoying the article. These are my comments up to the subsection about her breakthrough. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed above as this seems like a good stopping point for me. I hope this is helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I am glad you enjoyed reading her article. No apologies needed for the length of your review; if anything, it shows how thorough you are and your comments are certainly very helpful. Unless I have stated otherwise, I have taken on board your suggestions. I look forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. I only have one question about the Allari Pidugu sentence, but other than that, everything looks good to me. I will post the end of my review momentarily. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could attribute it to Bollywood's sexist portrayal of the leading lady as a mere decorative prop, whose existence lies almost entirely around pleasing the male character. However, with a few exceptions, she has actively and repeatedly sought out such roles, even around a period where more actresses are pushing the boundaries. She intentionally ignores riskier roles in indie films, as they are, in her own words, "morose … which no one will watch". I have added her own response to this ("When criticised for her reluctance to appear..") and a general observation of this sexism, not mainly focusing on Kaif, by a critic ("In a BBC article criticising Bollywood's sexist portrayal of a female character.."), but it does praise her for being an action herione in Tiger Zinda Hai.
  • Thank you for the wonderful and thorough response. That clears it for me, and it explains why the critics were directing their criticism towards her in particular. I actually really like her morose comment as there is something a little odd in my opinion that actresses are taken more seriously in less glamorous roles. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a much more elegant way to put it. :)
  • I am glad that I could help :) Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. The source says, "Kaif's role, shaped by India's top female director, Farah Khan, has been likened to Keira Knightley's breakthrough part in Pirates of the Caribbean." It's unclear what was exactly compared. I did not find anything else on this. If it is too vague, it can certainly be removed.
  • I would remove this part as it is not really clear. My best guess is that the source is more so comparing the actresses and not the characters, but since the citation is not particularly clear, I would remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She did at least do it back in 2009. It's been a long time ever since and I doubt there will be any source confirming she still does it. However, it says that the report is from 2009, and at this point the readers should decide themselves if she still does do it.
  • Thank you for the response. I agree that keeping it would be best as it does provide insight on her as a person. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a small difference but they are almost always used interchangeably; I went with the source which says nail paint.
  • To be clear, I was not suggesting you replace nail paint. I was more so curious about what nail paint was as I have not heard of it before. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from an article listing the prices of her products and her collaboration with Nykaa, I did not find much, at least not anything related to the brand's financial status.

This should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support on the prose. Thank you for all the work you have done on the article. It was truly a fascinating and engaging read that I very much enjoyed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for such a thorough review. Like always, unless I have stated otherwise, I have done what you have suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I appreciate your responses and your patience with my review. I am more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I really should work on more biographical articles in the future. I would be mindful about the article's length in the future as Kaif is still relatively young and has an active career (but that should not be a concern for the FAC). I hope you are having a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick note, but there are two films (Tiger 3 and Merry Christmas) that are mentioned in the Katrina Kaif filmography list but not in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your wonderful review and your support. I’ll add the upcoming films. You’re right about the size that it’s not a concern now but might be in five years or so. I hope to see you tackle a biography soon enough. FrB.TG (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I'll begin my first read through soon. ♦ jaguar 20:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaguar, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've been set back due to illness - I'll leave my comments tomorrow. ♦ jaguar 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made a slight change to "..the Cannes Film Festival, where it was heavily promoted".

That's all I have after my read through. Overall the prose is solid and I could find no issues with the sources. ♦ jaguar 22:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Jaguar. I hope you are feeling better now. See what you make of these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it's looking a lot better. I'll be happy to support this FAC based on prose as I have no doubt now it meets the 'well-written' part of the criteria. Well done in all the work you've put into this one, it was good to read. ♦ jaguar 20:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid[edit]

Lead
One editor objected that it is a repetition of the last line of he second paragraph but I would have to agree with you here. Firstly, mixed opinion is not the same thing as criticism. Secondly, the criticism is aimed at only a set of films not all of her films. Therefore, it is definitely not repetitive and is justified there per your suggestion. Added back.
Early life
Acting beginnings (2003–2005)

More to follow. Shahid • Talk2me 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough and rise to prominence
While she gained some critical praise for the first time during this period, there were also some bigger-than-ever box-office hits. So your suggestion to change to "mainstream success" is very good.
The only other comment in the source on her performance is, "Katrina Kaif is learning the tricks of acting fast". Do you think it's something worth including?

More to follow. Shahid • Talk2me 14:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments, Shahid. These are the changes I made in regard to your suggestions. Looking forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your efforts.
Elaborated on it. FrB.TG (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
Normally, I am also against such inclusion. Often times I combine career with personal life because it tends to become gossipy when it's a standalone section. However, the Stardust photographs went viral, and the subsequent open letter addressing this is notable, as you say, so it might be useful to give some background info on this.
It looks like you addressed this point yourself. :) FrB.TG (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Media

Source review[edit]

I'm afraid koimoi.com is not a reliable source, or not the best available at the very least.

It might not say that the rumor "first" emerged in 2003 but seeing as the article is from that year. One can assume that the rumor was being circulated at least that year.
Many thanks for these, Shahid. I believe I have addressed your concerns in these edits. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good, you have my support for promotion. 21:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi, any status update on this? FrB.TG (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for the further short read promised by Shshshsh Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, he already did and supported here. FrB.TG (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read that as for the source review and not for the general review. Shshshsh, could you clarify? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: I support the nomination for promotion based on both the general and source reviews. :) Shahid • Talk2me 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [91].

Robert de Umfraville[edit]

Nominator(s): SN54129 19:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance to our Caledonian colleagues! This is a fellow—a 15th-century "hero" no less—who wanted "good rest and peace" in England while sending fire ships into Scotland—who may have plotted against Henry V but probably fought at Agincourt as well, who contemporaries saw as "an ideal knight" yet whose biggest claim to fame was that he raided Peebles on market day, burnt the place and nicked all their gear. A piece of work, one way or another. I'm welcoming all your comments and suggestions for improvement to this article. Cheers! SN54129 19:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

Just a few minor points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, Mike Christie—I addressed your points in this edit. Perhaps you could check a couple of my suggestions above? Have a good weekend. SN54129 16:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good now; interesting article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I get paid by the word.
Clearly your default writing mode.
Looks good to me.

That is all I have, apart from noting a disappointing lack of impenetrable footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for commenting Gog, always appreciated; I've actioned your points in this edit, and if you could look at the new paragraph. Thanks for your copy edits, by the way.
I am losing my touch—my most recent article has only one footnote, of seven words! :o SN54129 19:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I shall peruse the MoS to see if I can oppose it on that basis alone. Clearly standards are slipping.
Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Thanks for the review, Nikkimaria. Hope you're well! SN54129 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source and full review from Ealdgyth[edit]

That's all I have. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied above about the footnote - and I'm happy to support this. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, I accept your reasoning. Thanks very much for your help! SN54129 16:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [92].

A Canterlot Wedding[edit]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode. Though it may not be thought to discuss Stalinism or Marxism (cough, "The Cutie Map", cough), critics still think it's awesome and scholars think it discusses feminism. This article was brought to GA-status back in 2012 and I have since expanded its reception and production sections. I nominated it for FA status back in October of last year, but that was archived after over two weeks of absolutely no comments. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from O-D[edit]

Placeholder; I'll take a look in the next day or two. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me; interesting episode. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Olivaw-Daneel! I've hopefully responded to them all. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of remaining comments above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Olivaw-Daneel: Responded to the above :) Pamzeis (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on all criteria except 1c, where I'm neutral due to the DeviantArt citation. I'll wait to hear other reviewers' opinions. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to full support now that DeviantArt has been removed. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Maybe you can leave comments on other FACs to possibly attract reviewers. Or perhaps leave a message on some users' talk who are familiar with this show (or at least television work in general). Anyway, let's do the honors:

True, but in this case it's a page.

That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, FrB.TG! I'be hopefully addressed them all. Let me know if I missed anything or you have any other issues. Pamzeis (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for addressing these. If possible, I would appreciate comments on my FAC although I totally understand if you don't have the time or interest.

Support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Mike Christie - Pass[edit]

I see above that Guerillero had concerns about the sources, and that you've responded by trimming some primary sources. The plot, which of course is taken from the primary source, is about a third of the article, so I immediately wonder if there's enough here for an article, or if perhaps this material should be included in the season article.

I'll go through the sources and list them here with any concerns. I'm using this version, just to be be clear what footnote numbering I'm using.

1. Primary source, just used to identify the character by name. Doesn't seem like there's any doubt about it; I think this is OK.
2. Same as above, for the same reason; OK.
3. Academic article by Fletcher. Looks fine; would you be able to email me a copy of this?

I... don't know how to email images, but here's a link to a PDF

4. A post on DeviantArt. This is pretty hard to validate. First you have to be able to show that this poster is Lauren Faust, then it has to be clear that this is the episode she's talking about, and if that's resolved this is no better than a blog post. I would cut this.

We can validate this (see above), but the comment she was replying to has been deleted, so I've removed it

5. An interview with Entertainment Weekly. Reliable; he only references it as "the aria" in season two. You presumably know he has to be referring to this, but I don't; can you cite something that demonstrates this?

Well, there's only one aria in season two, but no source discusses this so removed

6. Entertainment Weekly; this is reliable.
7 & 8. Begin's book on the art of the show. Used to source descriptions of the development of the character art; I think it's a reliable source for that.
9. Press release. Primary source; this is used twice. The first time is to cover the publicity campaign; I think the press release is only a marginal source for that. If another media outlet found the campaign worth mentioning, e.g. as a sign of the popularity of the show, then OK -- and in fact the second time you use this source you do have another source, and I think it's OK for that. I think you should consider cutting the first use of this.

Done

10. Entertainment Weekly coverage of the wedding announcement in the NYT. Reliable, and no problem at first use. The second use is to source "The New York Daily News' David Hinckley and Entertainment Weekly's Hillary Busis found the episodes ambitious, complex, captivating, and enjoyable, saying they would appeal to all audiences." Busis says the show is "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining" and Hinckley says "charming and surprisingly complex". I think "appeal to all audiences" is a bit of a stretch, though both sources imply the appeal goes beyond the original target audience. I think you should pull this back a little; I wouldn't name Busis or Hinckley inline, unless they're well-known journalists. How about "Review in the New York Daily News and Entertainment Weekly described the show as "charming and surprisingly complex", and "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining", which avoids paraphrasing issues and can't be accused of synthesis.

Done

11. Yahoo News. Reliable. OK for the bridle shower coverage, though I'd remove material from those two sentences that can only be sourced to the press release.
12. Daily News. Not a great source but this is a review so we're just sourcing the reviewer's opinion, and it's OK for that. OK for the uses you make of it, but see 14 below.
13. Commonsensemedia. Used for a review, which is no problem, but see 14 below.
14. The A.V. Club. Suggest linking also to his author page on avclub.com to explain the name change from Emily St. James, since you link to a WP article under his current name. I'm not expert on this site but I know it's treated as reliable by WP:ALBUMS, and looking through their old discussions it seems to get referenced by other reliable sources, which is a good sign. It's only used here as a source for a review, so I think this is OK. However, you use three reviews (12-14 in this list) to support the first three sentences of the "Themes" section. I think you could regard the A.V Club piece as sufficiently in-depth for this purpose, but the other two pieces are a bit flimsy to be used in this way. I would suggest dropping this paragraph of "Themes"; you might be able to move some material to the "Responses" section, though you already have some of the material there as well.

Moved

15. Fletcher again; as above, would like to see the article if possible, but no doubt it's a reliable source.
16. Valiente & Rasmussen. Reliable source; would like a copy if possible.

Here's a PDF link

17. Entertainment Weekly. Just used to source the statement that multiple outlets mentioned the William & Kate connection. No problem.
18. Press release. I would change the statements you use this for to say "claimed", since it's publicity material.

Added "according to"

19. A.V. Club. This is used to source "As of November 2013, it has drawn the most viewers of any program on The Hub"; the source says "The two-part “Canterlot Wedding” drew the most viewers of any Hub program". I don't think the source is inherently unreliable, but this is vague -- the most that week? The most ever to that date? Given that you have (claimed) numbers from the press release just before this, I think I would cut this.

Done

20. Entertainment Weekly, quoting a fansite founder about fandom's opinion; OK for how it's used.
21. & 22. SF Weekly; used for review coverage. OK.
23 & 24. Wired and the DVD distributor; the first is reliable and the second I think is OK given that all it sources is what's in the boxed set.

That's it for the sources. I'll add more comments once you've responded. I would also say that I think the plot should be trimmed -- it's over 600 words, and the rest of the body of the article is only about 1000 words, and that's before any cuts you might make as a result of my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike Christie. I've hopefully resolved your comments. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good; this passes source review. I added a chapter page range for Fletcher but otherwise the formatting looks fine. I'll read through again and do a content review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content review from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with. I think this is now pretty close to FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Responded to your comments; sorry for the delay. Pamzeis (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The "Themes" section could probably be smoothed out a little more, but I think we're over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass[edit]

Source for "It has also been praised by multiple reviewers and will show the reader how the fight was "colourful and fun" as well as Pinkie Pie's usage of Twilight as a gun so they are not left questioning what it was. "? Also File:William and Kate wedding.jpg is a pretty low quality image. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources; replaced William and Kate image (though there don't seem to be many high-quality images of their wedding). Can you specify what you mean by "so-so" for the ALT text (like, is it clunky or not descriptive enough or something)? I'm having a hard time figuring out what to fix... And which image(s)? Pamzeis (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"So-so" means that they are super long and seem to be describing the image's content rather than serving as a replacement of the image for those who can't see it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: trimmed. I'm not sure if it is sufficient, though... Pamzeis (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better, I think. This passes on licence and use review, but if anyone else has objections to the ALT text they should be considered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: Responded to your comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [93].

Operation Berlin (Atlantic)[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a successful raid into the North Atlantic by two German battleships between January and March 1941. It was everything the much better known raid attempted by the Bismarck was meant to be: the German ships ranged across the Atlantic, evaded powerful British forces that were searching for them, sank or captured 22 merchant vessels and returned to port unscathed. This victory proved short-lived, as the Germans failed to realise just how risky the operation had been and the British learned from their mistakes. All up, the article covers a pretty dramatic period of World War II and discusses some interesting issues regarding the tactics both sides were using.

I did most of the work to develop this article during a COVID lockdown last year. It was assessed as a GA in August, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in November. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this; it's well-written and well-constructed. A couple of minor points that don't detract from my support:

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

OK, I am no doubt being unaccountably slow, but could you quote the main article text which you summarise in the main text as "It was the last victory achieved by German warships against merchant shipping in the North Atlantic"?
The second para of the 'Subsequent operations' section describes the failure of the last two such operations, and the end of them. I've added a sentence to make this more explicit, and tweaked the text a bit. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's technically grammatical and means what you want it to. I am not wild about using a relatively obscure expression when a more common one is available, but it is a style choice, which is why I ended with a question mark.
Cheers.

This trivia is all I can find. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fun to read and almost nothing to pick up on - my pleasure. One minor query left. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129[edit]

(Placeholder) SN54129 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, Nick-D; just wasted half my afternoon having to refute non-ANIable low-level disruption that nonetheless I have to devote a massive screed to...anyway. SN54129 17:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my suggestions are those of the non-subject expert WP:READER  :) SN54129 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 February 2022 [94].

Apollo 17[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tyrol5 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the final, at least until now, crewed mission to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to join Wehwalt in the nomination. Look forward to your review and comment. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Oh wow. We're up to Apollo 17. Guess that coverts all the Apollo missions. Comments:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll work on this tomorrow unless Tyrol5 gets there first. FYI, Apollo 6 is awaiting a FAC slot and Apollo 1 and 10, I haven't had time for yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me as well. Had some downtime in between commitments this evening, so have addressed many of the points above. Would like to mull over point 6 on organization. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One strange anomaly. The References say Chaikin was published in 1995, but you override this to create a reference to Chaikin 1998. (My own copy is the 1994 Viking edition.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It is 1995. I'll change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

I've shortened the infobox somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Will try to take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in familiarizing the reader with shorthand that will be used later in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I prefer not to use it and I think we're consistent here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the above four, this is NASA pagination, where there are double barreled page numbers (in the Mission Reports, most prominently). The pages in Section 1 start 1-1, 1-2, etc, then when you turn to section 2, it's 2-1, 2-2, and so on. As far as I can tell, we are consistent here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I've rendered it "New York, New York", many times (and I was born there). I'm inclined to leave it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, I absolutely trust your judgement! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the majority. I'll be back for the remainder probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good! Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that if you amend an existing u template, it doesn't work right, so just in case, Kavyansh.Singh--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I just did general review, as I mentioned, Not doing a complete source review, but just few formatting issues. I'd appreciate if someone else can take a separate look just on sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the clarification. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Usernameunique[edit]

Comments to follow. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Good point. Adjusted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, thus they are sourced in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

Mission insignia and call signs

McCall was an artist, who was noted for his work on space imagery. I've added he was an artist. I'm reluctant to do too much of an aside here. The other ones above are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling and landing site selection

Training

Spacecraft and launch vehicle

Preparation and assembly

Lunar surface science

I moved it to the end of the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you're getting at. NASA generally did not hyphenate compound adjectives in naming its gear.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it defies a one-word descriptor, I think it's worth keeping as is. The use of the acronym is in a short area of the text, it's not like we mention it again after a lengthy gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've called that a "lunar gravimeter", which takes care of the LSG. On LACE, I'm not able to think of a shorthand description that suits. I could call the "LSPE" a "seismic device" but that would clash with the word "seismic" a few words after. On the LEME, I could, I suppose, call it a "dust detector" but there was a different dust detector that flew on earlier missions, so I'd rather not. Open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment re compound adjectives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think from the mentioned fact that the Apollo 15 one had been emplaced, it's clear it's another device of the same type.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other lunar surface science

Are you saying that there should be a hyphen? I'm pretty indifferent on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are using the official NASA names and acronyms (they were very big on acronyms). It was the SEP. We add "experiment" for the sake of the text. I'll look at the acronym use later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the inconsistency. Again, I feel it would be difficult to find a synonym for the acronym that would be intuitive to the reader, given we refer to the unit a couple of times over the course of the subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biological cosmic ray experiment

The acronym. BIOlogical COsmic Ray Experiment. That's NASA for you!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. The one who died was the third in numerical sequence, so presumably it was Fo. That being said, I don't have a source that says that the astronauts knew each mouse by an individual name, or whether that was how they referred to them as a group.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific instrument module

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Light-flash phenomenon and other experiments

Evans, at least on the outward passage. Is it worth mentioning?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just "Evans wore" rather than "one astronaut wore"? It's shorter and more precise. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One wore a device over his eyes used to measure cosmic rays while the other two wore eyeshades. I did not think it was worth the space to get into the nuts and bolts of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See below.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is something of a catch-all, to encompass experiments that don't fit into the other categories. That experiment was one of the ones that was in the CM.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not, the MASCONs.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire conclusion was "In summary, available results are consistent with expectations based upon geometrical considerations and upon the Monte Carlo calculations. First, evidence shows that, at least in part, the flashes seen by astronauts are correlated with charged particles traversing the retina. Further, since the flux of these particles is sufficient to explain the entire phenomenon, it is likely that all of the flashes originate in this manner. From our sample of two coincidences, we find no contradiction with the ability of the observer to discern in which eye the event occurred. Finally, the ALFMED technique has been demonstrated to be effective as a procedure for study of the light flash phenomenon.". That's what we got.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Launch and outbound trip

Lunar landing

Lunar surface

Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
"As of", as I understand it, is to be used to ensure a future update. There is no question the Apollo 17 article will be updated if the Artemis or other lunar program advances, and I don't think a reminder is necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't clear on when the president of the auto body union did this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solo activities

Aftermath and spacecraft locations

Wehwalt & Tyrol5, finally finished up. Left comments on the lead and infobox, and a few follow-up responses. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

Missed this. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swift doesn't seem to be a space specialist certainly, but he's published several books and we're citing him for matters of fact which he covers and could if necessary be covered by NASA sites, which we're trying to cut back on. And judging by the Amazon page, his book got favorable reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That site was discussed here and the consensus appears to be that it is reliable and high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since these are short footnotes, and we don't cite from the other missions' materials, I don't think there's a risk of confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, but it's inconsistent and I'm not sure why fixing it is that big a deal that it's not going to be done. It looks ... unprofessional that we can't synch these up properly.
Just to be sure I understand, you think we should put "Apollo 17" before each of them? Just want to know before I do the work of doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either put "Apollo 17" in front or change the bibliograpical entry to plain "Press Kit" - we should match what the source says for the document. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized them. They are not part of NASA although there is a close affiliation.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember you made a similar point regarding the Apollo 12 FAC. Most of these are hybrid primary/secondary sources and we've avoided using too much of the ones that most resemble pure primary sources, the transcripts and the like. A number of the references to nasa.org are from far later materials, the Phinney book and similar, but probably the bulk are the descriptions of the equipment and experiments carried by the mission. Those are what they are. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. And I'm making it again now. And it's worse here... I don't think making an effort to cut down on the use would be bad - because yes, we shouldn't be covering data/information that isn't considered important by independent secondary sources - we need to get away from the idea that we should do the historian's job, and instead stick to the encyclopedia editor's job. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what Tyrol5 can add.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand the concern in principle. I have made a pass through, moving away from NASA sources in a few places, where practical. It seems to me the bulk of the references to the sources in discussion are (1) clear primary sources (e.g. Press Kit, NASA data pages) in support of factual information about mission hardware, timelines, and experiments and (2) references to the Apollo Lunar Surface journal in support of particular details about events touched upon in secondary sources (Chaikin etc.) and key mission events whose centrality to the mission I think is not in dispute (geological traverses etc.).
In the case of (1), I don't think we (Wikipedia) are quite interpreting or providing historical analysis of or commentary on the primary sources we do cite, which are the most definitive and complete source of such factual information (as Wehwalt notes), and the details they support (hardware, experiments, etc.) are I think self-evidently important to this J-type mission whose focus was on surface and orbital scientific objectives. Coverage of the mission would be incomplete without such information. In addition, while the Preliminary Science Report was assembled and published by NASA, it is actually a collection of individual research papers, some authored by NASA scientists and others by university-affiliated academics, interpreting and summarizing the scientific findings of the expedition. In this sense, the Prelim. Science Report is a unique source functionally more akin to a secondary one.
In the case of (2), I view ALSJ as functionally a secondary source, and a hybrid one at worst. It is non-exclusively licensed to the U.S. government (where it is hosted online by NASA) and edited independently by Eric Jones and Ken Glover, who provide interpretation and commentary throughout based on interviews, research and their review of primary sources. While I can appreciate the concern, and have gone through to take a closer look at a few of the sources in view of the encyclopedic principles Ealdgyth quite correctly outlines (and will certainly continue to do so in the spirit of continuous improvement), I think the sources currently cited are encyclopedically appropriate in context. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with primary sources doesn't just lie in interpretation - but in weight. We should be summarizing what the secondary sources find worthy of mentioning. If no secondary sources cover this information - it really begins to be an undue weight issue. If the only place that considers some detail is the primary source - it probably isn't encyclopedic to mention it and it's verging into OR territory to cover it in a tertiary source such as wikipedia. Secondary sources protect us from undue weight problems by making that selection for us. A bit of usage of primary sources is not going to make too problems but ... this article heavily relies on the primary sources ... that's a problem. And I'm concerned enough that I think I am leaning towards opposing unless I can see that OR isn't taking place in what is being reported in the article. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example: "The launch vehicle was a Saturn V, SA-512, the twelfth Saturn V to fly, and the tenth taking astronauts to orbit. It was similar to the earlier ones that had flown on every mission since Apollo 8." which is sourced to the Apollo 17 Press Kit. If no secondary source chooses to comment on the fact that the launch vehicle was similar to all the ones before, by including this information, research is being done - it's pulling a fact out of the primary source and making it part of the information stream. It's also interpreting page 93 - which does not mention "twelfth Saturn V to fly" or that it was the "tenth taking astronauts to orbit". Or "Sector one of the Apollo 17 SM contained the scientific instrument module (SIM) bay. The SIM bay housed three experiments for use in lunar orbit: a lunar sounder, an infrared scanning radiometer, and a far-ultraviolet spectrometer. A mapping camera, panoramic camera, and a laser altimeter were also included in the SIM bay." is sourced to page 56 of the press kit. Again, we're highlighting things that may not have been felt worthy of being noticed by actual historians of the spaceflight. There is a LOT of detail in the article that is chosen by the editors of this article, not by secondary sources. Is it too much detail? Too little? We rely on the secondary sources to help guide our coverage but when so much of the article is sourced to primary sources, it's hard to tell if the article correctly summarizes the secondary literature. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely some of the press kit material can be sourced to Orloff & Harland. I'll work on it tomorrow. Historians of the program may mention things like you've mentioned, but they may mention it in more detail for Apollo 15, the first J mission, and by the time you get to Apollo 17, they're focusing on other things. It's a series of judgment calls. And I'll defend the use of things like the press kit. It's no trouble at all to source the items carried in the ALSEP to secondary sources, but they may list them and not explain exactly what they are for. To explain to the reader what they are, we go to the source that was designed exactly for that, the press kit. It's what it was designed for, and it's hard to see that it is a poor use of a primary source.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orloff '04 covers much of the statistical and technical information as well. I've made a few tweaks to the text and the sourcing within "Mission hardware and experiments", but I am generally in alignment with Wehwalt's view. Nonetheless, I'll certainly plan to also have another pass through in the next day or so. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 03:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thorough source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... Here's another issue with using the press kit: "Measurements were taken while the TGE was mounted on the LRV, and also while the device was placed on the lunar surface." is sourced to the press kit. The press kit was released BEFORE the mission launched, but here the article says that "measurements WERE taken" ... saying what happened in the mission but sourcing it to something that came out before the mission launched. We have this issue again with "It measured the quantity of neutron flux found in the top 2 m (6.6 ft) of the lunar surface." and "Placed during the first EVA, it was retrieved during the third and final EVA. The astronauts brought it with them back to Earth, and the measurements from it were compared with the evidence of neutron flux in the core that had been removed from the hole it had been placed in." "In addition, as on Apollo 14, 15 and 16, the S-band transponders in the CSM and LM were pointed at the Moon to gain data on its gravitational field. Results from the Lunar Orbiter probes had revealed that lunar gravity varies slightly due to the presence of mass concentrations, or "mascons". Data from the missions, and from the lunar subsatellites left by Apollo 15 and 16, were used to map this phenomenon." and "The launch window, which had begun at the originally-planned launch time of 9:53 pm on December 6, remained open until 1:31 am; " etc.

Oh, and I missed https://www.drewexmachina.com/blog/ - what makes this a high quality RS?

According to the author's resume, here, he is a "freelance writer specializing in astronomy, astrobiology and the history of spaceflight with over 500 contributions to books, websites and print magazines including Scientific American and Sky & Telescope Also maintains the Drew Ex Machina website which regularly posts articles on various space-related topics with over 130,000 unique visitors annually." I would tend to say that makes him per WP:BLOG a "well-known professional researcher writing within their field", especially in view of his scientific credentials.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a word count - I exported the article as a pdf, highlighted those parts only sourced to NASA sources, and then counted the words that were highlighted. Approximately 3181 words of the approximately 9324 words of the article are only sourced to NASA sources. That's ... waaaaayyyy more than we should be using such sources. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the predictive nature of the press kit (the launch windows were set things and would not change). Regarding the word count, I think much less than that is sourced to primary sources of the Apollo era, and those mostly describes such things as the nature of equipment. As you've suggested, we've cut back a good deal on their use. There should be no objection to later matters from sites sponsored by NASA. Tyrol5 points out the independent, reliable nature of such works as the Lunar Surface Journal. Some portion of what you cite is attributable to the use of the books which are hosted on the NASA site (Phinney's, largely), and I don't think the use of these should be held against the article. NASA published the work, but the author was a former NASA employee, not a current one. In general, the later sites are setting out facts, and NASA has no vested interest in spinning Apollo, which for good or ill is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When counting, I did not count as "NASA" anything that was double cited to a NASA source AND another independent source. I purely counted things that had only a NASA source given for the information. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But part of the field of secondary sources we're using are either NASA sites, was sponsored by NASA's History Division, or has been acquired by NASA after original publication so that it can be released into the public domain, the ALSJ and a number of books. Those inevitably have nasa urls associated with them. I don't think we're using them inappropriately.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to about 2468 words exclusively from NASA sources, but I'm still concerned about this. I think we're getting into problem territory - we're getting into too much detail sometimes and the intricate detail is sourced to primary or non-independent sources, so it's causing not only some issues with use of primary sources but also undue weight. At this point, I'm going to opppose based on the problems just of undue weight and primary sources and non-independent sources. Besides the use of NASA primary sources, there's a lot in here sourced to contemporay newspaper accounts and to websites that I'm not convinced are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up. In general, I must register disagreement with the suggestion that there is undue weight given, as my sense is that much of the primary sources correspond to text which colors items otherwise discussed more broadly in the secondary sources. I think we also disagree on interpretation of UNDUE in this context; to me, the principle driving that aspect of policy is the desire to avoid misleading the reader. In this particular case, I could hardly consider the provision of additional—non-editorial, matter-of-fact—detail to help further the reader's understanding of the subject as encountering that threshold. To describe it as an UNDUE concern strikes me as a somewhat formulaic application of a policy that is, in my view, aimed more towards balancing conflicting viewpoints so as not to mislead the reader. I am sure we disagree on that point of subjective interpretation so, more productively, do you have a breakdown by section from the analysis you're looking at? I think we are diverging on what we are considering primary versus secondary sources (e.g. ALSJ, etc.) in addition, as you've not really said what you are considering as such. The only contemporary newspaper account that I'm seeing is The Toledo Blade, to which the text about the replacement of the backup crew is cited (together with two secondary sources). With clarification on the section-by-section and sources points, I think we can look towards tackling concerns in a more targeted manner. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to thank you for the review. I also must register my disagreement, for similar reasons. The NASA cites are about things that there are not likely to be disagreements. A gravimeter is a gravimeter is a gravimeter, and as inexorable as the law of gravity is its function, and a NASA-related source is not likely to describe it differently from a source thirty years after the fact in a book from a New York publisher, except that the NASA source is more likely to be accurate. I would also like to see specifics, the sort of thing that might be subject to bias if in a NASA-related publication, in each section, as suggested by Tyrol5.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to ping the other substantive reviewers (excluding the image review), Balon Greyjoy, Hawkeye7, Usernameunique, and Kavyansh.Singh to see if they have thoughts on this matter. It might also be worth pinging those who have performed source reviews on the other Apollo FAs, but I dislike pinging too many people at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose easily, it's not something I like doing. But, it is an undue issue. Wikipedia covers what is in the secondary sources. We summarize those secondary sources. The Apollo 17 Press Kit, which is dated November 26, 1972, or the Apollo 17 Mission Report, which is dated March 1973, are primary sources. They are what the secondary sources use to write their accounts. When we use them so extensively (And my count did NOT count when these two sources are used as "backup sources", only when they are the ONLY source for the information), we are not doing what we're supposed to be doing. Instead, we're doing the historian's job. As for undue weight - consider this bit in the article (and this is just one example) - "The instruments in the SIM bay functioned without significant hindrance during the orbital portion of the mission, though the two antennas of the lunar sounder as well as the mapping camera encountered minor issues. The indicator on the instrument panel for the extension of one of the sounder's antennas was not functional and the second antenna suffered an apparent stall during its extension. Despite these technical difficulties, both antennas were deployed fully and the sounder achieved its planned observational purpose. Similarly, the extension and retraction of the mapping camera took longer than planned (about four minutes, longer than the nominal two) and, though deployment and retraction was not otherwise hindered, the use of this piece of equipment was reduced to avoid exhausting it by overuse." this is sourced to pages 10-32 of the mission report. Does it not strike anyone that this is entirely TOO much detail about a camera in an encyclopedia article? This is why we rely on the secondary sources - they will help us avoid getting lost in the weeds. I'm afraid there's a whole LOT of this excessive detail throughout. And that leaves aside the problems of the use of some other sources (https://news2.rice.edu/2012/09/13/a-legendary-tale-well-told/ or http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/spacecraft/apollo17/timeline.html) where we're not sure where they got the information or places where information isn't quite supported (such as "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to photograph and plans to visit the landing site, where some of the mission hardware, such as the LM's descent stage and the LRV, remains. In 2009 and again in 2011, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed the landing site from increasingly low orbits" is sourced to https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html ... but the "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to ... and plans to visit the landing site" is not supported on that page that I can see. (As an aside, the other contemporary news reports is from the New York Times). I've given some examples, but they run throughout all the information and sourcing.
To make it clear - it's not that I think there is BIAS in the undue concerns, it's that by using primary sources, the article suffers from too much detail. We use secondary sources to help determine what should be covered. And to help us from getting lost into the weeds of too much detail. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is about "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text," from WP:UNDUE. That's my concern, not necessarily some sort of political/etc bias. On the primary - see WP:PRIMARY, where we're enjoined to "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Ealdgyth (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. The text you cite from the WP:UNDUE page is the first sentence of the second paragraph; it contextualizes what was stated in the first paragraph, which identifies the underlying principle behind the policy—in particular, the avoidance of undue weight given to contrary viewpoints. This, to me, is what "undue weight" refers to, and that sentence you cite identifies ways in which it may arise. Secondly, as to your reference to WP:PRIMARY, we are not citing the entire article to primary sources, and I would certainly take issue with the suggestion that such sources have not been used with caution (though I am interested in the views of the other reviewers as well). You've also not provided breakdown of what you are counting by section, which I think would be helpful (my apologies if you are working on this already) to ensure we are on the same page, nor whether you are considering such sources as ALSJ to be primary. As an aside, with respect to the page numbers in the mission report, "10-32" is one page, in Section 10, page 32, rather than a cite to 22 pages of the report. A finicky way to number, to be sure. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to ... and plans to visit the landing site", this is meant to refer to the PTScientists' plans to send a robotic spacecraft to the landing site. I will rework this a bit to clarify to what it refers. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 16:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on doing a PR here in the FAC, so I don't have plans to breakdown my count by section. I did not count the ALSJ - just the Timeline from the NASA history division (which is minimal), plus the Press Kit, the Mission Report, and the Preliminary Science report (which, again, is minimal). 2000+ words cited to mainly the press kit and the mission report is a hefty chunk of the article, and yes, I do consider that excessive use of primary sourcing. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Preliminary Science Report is a secondary source and should be acceptable. We will work to minimize use of the Press Kit and the Mission Report, though. I trust that if we did that sufficiently, it would satisfy your concerns?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the ping, and having taken a detailed look at the discussion above and the article's sources, I think the sources look fine, and I appreciate the fact that the editors took the time to balance the details that could be sussed out of NASA's own publications with the desire to not go overboard. In addition, I think the source review struggles to identify concrete issues with the sources, and does not engage with valid points raised by the editors in response.

There's a lot to unpack in the oppose, not least because it seems to have started with one reason, pivoted to another, and then shifted to a third. The first reason offered was that many of the sources are "lacking independence", and that there are "undue issues". Three comments later, and the review claimed, for the first time, that the article has "a LOT of detail". And then the review turned to the idea that "I'm not convinced [the sources] are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using"—which was not just a new critique but also an improper one, because the relevant standard asks for high-quality sources, not the highest-quality sources.

With that said, the source review seems to have coalesced around the idea that there are too many details, a claim which rests primarily on the article's use of NASA sources—which the review interchangeably terms primary sources. These are used for "at least half" of its prose at the first "rough guess", which was not reason for an oppose then, although it apparently is now, when the article is down to (it's said) 2468 of the 8877 words, or 28%. There are at least two problems with this approach. First, by its own admission, it ignores the structure of the article, which contains sections (such as "Mission hardware and experiments") which of course are going to be heavy on the details and lean more on NASA publications, as well as sections (e.g., "Aftermath and spacecraft locations") which are not. In any event, from my own review above, I thought it was clear that the details really are given in summary style—hence why I at one point asked for more details on how an experiment worked, and was told "I did not think it was worth the space to get into the nuts and bolts of this." The second problem is that the approach draws no distinction between NASA sources, and primary sources—which can be, but are not necessarily, the same thing. This was pointed out at least six times above (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6); the source review has so far ignored it. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might read my review without trying to paraphrase it for others. I noted that the primary sources are the Press Kit and the Mission Report. The other NASA sources are not independent, but I did not label ALL the NASA sources as primary. I did not "pivot" to another reason then a third. I added additional reasons as I dug deeper. I at first "guessed" then in response to the queries from the nominators, went to the work of actually breaking it down by numbers so that I had more than a guess. After the nominators eliminated some solo usages of the primary sources (Press Kit, Mission Report) I then recounted the words. I have several reasons for opposing. (1) the use of primary sources (Press Kit/Mission Report) extensively (2) which leads to too much detail that is only (I assume, since it's not sourced to other sources) from the primary sources (3) the worries about some other sources, including contemporary news reports, the Rice University press release, dexmachina source. I'm glad that you don't see the source use as a problem. I do. I've pointed out where policy backs my interpretation up, in my eyes. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what analysis is supposed to do: summarize, and respond. By contrast, one of the things that made the above review so difficult to parse is that it frequently does not engage with its responses. For instance, you asked "what makes [Drew ex Machina] a high quality RS?", and an editor provided what looked like a reasonable answer. You did not respond to that answer, but now cite it as a "worr[y] about some other sources", as if the answer did not exist. Too, you said that "there's a lot in here sourced to contemporay [sic] newspaper accounts and to websites that I'm not convinced are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using." I noted, immediately above, that asking for the highest-quality source is improper, because the actual criterion asks for high-quality sources; you then repeated your criticism of "contemporary news reports", without responding to the fact that you applied an improper standard. (For that matter, you said that there are "a lot" of sources to contemporary newspaper accounts, then stated that there were only two. Two is not "a lot".) Nor does your above response engage with the point I made that more detail-specific issues will vary by section, and so supplying a single word count will not account for the fact that some sections, understandably, will have more sources cited to NASA sources. The point is, it is clear that you "have several reasons for opposing", as you say. But the above source review does little to move beyond these reasons to engage with what frequently seem to be very reasonable responses. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now very few uses of the Press Kit or Mission Report, and what there is, is for the most part description of equipment, which is not "too much detail" in my view, but explanations of what the equipment is, and some of the events leading up to the launch, which are simply facts and would not differ no matter who reports it. I do not understand what the issue is with the contemporary news coverage, which is reporting such things as the change of backup crew. If you don't like the Drew ex Machina source, we can change it for this, but all it's reporting is that there were three deep space EVAs and there haven't been any more (hardly controversial since no one's been there since Apollo 17. I do think that even if use of primary sources was excessive (we can agree to disagree on that), this is no longer the case. I'd appreciate a reassessment in a day or so, and if necessary a punch list of what you feel remains to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's no Rice University press release, it's a report on a talk given by Gene Kranz about his involvement in Apollo 13, and this has been used, unquestioned in the FAs Apollo 12, 13, 14 and 16, added before the FAC and unquestioned in the reviews (I just looked at the Apollo 12 source review to refresh my recollection). It simply sources the job description of the mission director, certainly something Kranz would be able to speak reliably on. And there is only one contemporary news report left, from the New York Times of 1/9/1970, stating that NASA was stretching the remaining Apollo missions to no more than two a year, which is what eventually occurred. I don't think this is greatly excessive or controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to about 1500 words and while I'm not real happy about 1500 out of 9200 words, it's not so egregious that I feel the need to oppose (and I did look at what the text is sourced to those things as well as sheer word count). I remain concerned but I'll leave it up to other reviewers to consider the issue for themselves. Unwatching now.(unsigned by Ealdgyth)
Thank you for taking another look and for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Balon Greyjoy[edit]

Article looks very thorough, congrats on getting to the end of the lunar missions! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

I've rewritten the passage at issue in the above two comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Planning and training

Mission hardware and experiments

The attendance of locals in such numbers was presumably the manner in which they acted like this was the end of an era.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep the mention, but I've shortened it and made it more natural.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Varied.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission events

I don't know. I've never seen one from my home in Palm Beach County, but I've never looked for one either. It could be because the launch was at night. The Apollo daytime launches might not have been visible from Miami.
I'll look into this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on this. There don't seem to have been any anomalies worth mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is unclear. The president of the association was moved by the improvised repair to award the memberships. It's not certain whether this was during or post the mission. This seems a minor point on which the focus is on that it happened at all, and there is no need for a specific timing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misc comments

That's all I have; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think we're up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent effort Wehwalt and Tyrol5! It's an easy decision to support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2022 [99].

Regine Velasquez[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Filipino singer Regine Velasquez who has achieved commercial success in some Asian territories. This is the third nomination at FAC, following a failed attempt in 2020. It underwent a GA review in July 2021, and I have been nursing it up to address the points raised during the second nomination, including a copy editing recommendation. Two rounds of copy edits have since been done among other improvements done, and I have consulted with the reviewer before renom. I feel ready to bring this back for another go. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Damien Linnane[edit]

That's correct. It's a widely known fact/detail and a common discussion point that has been written and mentioned in almost every coverage of Velasquez in Filipino pop culture. Here are a few examples [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]
Done
Done, I've clarified this as being certified in the Philippines only.
You're right, I've reworded to clarify.
Linked
At the time of publication, her pregnancy wasn't confirmed yet, but the article only mentions due to "severe migraine attacks". This was brought up in the prior FAC as well and that 'health reasons' would seem appropriate in this context. Let me know otherwise what you think?
That's right. Per the last FAC, it was very short-lived, some time in 1994. Finding WP:RS was a challenge since no article or publication has really detailed it and nothing archived as well.

That's all I found in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane: Thanks for your review. I have the addressed the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with changes, and to support on prose. Well done on the improvements with the article since the last FAC. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

For context, I have participated in the first FAC and the second FAC. I am happy to see the article back in the FAC space. My comments are below:

Reworded
Reworded sentence structure
Done
Changed
Linked
Apart from the lack of publication/articles about it, the holiday album did not receive much attention, I've removed it from the discography section as well since it's already in the discography article.
Not quite sure what "harv warning" issues you are referring, I may be unaware I used the incorrect citation format. What I did use for references like citation 254 is WP:CITEBUNDLE in order to avoid visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes, esp for awards count. A format I referred to from an FA [107] Let me know if I misunderstood the point you raised.
  • Apologies for that. I used the Harvard citation style in my articles so I have install something that flags citations as having errors if it does not fit that. However, since you are not using that, it is not an issue. Just ignore the above suggestion. Apologies again for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense now, I do recall your citation formats now that you mentioned it. Thanks for clarifying,
Trans-title added

I hope these comments are helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article again to make sure I did not miss anything. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for your review! I have addressed the above comments and also have some clarification on one item re citation use. Happy to address it once you clarify. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the article based on the prose. Unfortunately, I do not feel too comfortable going further into the citations as I am an American and I am not familiar enough with these publications to say anything meaningful about them. Best of luck with the FAC! It would be great to see more Filipino articles in the FA space. I do have one quick question. What was your reasoning for the image used in the infobox? I do not have any issues with it and it does not affect my support in any way, but I was just curious about it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: much appreciate your time in reviewing! On the infobox image, I thought it'd be much better to use something much more recent that I could find (2010) and replace the old image taken in 2005, and thought it looked better (in my opinion). Pseud 14 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way to be honest, and I trust your judgement as you know more about this person than I do. Again, best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Done
Done
Reworded
Fixed
I've removed the the mention of 100k to avoid confusion. The article says 700k sales overall and 100k of those were sales in the Philippines. Nevertheless, just mentioning the total would be consistent with what's in the lead as well.
My issue was with the word "regionally". If the source says it sold 700k copies overall then I take it to mean worldwide and not regionally. So my suggestion would be "The album had sold more than 700,000 copies worldwide, including 100,000 in the Philippines." FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Changed to your suggestion Pseud 14 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this too and reviewed the rest of the article for consistency.
Reworded
Reworded
Good point, I've revised the sentence structure.
Done
Fixed
Fixed
Agreed, made the change.
Done
Revised the sentence structure to clarify. Thanks for pointing out.
Now it reads "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera, with whom she had collaborated with on previous concerts, and also features Angeline Quinto, and Erik Santos." My issue was not with how she got reunited with Nievera, as he is mentioned several times throughout the article. It's not him whose previous collaborations need to be mentioned here but rather Quinto and Santos. However, now I see you have completely omitted the reunion part with these two. Another issue: "with whom she had collaborated with on previous concerts" (double use of with, I suggest removing one, preferably the second one) although I suggest removing this altogether because, like I said, her previous work with Nievera does not need to be clarified. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this, I must've misunderstood. I've reworded and made it simple to "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera and also features Angeline Quinto and Erik Santos", let me know if this works Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the end of the music career section. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: thanks for your initial review. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if I missed anything Pseud 14 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the replies except where I have stated otherwise.

My final batch:

Done.
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done. I'm trying to recall if the change was made by me or a result of the copy edits. Appreciate you pointing out these!
Done
Done
Done
Done

This should conclude my review. To make sure you don't miss them, I have left replies under some of yours and need further clarification. Once these concerns are resolved, I'll have no reason not to endorse this article's promotion. Happy to see you bring it to FAC again after all these years. Hopefully, third time really is the charm. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I have addressed the outstanding items in your initial review and have made the changes on the additional points you raised as well. I really appreciate your time in reviewing, these have been extremely helpful. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Let's not screw this up

I've clarified that the success of the album was generally aided by the single, as it is also mentioned in the body.
Fixed
Ref 13 doesn't explicitly mention the year, but it mentions how old she was (six years old), which is stated in the beginning of the paragraph that discusses how she started training going towards her first singing competition.

...I'm sorry, but I'm going have to call off this review. It's been feeling like an obligation for a while, which it should not be... I've been stressed trying to complete it... I'm really sorry... Pamzeis (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: no worries at all, any comments are appreciated. I have addressed the above points you raised. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Beginning shortly. Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
Thanks for catching this, I have removed the above which has been added in error.
I have fixed the error. Since there is no information or mention of who wrote the liner notes, I have cited and used "corporate author" (the umbrella entity that owns the label that released the record) per the definitions in template parameters
I've used |trans-title for references with native titles. However, for references with titles that are in English but the content is written in native language, I only used |language=, let me know if I've properly used it or if there's anything I missed.
Fixed
Linked
Corrected, should be Jojo Panaligan. for ref 79, I've removed the author, as there is none mentioned.
@Aza24: thanks for the initial review, I have addressed the above. Do let me know if there is anything I missed or still needs attention. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, believe the archive link should work now
Added
Reliability
Verifiability
Added
  • Should have time later this week to finish it. Thanks for checking in. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)c[reply]
  • @Aza24: thank you for your review and I have addressed the additional comments above. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks – Pass[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I wanted to check in on the status of the nomination after a source review and spotchecks have been completed. Thank you for your time and hope you have a great start to your week. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Late to the party, I fear but not too late.

  • "she was immersed neck-deep at sea" Very dramatic but I don't find it supported by the body, "immersed her neck-deep in sea water" This presumably happened with her feet planted on terra firma. Suggest "at sea" be changed to "in the sea"
Makes sense, you're presumption is right. I made the change for both lead and body. As the ref mentions "dagat" training, a Tagalog word which translates to sea.
  • " and competed for her school at the annual Bulacan Private Schools Association competition" what sort of competition?
Clarified, singing competition
  • "Velasquez won the competition and was signed to a record deal with OctoArts International." What is meant by "record"?
Piped record deal to recording contract to provide clarity.
  • "and ended in the American Samoa.[55][56]" I might omit the "the"
Done
  • "In February 2004, Velasquez and Ogie Alcasid performed a one-night show, The Songbird & The Songwriter, at the Araneta Coliseum" Aren't most shows one night, even those on tours?
You're right, reworded.
  • "In November, she staged a three-day concert titled "Regine at the Movies" at the New Frontier Theater.[141]" A three-day concert or the same concert repeated three times?
Clarified. Three-date concert series
  • "For the show, Velasquez won the awards for Best Collaboration in a Concert and Entertainer of the Year at the 32nd Aliw Awards,[143] having won the top honor in 2007 and 2009.[144][145]" Is the top honor best entertainer or something else?
Clarified, as the latter award
  • "on the musical theater production of José Rizal's Noli Me Tángere" I might say "version" rather than "production"
Done
  • " The latter film premiered at the Manila Film Festival in July 2003.[169] In December, Velasquez next starred alongside Bong Revilla in the superhero film Captain Barbell.[170]" Do we need "film" three times in two sentences"?
I've fixed the flow to avoid repition.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: never too late at all and thanks for providing your review. I have addressed the above points. Let me know if I missed any or if there are things that still need attention. Thanks. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Many thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment by Sarasalant[edit]

Hey, correct me if I'm wrong, but on "2017–present: R3.0, television projects and Freedom" section, isn't Velasquez's live stream concert should be written as Freedom instead of Freedom? – SARASALANT (talk|contributions) 07:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2022 [110].

Double florin[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a very short lived British coin. Not only was it the curse of barmaids, but the two men who designed it died less than a year after it was abolished, and the conflict over the designs may have contributed to their deaths. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I always enjoy Wehwalt's articles about coins, and in this one in particular the interest is as much human as numismatic. My only quibbles on the prose are:

Curses. I missed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nor would I, they only do mischief with the money. Oh. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See first comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no high opinion of Simon Heffer, but shall refrain from contending that he is not a WP:RS. Very happy to support the promotion of this article to FA: it seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I much enjoyed reviewing it. Tim riley talk 21:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the support. Always grateful for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Many thanks. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun[edit]

It simply means that is how the money worked. If you have better terminology, I'll happily adopt it.
Exactly. The first source discusses the transaction itself but does not mention the year. The second source mentions the transaction in less detail but does supply the year.
Sorry, missed this, will work on this shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. If I haven't specifically responded, it means I've just fixed that issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

I've made some adjustment to the Release, though it means keeping more images on the right than I'd like (with the left facing bust of Victoria, a lot of the images have to be kept on the right). I don't see the issue with the Background/Inception, unless on your browser the infobox is stretching all the way through the background section and into inception. Can you be more specific?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the browsers (have tried this out on different browsers). However I think I found the problem my monitor is 1440px and on my laptop (which is 1070px) I saw no sandwich while my monitor says somethingdifferentt. Hmm I now am kindconfuseded since Ithoughtt Wikipedia hastandardiseded their images and articles to all kinds of devices and screens. Is there a way tstandardiseise this to get rid of this issue? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this more an issue you are having with articles than specific to this? I see you've posted to a number of FACs and MH A-class reviews. From what I can tell, the images here are well-spaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, my monitor might have a bigger resolution than a monitor/laptop, however as far as I know MOS:SANDWICH does not have an exception for screen diversity and sizes. Unless there was a discussion about this in the past with a solution for this issue. I think as long MOS:SANDWICH doesn't give an expeception or is changed the images should still be changed even if the majority of PC users use a format of 1070px. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:SANDWICH is a guideline, not a policy and in any event subject to WP:IAR. But I think I've arranged the images so you should not have any sandwiching issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's good enough since I still have sandwich with the quotebox and File:1887 UK proof set.jpg. but I think this is the best we can get currently. As you said it's indeed a guideline and I don't really mind if the guideline has been ignored once. However I still believe we only can use that 'rule' if there's no other solution left like this article has currently. The majority of readers on desktop and laptop uses 1070px as their resolution and I hope Wikipedia will fixes this issue as soon as possible since there is a small percantege who uses bigger resolution like I am. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Not much to say here. I fixed a minor error; other than that:

Yes, it is a reliable and neutral source, which was sold in shops and the like. I remember seeing it on my visits to Britain, though I think I bought my copy secondhand. Numismatic books in the UK seem to be much more published by coin firms than in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me, odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me now too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting looks good. Ling's script says there's an inconsistency in publisher location, which I think is because the HMSO and Hansard cites don't have locations, but I don't think that's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Will have a few comment here. Hog Farm Talk 00:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one's in pretty good shape; just needs a couple more tweaks. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by query[edit]

Wehwalt, is cite 65 really "col. 84–84"?

Gog the Mild, should be 834, fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 February 2022 [111].

The May Pamphlet[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One spring day in New York City, the irascible Paul Goodman marched into his World War II draft interview with these anarchist essays under his arm as a prop or perhaps totem that would show his country just how unfit for service he was. While the military immediately understood, it would take another 15 years for his country to hear. While largely forgotten today, Goodman was namechecked in Annie Hall as a prevailing public intellectual of the American mid-century: Dutch uncle to the 1960s counterculture, philosopher of the New Left, and the country's most prominent living anarchist. Goodman's career consisted of revealing mystic truths about the need to live out one's own animal instinct and the larger society's unfulfilled duty in fostering those impulses. The May 1945 essays that became known as the May Pamphlet outline Goodman's application of Reichian psychological theory to anarchist politics in the interregnum between the social revolutionary class warfare of turn-of-the-century classical anarchism and the rise of personal politics-focused, late-20th century contemporary anarchism. You can see Goodman bridge the twain in these very essays as he confronts the impossibility of large-scale social change by calling not for a massive social revolution but for an inward reformation: to instead realize one's own innate, individual powers and form a new society by living intentionally within the shell of the old.

Hopefully that's enough exposition to convince you to read this little article I've been incubating for the past several years, with debts to reviews from @Eddie891, Z1720, and Grapple X. It is part of a larger project to better cover Goodman's works and other major written landmarks of anarchism on Wikipedia. Let me know what you think? czar 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments:

This looks very good and I look forward to reading it properly (along with the book itself) in the coming weeks.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

@Nikkimaria, thanks and updated! Goodway 1999 is the same as the linked Google Books reprint. (Earthscan is a Routledge company.) I only linked Google Books for ease of verification but can either remove the link or instead swap the reference for Goodway 2006, which repeats the same claim verbatim, if preferable. Let me know if you would like scans of any of the sources. czar 16:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest clarifying in the citation that it's a reprint. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is not a reprint though—it's correct as written. Only the link is a reprint, and it has the exact same page numbering. Most citation links are a courtesy. I wouldn't remove the page numbers if I linked a web version without page numbers, etc. czar 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet[edit]

This is a fascinating article! Saving my spot.

The first comment I'll have to give, unfortunately, is that I completely agree with Indopug about the "libertarian (anarchist)[a]" repetition -- it consistently dragged me out of the article as I read. The use in the lead is good, because it contextualizes why a term confusing to a modern audience was applied to this part of concept-space. The following uses would all be net improvements if substituted with "anarchist" (or "libertarian socialist", depending which is contextually preferred for each mention). Vaticidalprophet 05:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet, thank you! And that's fair. I've reworded where context permits and kept the translation/repetition to the few parts where it's necessary to historicize Goodman's words. Tricky stuff, this. czar 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a tricky balance. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets tweaked again a few times in the course of FAC; there are a few ways one could defensibly put it, and not many good models at FA level of articles with similar terminology issues (though I know some at GA level). I'll come back to start leaving comments in...the next couple days at most, hopefully; I'm reviewing a couple articles at GAN too so I'm between a few places, but feel free to drop a note on my talk I don't currently have pings on and I'm not sure if or when I'll put them back if I'm not here by the end of the week. Vaticidalprophet 21:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments
General[edit]
  • Image query: You mentioned to Indopug earlier that there are no free images of Goodman, but are we actually sure of that? His life overlaped suitably with the periods where image copyright was much harder to secure than it is now, and I imagine anarchists weren't dotting the Is and crossing the Ts of every copyright notice -- you've already been able to find some other PD images under the same principle. Calling this a query, not any sort of request, because it's more of an idea of something that if it pans out could be used to improve the article's illustration than an actual point of contention -- but it'd certainly be nice if it panned out.
    • There are no dust jacket or inside author portraits in the HathiTrust (public domain) scans and the Library of Congress didn't have anything easy on file when I checked. I've been to all of his major archives and no images jumped out as being potentially public domain. These early libertarian/anarchist journals are a little different in that they were tiny so had a high chance of not having their copyright renewed but they also didn't print illustrations (because they were small). I'd like to reach out to his estate eventually and ask but just wanted a little more to show for it first. czar 22:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very thorough -- certainly this article and the main Goodman one are high enough quality that you'll have quite a bit to show them :) No worries. Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnote dips momentarily into parenthetical referencing, which is no longer good practice.
    • Its a footnote in a footnote so I can just drop the parentheses and leave it with no brackets, if that's better. czar 22:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sensu stricto the deprecated style is putting the reference in the flow of text at all, but as you say, footnote in a footnote -- I'm not the sort to press on that kind of detail. Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • Again, a query: would some reference to the genesis in Goodman's draft interview be due here?
    Eh, I'd consider it trivia for the lede. Perhaps a good hook for FAC, though :) czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have some heavy repetition of "anarchist" here (which is an improvement on heavy repetition of "libertarian (anarchist)[a]", but nonetheless worth keeping an eye on). The reader can be assumed, from the fact the article opens with "is a collection of six anarchist essays", to know the subject matter. I'm specifically looking at the line The anarchist essays were not well known, which is better rendered as simply The essays were not well known.
    Yes, that's leftover from yesterday's changes. I've dialed it down. czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do small, New York and small, anarchist need those commas? (Also look for later uses of similar sentence structure -- I've spotted it in some of the other sections, but not yet combed through them.) This might be a matter of individual dialect, so I'm not certain, but at least from my dialect's eye it looks off.
    It's stylistic. I used to not include commas between adjectives but was once taken to task for that at a FAC many moons ago, so now I do because why not—it adds a little clarity. Nothing in the MoS that I know of, though. czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later sections to come. Vaticidalprophet 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publication[edit]
  • The listing of the two bluelinked journals beside each other in the list of three creates somewhat of a MOS:SEAOFBLUE -- at first glance I read Politics, Why? as the name of one journal (certainly sounded a plausible one...). I note Retort (journal) exists as a redirect, and while not in-depth, there's enough in the way of basic names-and-dates to get value from the link. Alternatively, you could move the names around to prevent the sea.
    Politics, Why? is an acceptable summary of this article. Rephrased. czar 05:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is one-man publisher re. Vinco supposed to be read as meaning it was essentially Goodman's personal imprint he published his own books under, or that it was a (very) small press run by someone else publishing multiple authors, or some intermediate point?
    As small as a press can be, as in barely a press. Do you think it needs further clarification? czar 05:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't so much confused as to how many people were involved with it (the "one-man" part was clear) as to whether the one man was Goodman himself, self-publishing with an imprint, or if it was a different sole proprieter running a small press. The linked source is useful clarification, so it might be nice to add some of that in the article, as it also serves the purpose of explaining why Vimco went out of business/why other people were publishing its unsold books. Vaticidalprophet 06:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done czar 03:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Finding I don't have too many comments :) ) Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

Sorry about the gap -- I've had inconsistent computer access for the past week, but it should improve soon. This section is in good shape (and I find the list of essays defensible; I'm at pre-FAC PR for an essay collection myself, and it really is difficult to figure out how to format that kind of thing). My only query here regards "Revolution, Sociolatry, and War", the fifth essay, was first published in Politics as an anarchist response to Marxist theory typical for the magazine -- should this be read as saying Marxism was the typical allegiance of the magazine, and Goodman was writing an anarchist response to its usual takes, or that the usual take was anarchist interpretations of Marxism? The current phrasing is slightly unclear. Vaticidalprophet 00:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point—rephrased czar 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to support. I read through the remaining sections and couldn't spot any nits I want to pick. This is excellent work and a good read. Vaticidalprophet 01:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

That is it. Excellent work on the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, @Kavyansh.Singh! Believe I've addressed your points in the text, when you have a moment to review. czar 03:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I am satisfied with the changes made. Happy to support! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

I will review over the coming week. As a first comment, I think that the footnote should be better sourced. I'm sure that we can find academic and footnoted works explaining the relationship between "libertarianism" and "anarchism". JBchrch talk 18:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JBchrch—looking forward to it! Let me know if you need copies of any of the sources.
re: the footnote, I believe I've picked the best source for the job and I linked to the full article I wrote on the definition for those who want further detail. czar 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your offer @Czar. Fortunately I have institutional access to a lot of online sources and a good library close-by so I don't expect to be bothering you too much.
I was hoping you would accept my suggestion because, unless I've missed something, the claim During the time of The May Pamphlet and as invoked by Goodman, "libertarian" was synonymous with anarchism, does not seem to be verified in Marshall 1992. What I’m reading is "The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism" and below "For a long time, libertarian was interchangeable in France with anarchist". The concept of the two words being synonymous in America in the 40s does not appear to be clear from the source. JBchrch talk 21:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would this addition satisfy your suggestion? czar 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks it does. Do we still need to leave During the time ... with anarchism (anti-authoritarian socialism). in footnote b then? Could it be removed? Also, as a suggestion for improvement, perhaps consider paraphrasing Cohen in footnote instead of a straight quote. JBchrch talk 00:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done czar 01:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm going to be a bit more of an annoyance than Vaticidalprophet above and suggest that you put the last part of the footnote between <ref></ref> tags. WP:PARREF is not entirely explicit on this point, but Template:Harvard citation no brackets#Usage interprets the RfC as saying that harv citations may only be used inside of such tags. JBchrch talk 01:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was about inline parenthetical referencing, not how ((harvnb)) (nb = no parentheticals) could be used. For all intents and purposes, it already is within ref tags—i.e., it already is a footnote—the same as a standard harv footnote just with extra text, similar to how scholarly monographs do it. If you prefer, I can shove the full citation into the note instead of using the short footnote? But having a footnote within a footnote would be an inelegant solution. czar 01:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the template docs for both Template:Harv and Template:Harvnb were updated to reflect a deprecation of their use outside of ref tags (the latter being a transclusion of the former), seemingly without controversy, and thus seem to reflect the implicit consensus on what the rules are... and I'm just the guy doing the source review 🤷‍♂️. I really don't see the issue about references inside of footnotes, though. Looks at this recent FA, for instance: Louis_Rwagasore#Notes. JBchrch talk 02:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went poking through the harv template talk page to see if this was raised before (it was) and what the solution was (this). By that read, use of shortened/harv text within ((efn)) is kosher. (To the issue of references inside of footnotes, I've done this myself in other articles, but it then takes three clicks to get from article text to efn to sfn to full citation, which is what I meant by inelegant, hence why I'd want our readers to avoid that experience.) czar 04:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to this discussion, which I had missed. I'm going to accept that the state of the consensus on harv references outside of refs tags but inside of a Template:efn is not clear, and "pass" that specific citation form. However, I will definitely push for a clarification of the docs after this. JBchrch talk 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Czar sorry for the delay, but I've not forgotten this. I'm planning on finishing the overall review tonight and do spot checks over the week-end. JBchrch talk 15:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments:

Spot checks[edit]

Stoehr 1977b

Stoehr 1994a

Widmer 1980

Honeywell 2011

Cornell 2016

Genter 2002

Smith 2001

Additional spot checks:

Widmer 1980

King 1972

Cornell 2016

Source review is a pass. JBchrch talk 00:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images have a copyright tag indicating that they were produced without a copyright notice. The source URL doesn't show any notice but I am not sure if they show the cover page of the pamphlets/journals which is where I would expect the tag if there were one. Is there some kind of structure to image placement? ALT is passable but slightly longish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. There are full issues of the journals available online too, which I checked for copyright notices. Politics was the only one with such a notice but I did not find a renewal in the Stanford search. re: structure to placement, I put covers in the lede for basic identification and title pages of the essays near the contents in the order in which they appeared. czar 14:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that only leaves the ALTs. Can they be made shorter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, yes, done! czar 03:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a pass image review wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv[edit]

Finally found the time to look at this one.

Overall, the writing is quite clear and I (think I) understood a lot of ideas that were previously unfamiliar to me. No concerns about structure, scope, sourcing etc. A thought-provoking read. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, @Bilorv. Addressed your points here. czar 04:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: passes the FA criteria. Thanks for the speedy fixes. — Bilorv (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

Placeholder. It's hard to believe that it's near four years since Czar was kind enough to comment on my own foray into a slightly earlier aspect of anarchist history. Looking forward to this. SN54129 20:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SN 1492#5, any further thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Gog, just an FYI, but pings to user talk pages don't give alerts, only user pages themselves. Cheers, SN54129 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Gog: I note that Czar has successfully—with subtlety and delightful politeness—refused to action any of my points. Hah! Imagine if Czar came to my current FAC and I did the same thing, there'd be uproar  :) in any case, my suggestions in these proceedings are rarely more than that—suggestions—so there was certainly no pressure to use them, and indeed, their reasoning for their decision seems sound, so I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. SN54129 16:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 February 2022 [116].

Colossal Cave Adventure[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1975 a programmer, wanting to make something to connect with his daughters, combined his love of caving with the spoken descriptions of tabletop role-playing games, and the result was Colossal Cave Adventure, aka just Adventure. As the name and year hint at, this one-man project is one of the most influential games of all time: it invented and is the namesake for the adventure game genre (well, the name probably would have been that anyways), but also kicked off the interactive fiction genre and was a precursor to computer role-playing games, roguelikes, and MUDs (and through them MMORPGs). Except it only became all of that through a string of coincidences: that Crowther was a developer for the ARPANET so when he dumped his divorce-therapy game on his work computer programmers all over the country saw it; that one of those players wanted to expand it so he emailed Crowther at every email provider that existed to get the source code; that Woods put his code out with the game so that for the next five years as everyone and their dog made their own "Adventure" games they had the actual code to work from... And as a result, hundreds of millions of people have played what came from a halfway-forgotten text-based game originally played on a teleprinter.

I've been mucking around with early video games for a while, though it's been over a year since I last brought one through FAC, but this article I picked up only this year. It sailed through GAN, and I've been poring over it since, so hopefully it will sail through here as well. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: it was indeed published without a copyright notice, as well as before the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect. --PresN 12:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alexandra[edit]

I intend to review this - please ping me if I haven't done so by the end of the week.--AlexandraIDV 08:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good otherwise, and I enjoyed reading it.--AlexandraIDV 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Done
  • Done (whoops, used to be an earlier wikilink to that)
  • Done
  • I have no idea! Pretty sure you're right but I can't find any sources on the drift in the name- it was clearly just referred to as Adventure generally at first, but "Colossal" was thrown around somewhere because by 1982 there was the commercial version Colossal Adventure; I'd guess that the shift happened in part because the 1980 Atari Adventure was more well-known and stole the name, but it's a mystery.
  • Hmm, so what I'm trying to not say is that it was the "first", because Wander pre-dated it, but the thing is that very few people played Wander so it didn't inspire much; CCA "started" the genre(s) without actually being the first interactive fiction game. I think "generally" is making a mess here; rewrote to be "The game is the first well-known example of interactive fiction", which is much cleaner.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done, just capitalized since the original was case-insensitive so it doesn't matter.
@Alexandra IDV: Done all; replied below your comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Beautiful, I now support this nomination!--AlexandraIDV 17:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. This was a pleasure to read. I played this in 1981 on a CDC mainframe, and remember it very well; I never did get the very last point needed to get the maximum score, but I spent a lot of time trying. I’ve read through and made some copy edits; please revert anything I you disagree with. Other than the copy edits I could find nothing to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker[edit]

This article is very close to featured article quality. I have a few suggestions to really nail down a few small issues:

  • "The program acts as a narrator, describing to the player what each location in the cave has and the results of certain actions, or if it did not understand the player's commands, asking for the player to retype their actions"
  • "The original 1976 version of the game contains five treasures which can be collected, and while based on a real cave system contains a few fantasy elements such as a crystal bridge, magic words, and axe-wielding dwarves."
  • "Woods found the game on a PDP-10 at the Stanford Medical School, and wanted to expand upon the game and contacted Crowther to gain access to the source code by emailing "crowther" at every domain that existed on the ARPANET."
  • "Games such as Zork (1977)—which began development within a month of the release of Woods' version—by the team of Dave Lebling, Marc Blank, Tim Anderson, Bruce Daniels, and Al Vezza of Infocom, Adventureland (1978) by Scott Adams of Adventure International, and Mystery House (1980) by Roberta and Ken Williams of Sierra Entertainment were all directly influenced by Colossal Cave Adventure, and these companies would go on to become key innovators for the early adventure game genre." -> (this one in particular tries to combine too many thoughts into a single sentence. Its influence on other games is also important enough that you can really take your time with each influence.)
  • ... and many sentences that use a semi-colon. I recommend using a full stop where there are two separate ideas. Or using "and" where the ideas are connected.
Thanks for improving the quality of this very important article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Addressed all of these points; I think it's more readable now and the important contributions more prominent. I have a habit of making long sentences, and have chopped up a couple more that you didn't mention. I won't apologize for the semicolons, though I did reduce the number of them as they were a little out of hand. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the excellent revisions. It's much more readable now. I might still nitpick the sentence about all the games it influenced, but it's partially because I'd be interested for the article to slow down and explain the influence on those games individually. (Particularly Mystery House and its influence on the whole line of Sierra adventure games.) That's more of an after thought, and nothing to stop this from being an FA. Great work and thanks for elevating this subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • @ChrisTheDude: Done, except for the ex-wife bit; I don't know how to phrase it better. They were divorced when he started the game (so "ex-wife"), but I also discuss the caving which happened before they divorced (so "then-wife"). Open to any suggestions. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jaguar[edit]

Happy to add my support since others have made fine-tuning suggestions before me. The prose is excellent and the article's comprehensibility does it further justice. It was an enjoyable read. ♦ jaguar 14:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source/img review - pass[edit]

Passes for source and image. All sources are reliable and consistently and well formatted. Images have appropriate purpose, caption, alts and licences. GeraldWL 17:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 February 2022 [117].

Will P. Brady[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brady was not, perhaps, the first person you would want to get a drink with. To start with, he was a prohibitionist—at least when running for reelection as a judge. And then there was the so called "legal lynching" of a 16-year-old Mexican boy, whom Brady extracted a confession from while a mob waited outside the jail; tried; and then guaranteed a date with the gallows, meeting with the governor to foreclose any chance of clemency. (18 years later, when Brady's brother, also a Texas judge, drunkenly killed his mistress and himself was tried for capital murder, Brady promptly joined the defense team.)

This article was originally an afterthought written as I tried to learn more about the family of Brady's niece, the philologist Caroline Brady (an interesting story—see the part about Van Egmond). A year and a half later I returned to it and dug in; the result is a detailed snapshot of some of the legal, political, and social dynamics at play in West Texas in the early 20th century, where Brady, the El Paso Herald wrote, was "one of the best known public men". Reviewed by Iazyges last year and refined since, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

  • I've taken a look through the paper (both when I added the image to the article, and again now), and there appears to be no copyright notice. From looking at the twelve pages and running text searches (e.g., for "copyright" and "1929"), the only notice I can find is the page-eleven copyright notice for an R. J. Reynolds ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "His parents, James and Agnes Brady,[5] were early settlers of the city, having arrived five years earlier.[6][7] " This doesn't seem that early given that Austin had been the capital, on and off, for thirty years.
  • Per the source (1924 obit of Will Brady's father), "Mr. Brady was a pioneer resident in Austin, coming here in 1871 and for forty years was engaged in the mercantile business." "Early" and "pioneer" are, I think, relative terms. According to Austin's population figures there were only 4,428 residents in 1870, and 42,174 in 1925. I would assume that given that he moved there when Austin was quite small and still around when it was ten times larger, many considered him an early settler. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Brady's graduation from high school require three footnotes? Similar for the college.
  • The years are kind of odd—he graduated high school in 1895, but matriculated at UT in 1894. This seems to have been the way things were done then—a number of his high school classmates did the same—but it seemed worth adding some reinforcing footnotes to show that the dates are correct. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning up front when you discuss his tenure as superintendent--you allude to it later--that he only had jurisdiction over the rural schools, not those in Austin.
  • Did Brady have to face a primary election in 1900?
  • Are we able to say whether Brady sought re-election in 1904?
  • It seems unlikely; he didn't run in the primary, at any rate. Although speculative, I would guess that he was ready to move on to other things. Also, in the later words of judge Dan M. Jackson, "It's a good Democratic principle to reelect public servants that are efficient and trustworthy, and it has been a Democratic custom in Texas to give second two year terms to efficient men". Thus, there may have been an unofficial term limit and/or expectation of a second term, after which it may have been natural for Brady to expand his horizons. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brady stood for the bar" That's an unusual phrase to me, anyway, as a lawyer. Did Brady pass an examination or was some other mode of admission followed?
  • Changed to "applied for admission to the bar"; "stood for the bar" doesn't sound odd to me, although to be fair, I would normally say "took the bar" (if referring to the exam itself). The source just says "The bar examiners for the Third supreme judicial district are in session in the court of civil appeals. The board has six applicants before it for licenses to practice law. The applicants are: Will P. Brady, T. J. Hollbrook, D. O. Sehilg and J. W. Moffett." (Yes, it says six but lists four). I don't know how the bar worked in 1905 in Texas; there might have been a test beforehand and the application was just the pro forma admissions process, or perhaps the application was the substantive part of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then spent several weeks in Milwaukee with a G. W. Briggs,[88] visiting the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis around the same time.[89]" This implies that it was 1906 but the St. Louis Fair took place in 1904.
  • "On 3 February 1909" Shouldn't this be month-day-year as a US article? Please check elsewhere in article. Used at least twice in 1919.
  • It's just personal preference; MDY has always seemed odd, whereas DMY/YMD at least progress from most to least specific (or vice versa). After a few copy edits, the article is fully consistent in its approach. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " By September, however, following a visit to Los Angeles,[257][258] he and McClintock agreed that Brady would handle civil matters and McClintock criminal;[259] in such a case heard that month, Brady issued a directed verdict in a lawsuit over the possession of real property.[260]" This sentence could benefit from splitting.
  • The semicolon helps split it, and is I think useful given that the second clause relates the first in both time and activity. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spanish flu" perhaps "Spanish influenza".
  • "Ward county" probably "Ward County".
  • "democratic" should be "Democratic" when referring to the party.
  • "a position as assistant U.S. district attorney for the Southern District of California.[340] " Probably "assistant United States attorney" is a better way of putting it.
  • "tax exempt" likely "tax-exempt"
  • Compare " the state Democratic Central committee" and " the county democratic executive committee" Even ignoring the capitalization of "Democratic", I see inconsistencies (not to mention sundry committees, conventions, etc.) Also (later) "Liberty club". Find a consistent way of referring to these.
  • I've capitalized most of these. It's a bit difficult because a) the newspapers have inconsistent capitalization, and b) sometimes it's difficult to figure out what is an official name, and what is just a description. But it should be fairly consistent now. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the second railroad referred to in the business section, from New Mexico to Pecos, actually built?
  • It's unclear; there are not many results for the "Panhandle, Pecos & Gulf railway", but it may have been built under a different name. List of Texas railroads does include some similar-sounding railroads. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1906 he was the acting state president of the organization,[367] and presided over the convention in Corpus Christi,[368][369] where he was elected president;[370] he had traveled there with his father.[367][371] " Why do we care about the father?
  • It's a minor point, but gives a bit of a sense of the family dynamic. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crowds of more than 1,375 at once" Should "once" be "one time"?
  • "Following his 1915 move to El Paso, Brady remained involved in the social life of his new home." Probably "remained" should be "became" as he was not previously involved in El Paso activities.
  • Deleted "new", though I'm open to other options. I'm trying to make the point that Brady, though he was in a new place, remained involved in the social scene, just as he had in Pecos. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Across 1917 and 1918,[416][417] he and other members of the local bar assisted those filling out draft questionnaires.[418][419][420]" "Across" should probably be "During".
  • "The conviction was reversed on appeal the following year.[132][133] Hiles was again convicted of manslaughter in 1915, and the verdict sustained.[134][135]" Reversed would probably mean that the appeals court directed he be found not guilty, and he could not be retried. Possibly "overturned"?
  • Per the source, "In 1875 he was speaker in the house of representatives". I haven't been able to corroborate this, however, so have removed it (now "member of the Texas..."). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jitne" probably "jitney"
  • Changed. Both are used—and the source cited uses "jitne"—but looking at newspapers.com, "jitney" was more common in coverage of this issue. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reum had moved to El Paso around 1900 with her husband Charles,[224] also a physician.[225]" This assumes that Anna Reum was a physician. Was she? Elsewhere, I mean.
  • According to various sources (example), they were both physicians. With that said, it seems to have been a bit of a loose and unregulated term back then; much of the trouble they got into seems to have been due to the increasing regulation of their field. This article about her husband contains some details, and quotes the relevant statute: "From and after the passage of this amendment [in July 1901] it shall be unlawful for any person to practice medicine ... in this state except, First, all those who were practicing medicine in Texas prior to January 1, 1885; second, all those who began the practice of medicine in this state after the above date who complied with the laws of this state regulating the practice of medicine prior to the passage of this act; provided that those who had diplomas recorded sicne January 1, 1891, shall present to the state board of medical examiners ... satisfactory evidence that their diplomas were issued by bona fide medical colleges of respectable standing." --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reeves County Bar association" Is this the proper capitalization?
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything done yet or is there more? Ping me when you're ready for me to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Wehwalt. Everything now responded to. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - Have you been able to revisit this one? Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought I had. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're past 3 weeks without supports. If there's no progress towards promotion, it may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, I'm still responding to the above comments—which I would read as progress towards promotion—but have been swimming in deadlines recently. I'll try to respond more fully in the coming days, but would appreciate a bit of forbearance. It is, after all, a long article, and for that reason alone, it's likely to take a little longer for people to review it and for me to respond. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

These are quibbles, and I think the article is FA quality. It does feel like an accumulation of small details, but the prose merges the details smoothly into a narrative. I've identified a couple of minor points I think could be cut, and there might be more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, just checking you saw these comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Mike Christie—just have had limited time with work and travel. I'll try to respond to the remaining two comments shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I've just become a bit busy myself in real life, but should have a chance to follow up tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I've added responses for the remaining comments. Many thanks for the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I wouldn't handle the footnotes the way this article does, but that's a personal stylistic preference and not an FA criterion, so I've no hesitation in supporting this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • At least in American English, I'm much more used to hearing names of degrees (Bachelor of Laws or otherwise) without "degree" tacked on to the end. The relevant article, for its part, includes both usages. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's linked two paragraphs above: "He also helped organize a circulating library intended to supply the teachers in the county with professional books, and in 1900 taught physical geography at the Elgin summer normal." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "present in the courtroom"—there were actually two trials (hung jury; conviction), which is a nuance I'm trying to avoid getting into here. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Placeholding. SN54129 23:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Serial Number 54129, are you not familiar with the rule that after every 20 FAC nominations, the source reviewer has to do a full source review, spot checking each and every cite, to ensure that the nominator's standards haven't slipped? Footnotes, too. Bon voyage! --Usernameunique (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After an editor's first promotion spot checks are always optional. (Ok, bar exceptional blotting of copy book.) Personally I always do a few, and dig deeper if I am not fully happy; but that is not a requirement. (I occasionally do some even if I am not carrying out a source review.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This version reviewed.

Ref # Claim Pass/fail Responses
3b Move to El Paso, 1915 P
4d Ill-health retirement P (although suggest replacing the Find a Grave link) Unfortunately I don't have access to the San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune. Certain libraries do (e.g., here), which I presume is how the copy at Find a Grave was found. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13 Caroline, philology F (no mention of her as philologist) The link to Caroline Brady is doing most of the work in that sentence; the citation is to establish that Caroline Brady was Will Brady's niece. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14d Quote P
37 Geography teacher P
42 Sprinkle residency P
51 Statesman quote re. Day P
58 3-week vacation P
74 Attends STM P
76 Co-leading discussion P
83 Umbrella P
122 Trial of Orner P
155 Pardon of Wright (If Ancestry.com has this source, presumably it's elsewhere?) Per the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, which holds the original copies, the copies are available online on only Ancestry. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
156a DA until 1914, shooting of P
180 Session dates F -Not directly given? (Also, headline is "Terms of New County Court at Law Will Be Fixed Next Tuesday") Fixed the headline. The source says ""The first term of the new court will be held in July, beginning on the first Monday of that month and lasting four weeks." The first Monday of July 1917 was 2 July, and four weeks (ending Friday) gives us 27 July. Cites 188 and 189 say that the court adjourned on Saturday, which I suppose could mean either that it was the first day the court was closed, or the last day the court was open. As such, I've changed it to "The first session of the court lasted the first four weeks of July". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
191 House to let P
203 $25 vagrancy fines P
214 News ads What is it citing? 217 is the ad in question; it responds to 216, another ad. 214 is just to show whom William H. Fryer was, and why he's red-link worthy. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
224 Unopposed on ballot P
244 Reum, HANA, Leavenworth P
263 Sheriffs conspiring to murder P
265 September in LA P (although seems slightly redundant)
269 Damn P
290 Cruce Oil P
296 Attorney, director - Primary source; mentions director but not attorney. Added another source (298), which mentions attorney. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
297 David Can't see David anywhere! My eyes...? It's a two-page article, with the relevant portion in the second full paragraph on page 8. "The Sunshine corporation is headed by Alfred Tinally, Judge Will Brady, Major D. J. Brady, H. T. Biggs of Pecos and Roy D. Barnum, treasurer." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
315 Fiscal relief P
320 Democrat P (note SPS) What is SPS? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
325 Houston delegate P
328 Endorsing Harper P
345 Arroyo Grande P
353 Chair local DNC, Roosevelt nominator P
377 Elected president P
381 Knight's picnic P
385 Knights of Pythias meeting P
388 Railways P
408 Sheppard in El Paso P
428 Liberty Club dance P
433 Mission secretary P
437 His marrying P
451 Home on Fort Boulevard P
458a Wife's death P

I've got a couple of queries that should be clarified—or informed that Benny snake-eyes sees better than me!—but the bottom line is that out of a spot check of ~10% of references, only six are problematic, and about half of them can probably be justified (SPS, PST etc). That's well within discretionary range, considering the sheer number of refs (0.66%, if anyone's counting). SN54129 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Serial Number 54129. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2022 [118].

Cyclone Taylor[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third nomination, following failed attempts back in December 2019 and February 2020. The first real ice hockey star, Cyclone Taylor was once the highest-paid athlete in the world, on a per game basis, and his legacy is quite important to the development of the sport. He also had a fairly notable off-ice career as well working as a Canadian immigration officer. The article went through a Peer Review many months ago, and after much delay I have addressed those comments, as well as those in previous nominations, and believe it should be good to go now. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I already reviewed this article as part of a peer review early last year. At this point, I think it's really high quality and should be easy to review for anyone who happens to stumble across this nomination. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just minor notes:

Thanks for taking another look and for the support. I've fixed the above. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're now past 3 weeks with only one support. If this does not see further progress towards promotion in the next several days, it may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to look through this. I'll try to comment in the next few days. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Clayoquot[edit]

The lead is good. I've read partway through the article and I'm enjoying it so far. The flow and level of detail are just right. Here are some issues with wording:

  1. In 1946 he was named a Member of the Order of the British Empire for his services in immigration, retiring 1950. - This doesn't make sense grammatically. An "in" is also missing before "1950".
Reworded to match what is listed later on, that should be better I hope.
  1. While considering the offer, Taylor was approached by representatives from the Portage Lakes Hockey Club, a professional team based in Houghton, Michigan that played in the International Hockey League (IHL), the first openly professional hockey league. I'd split this into two sentences. Four commas in a sentence is a bit much.
Reworded
  1. However the high wages were unsustainable, and with the decision of the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), the top league in Canada, to allow professional players in 1907, the IHL folded that summer, allowing the players to return to Canada. I think this also needs to be split. Five commas in a sentence is too much.
Agreed. I've changed it around.
  1. Taylor was intrigued by the offer: as Whitehead wrote, "[t]he chance that it could turn into a permanent career job" was important, as a career in the civil service promised job security for Taylor after his hockey career ended. - Whitehead probably shouldn't be named at all as this sentence isn't about Whitehead's opinion. The quote from Whitehead should be paraphrased and stated as a straightforward fact.
Good point, done.
  1. Moreover, when the ECHA had re-constituted itself as the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) in November 190 - the last digit of the year seems to be missing.
Fixed.

I'll write more later. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I'll be waiting to see your remaining thoughts. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Taylor remained involved in hockey after he stopped playing. - Did you mean to say after he stopped playing professionally? Most competitive athletes continue with their sport recreationally for a long time after retiring.
Clarified
  1. the expansion Vancouver Canucks' first home game - This doesn't make sense. I'm not sure what "expansion" means here.
I removed the word; it doesn't lose any of the meaning without it.
  1. Taylor was offered a position in the Immigration Department - was this the name of the department? Earlier, the article refers to the immigration branch of the Department of the Interior.
This is how it's referenced by Whitehead, but to clear things up I've reworded it to be about the federal government more generally.
  1. Whitehead has suggested that Taylor's abilities may have been embellished. We could use a few words saying who Whitehead is.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done
  1. Taylor was regarded as one of the best hockey players throughout his playing career, and was able to command attention and a high salary anywhere he went. Not every claim requires a citation, but this one does :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, though I can't confirm the salary part easily, so took that out.
  1. His ability... made him a valuable addition to any team sounds reminiscent of a cover letter for employment. Can you reword this?
I made an attempt, but let me know if it needs tweaking.
  1. His ability to draw crowds made him a valuable addition to any team, and in an era when players only signed on for one season at a time, Taylor always had several teams interested in his services, and thus was able to command some of the highest salaries of his time. - I suggest splitting this into two sentences.
Done
  1. The Cyclone Taylor Cup was donated - it seems slightly odd to use the passive voice here. Who donated what?
Re-phrased, as I can't comment on where the Cup actually came from.

This reads really well. I like the balance between the hockey and non-hockey aspects of his life. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll just need a day or two to address everything; I'll ping you once I do. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. and joined the Senators, spending two seasons with the team. In 1909 he signed with Renfrew - This is the first time either the Senators or Renfrew are named. The full names of the teams should be given (e.g., Ottawa Senators) and the names should be wikilinked.
Fixed.

A nice variety of suitable reliable sources are used. Source formatting is consistent. Images have detailed alt text. Copyvio check done using Earwig's tool. I have not yet done spot checks of the sourcing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for taking the time to look over the article. Definitely made an effort to show he had quite the off-ice life, so glad that shows. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
) I have a book on hold at the library that I plan to use for a sourcing spot-check.I'm planning to pick it up and finish my review this week. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: I also should have all sources here as well (except Coleman, unfortunately), so if you need me to share anything I'll be happy to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Prose issues have been fixed. I spot-checked refs #101,#102, #131, #115, #139, (Kitchen 2008, p. 160), and (Zweig 2007, p. 47). Looks like you've nailed it :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for going through it, I do really appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

@CPA-5: Thanks for the heads up. I don't see an issue on my side (I used two different resolutions), but moved one image down. Please let me know if that works, and if not I'll further adjust. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Fixed
Done
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixe
It should be Member, so fixed
I moved it later on, before the mention of Joan's death (as it refers to Cyclone's own death, I felt that should still remain there; if you think otherwise I'm not opposed to further adjustments).
Done
Great, appreciate your comments, and should have everything addressed here. If you think anything else should be done just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

Great, that works for me. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, addressed everything here, and appreciate your comments and edits. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Addressed that, and added the "professional qualifier" per the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently by publication date, but if that needs adjusting I can do so.
That's fine, but it's not done consistently - Wong is the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that.
They're a small publisher, but have released other titles on hockey history, especially as it relates to Western Canada. The book itself has received favourable coverage from the Society of International Hockey Research, the leading scholarly body on hockey. The book also is fully-cited.
Do you have a link to that coverage? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't easily (I'm not a current member so access to their archives is restricted), but I do have a review in the University of British Columbia-based BC Studies (the website formatting is not working properly for me, but the text should be readable still).
I'd presume it's "inclusive", but it's not spelt out. I don't have this book physically available see image of similar book for reference
Cosentino (who actually has his own article here has a PhD in physical education, and has written several books on Canadian sport history. I can't speak for the Press itself, but the book is fully-cited to contemporary-era newspapers.
Right, but having citations doesn't in itself make a source reliable - any more info on that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a favourable review of it in the Canadian Journal of History of Sport Vol. 22, No. 2 (1991). I have a PDF of that if you'd like to check.
Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a DOI link for it (link), but if you need it sent I can privately share it. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry - I do have access, but that source is about the Cosentino book. I'm wondering about Penumbra. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)I get it, thanks. Far as I'm aware, they're a smaller Canadian press that's been around for some time, with a focus on Canadian culture and history. I can't find any reliable source on that (nothing that would be considered a RS here at least), but that is what I understand of it. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If we don't have more info on it, do we know anything about this specific author or book suggesting that it would be considered high-quality? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes. As noted, Cosentino is certainly reputable, and someone who could be considered high-quality. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not Cosentino - the Penumbra Press title, by Kitchen. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I shouldn't be responding while getting over a cold. Kitchen was an historical consultant for the Ottawa Senators, an NHL team, and a past president of the SIHR. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this refers to?
Eg Ottawa Citizen + Ottawa Citizen. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I fixed those. However not sure where to sort them now, so I have them alphabetical by title. If that needs adjustment let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the first point remains outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - are you satisfied with the changes for that last sourcing point? Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2022 [119].

1992–93 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After seven successful nominations, here's another article about a season from the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C. for your consideration. After working on a number of articles about seasons in which the club experienced success, I decided to torture myself by writing about arguably the club's worst season in my lifetime, when they came within a hair's breadth of finishing bottom of the entire Football League. Happy days.....

As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and most promptly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldelpaso: - I've changed the image of Plainmoor for one which probably more accurately reflects what it looked like at the time and has a more level pitch. I've added in details of a season preview which I found in The Times and which somewhat surprisingly said the team were in with a shout of promotion. I've also added a quote from Richardson at the time of his sacking saying why in his opinion the team failed so catastrophically at achieving this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe I have addressed the above points, but Oldelpaso has not edited since making them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by FrB.TG[edit]

Trying to expand my horizons as a reviewer.

Notwithstanding these minor queries, a fairly enjoyable read. FrB.TG (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - many thanks for your review. I have made these changes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Excellently written. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate some feedback on my newly-nominated FAC for a British actress. FrB.TG (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru[edit]

Background and preseason
Third Division
Cup matches
Aftermath

That's about it. Lead all looks fine. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - many thanks for your review. See what you make of these changes :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: - can I check if you are now happy to support, or if there are any outstanding issues? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, apologies for not circling back here. All looks good now, thanks. Supporting.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99[edit]

Great read about an unremarkable topic. Couldn't really find any issues apart from maybe punctuation. Pointed them out below. --truflip99 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: - all done (assuming I have interpreted correctly :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure did! --truflip99 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I made a couple of minor copyedits, but can't find anything to complain about. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

I could not find anything nitpicky in the prose, but looking at the sources:

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review Edwin. Ref 15 relates to a book which does not have numbered pages. I added an additional ref against the Crewe sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I Support on prose and source review. Nice work, as always. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to co-ordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - can you confirm if it's OK to start another FAC? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2022 [120].

Paige Bueckers[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportzeditz (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Paige Bueckers, one of the most promising women's basketball players and currently a top player at the college level for UConn. She was considered the best high school basketball player in the United States at Hopkins High School in Minnesota, and had a historic first season at UConn, becoming the first freshman to win a national college player of the year award. Bueckers has several gold medals representing the United States in youth tournaments.

This article briefly went through a peer review and I believe it meets the criteria of a featured article. It is comprehensive and well-sourced, illustrated with many good images, and its content does not change significantly on a daily basis. Although it is early in the subject's career, I have been a regular contributor to this article for nearly 2 years and expect to make sure it remains up to date. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: I restored some of the more notable awards in the infobox (mostly national honors), and added sources to the awards section you created. Let me know if you have further input on this. Sportzeditz (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 awards in the infobox still seems like far too many. (The infobox is supposed to provide basic information at a quick glance; excessive length undermines its purpose). A better approach might be "see the body" and link the body section where the awards are listed. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • I have not been able to find this information, although it is sometimes publicly available for college athletes. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sportsfan77777[edit]

Noting that I reviewed this article for GA, and again at peer review, hence the quick support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor comments:

Also, you need to add alt text for the images. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Links not working:

Spotchecks:

Sources appear to be in good shape. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan77777, just checking that the source review is a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun[edit]

  • I could not find a suitable link.

Although not required, a review at my FAC would be appreciated.

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

  • Great, thank you for that. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Will review this one. Hog Farm Talk 01:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: I removed this statement after not finding a source saying it is consensus. Sportzeditz (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed statement to "one of the best" as it does not appear to be consensus Sportzeditz (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2022 [124].

Röhm scandal[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's the Nazi who became the world's first openly gay politician—in 1932. Then, there are the anti-Nazis stirring up a scandal against him, wielding every pre-existing homophobic canard and inventing a new one: that "the heart of the Nazis’ militant nationalist politics lay in the sinister schemes of decadent homosexual criminals". Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is as a microhistory in Weimar-style competitive authoritarianism. When your elected representatives start beating each other up in parliament, that's when you know democracy is dead... I'd like to thank Usernameunique for the GA review. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Placeholder; will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; most of them are just suggestions, feel free to ignore those which you don't feel helpful:

Lead
(talk page stalker) From the MoS: "proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of the article

That is it for now. An Excellent piece of work. Nice to see this article at FAC withing 2 weeks of its creation! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

Otherwise everything looks good. I may or may not be back to review in full. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review! (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the dealt with item, leaving the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Unwatching now. Good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • " During the 1932 German presidential election in March 1932," can we avoid the repetition?
  • "Berlin's homosexual movement.[7][3]" Is "movement" the proper term, or perhaps "community"? Also, did you intend refs out of numerical order? (similar out of orders elsewhere)
  • "leadership principle" I'm not sure the English conveys to the reader what is being referred to unless they click on it. Maybe the German? Or at least "führer principle"?
  • "In mid-1934, Hitler had Röhm, along with most of his close political friends, killed during what he termed the "Night of the Long Knives".[151][152]" Hitler called it this? A quick glance at our article doesn't make that clear.
  • Can it be mentioned when Paragraph 175 was repealed?

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thought the repeal might be a good way of wrapping things up, but agree not necessary. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: since this has 3 supports, could I have permission for a 2nd nom? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2022 [125].

Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An overarching article for a period of the Hundred Years' War where a lot happened - little of it to French benefit. Much of it became known as the English King's annus mirabilis. Francophile readers may wish to look away. This article attempts to summarise a number other articles, set them in context and fill the gaps between them. No doubt I have done all of these imperfectly and I look forward to your pointing out the specifics of this to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Just booking my place. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 16:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a substantial (and excellent) article, and I shall need more than one go at commenting on it. First go:

  • "commenced an offensive" – "commenced" is a bit refained. Perhaps began, launched or started?
Done.
  • "counterattacked Derby's forces" – the OED hyphenates "counter-attack"
Done.
  • "tie down most of the weak French garrisons in the region" – ambiguous: did they fail to tie down the strong ones or were all the garrisons weak?
Is a response of "yes" acceptable? Fixed.
I shall need to see how the sources describe it.
Rewritten, to be a little less summary but hopefully a lot more readily imagined.
  • "Within days of the battle, Bergerac fell" – unexpected AmE-style comma
As you will be aware, I have little truck with the silly fashion for inserting a comma after any mention of time, but in this case it seems necessary for the flow; I find it impossible to read, much less speak, the sentence without pausing there - hence the comma. Is that just me?
That's the nice thing about BrE: commas like this are neither compulsory nor taboo, and if you feel one helps the flow here I'm not going to complain. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several strongpoints on the way" – the OED makes "strong points" two separate words. Occurs again later in the text.
Done.
  • "many ships deserted. They also captured" – perhaps "the English also captured" rather than the deserting ships doing so?
Ah! Fixed. ("The fleet also ...")
  • "These charges were disordered due to their impromptu nature" – "due to" is not accepted in the Queen's English as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to". "Because of" would be better.
I know this, but I can't help myself. Fixed.

I am enjoying reviewing this article. More tomorrow, I hope. – Tim riley talk 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding lot of comments
  • "disordered due to their impromptu nature" – another "due to" used as a compound preposition.
  • "In late-April" – not sure this wants a hyphen
Gah! Removed.
  • "England had lost all of its territory in France" – we don't need the "of" surely?
Removed
  • "Calais was finally lost following the 1558 siege of Calais." – the repetition of Calais is rather an anticlimactic end to your narrative. Would "… the 1558 siege of the town" suffice?
It would. Thank you.
  • You seem to have two conflicting methods of citing these four notes: the first two cite Sumption inline; the second two cite Sumption and Lambert in the Citations section. Best be consistent, I think.
How odd. I had missed that. Now fixed.

That's my lot. All very minor quibbles. – Tim riley talk 13:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed Tim, for helping to translate this into English from whatever argot I write in. All done, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent article, as we have come to expect from this source. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
I only add to the bare place name if it seems clear that an intelligent reader would not be able to otherwise identify it. You are quite right about Conn. Expanded.
Added
That is how they are given in the thesis and book respectively. Would you prefer me to tweak the former, rather than use the form given?
I wasn't sure if that was the reason, but since it is, it seems fine Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"Boydell Press" is what WorldCat has. Both for this and for other 21st C volumes.
Got it, lets definitely trust WC on this one then
Oops. Fixed.
My error. De-linked at second mention.
Quite right. I have gone with your first suggestion.
Good news - you don't need to register to access a thesis; bad news, they don't actually have this one, despite me thinking I downloaded my copy from there. No, any link anywhere to the thesis seems to have disappeared (odd and frustrating - I have used it for half a dozen FAs) so I have removed the link.
Thanks, added.
Reliability
And the PhD was by a now Emeritus Professor of Medieval History!
Verifiability
Thanks for the thorough source review Aza24, clearly I have been getting sloppy. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and 'sloppy' is an overstatement, I have seen much worse :) – Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

To simplify a bit, yes. But that is unnecessary detail. If you want I could abbreviate to 'Since 1066', but that seems to beg "What happened in 1066?"
Wouldn't have to be anything detailed, but if accurate, I think something like "through inheritance" alone would greatly clarify it for lay readers with minimal additional text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Good point. I have tweaked the opening to "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France by inheritance. Their possession made them vassals of the kings of France." Better?
The period between the recommencement of hostilities after Philip ended the Truce of Malestroit and the Truce of Calais is used by scholars, but usually in a general, difficult to cite way - eg as a chapter or section header. Edward's Annus Mirabilis is commonly cited, usually meaning from the Battle of Bergerac to that of Neville's Cross. (Yes, that covers thirteen-and-a-half months, but allowing time for news to reach England from France it almost works, and I suppose it was just too pat for anyone to get fussy.) I considered naming the article that, and would still have no objections, but running it back a little to the start of Lancaster's expedition and extending the end to the conclusion of the siege of Calais and the truce seemed more natural, and matched rhe timing in the Wiki-template.
Might almost be tempting to bold "Edward III's annus mirabilis" in the intro then, as I guess this is the article that covers that as a subject too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I have done that, let's see what other reviewers make of it.
Good spot. Thanks. Anachronism removed.
! You think that many readers won't know what it means?
They would, but that article has many other examples of war-time cannibalism for context (almost worthy of an article?), I think that subject is pretty interesting in itself. But no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, it is. Good point. Rephrased to stress the date a little.
Very good point. The role of Calais post-siege expanded on.
Hi FunkMonk, and thanks for that. Most helpful. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers FunkMonk, both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Great to see this period pulled together so well, Gog. I have a few comments:

Good question. I am treating the article as based on the English offensives (and partially as an extended version of Edward's annus miralilis). Tend to end this period with the fall of Calais, with the truce as a sort of afterthought. But that is more my take than anything I could point at and cite. What are your thoughts on this.
In general I would think periods of campaigning begin with first shots and end with an armistice, rather than the last action of the campaign. This isn't a war-stopper, just seems incongruous to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changed.
Actually not. I can't find a source saying that Ponthieu was forfeited, and it was a recent acquisition, not a centuries old patrimony. And Gascony generated 40-50% of the English Crown's peacetime income, making its status a more pressing matter.
I think you need to explicitly state why it was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As in

Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that Gascony and Ponthieu should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years.

already in the background?
I don't think so. You have explained above (but not in the article to this point) that Gascony was important to England for economic reasons, and stated in the article that Gascony was the cause of the war, but you haven't connected the dots in the article between Gascony's economic importance to England as the underlying reason why Gascony was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker, I keep coming back to this, looking at it, thinking it over, not getting anywhere, and putting it to one side for a couple of days. I'm going to time out if I don't break the cycle. What the RSs say is what I have said in the article. It can't be that bad, as it is my boiler plate introduction to more than a dozen FAs, including several you have reviewed. When sources go into more detail, they tend to do into a lot of detail. Eg Sumption's The Hundred Years' War takes 184 pages to get to the French Great Council meeting. Given that this is deep background I am reluctant to go into the dozen or more areas that led to an increase in tension and eventually to the two countries stumbling into war. Even if I could summarise them, reviewers would keep wanting a bit more detail on each, and they would take over the article. So I write " Following a series of disagreements" to summarise this. The sources all agree that, with hindsight anyway, the threshold that moved things from armed hostility to non-campaigning war was Philip's repudiation of Edward as a vassal and "confiscation" of Aquitaine (Gascony) - without going into further detail as to why this should be a declaration of war. Sumption for example, after 183 pages of background, gives this fewer words than I have just in this response. (I could email it to you.)
Apologies if this doesn't address your point, but I seem to have lost track of what it is. As you can probably tell, I am having something of a mental block on this.
As a reality check I have just reread Wagner's Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War entry on "Hundred Years' War, Causes of". A partial quote "The immediate cause of the war is generally taken to be PHILIP VI’s confiscation of Aquitaine in May 1337, but the roots of the dispute over the duchy, which is considered by some historians to be the key to the entire war, extend back to the eleventh century when William, duke of NORMANDY, became king of England". He then goes on to summarise 300 years of Franco-English relations. Wagner's article is probably as decent a short summary as there is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is going to resolved. I'm happy to put it aside, as others haven't got hung up on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
As so often when one digs, things were not so simple. To quote Wagner in "On 19 January, representatives of the two kings signed a truce in the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Malestroit. Although the agreement gave Vannes to the pope, who was to hold it for Philip until expiration of the truce, its terms were generally favorable to Edward. Both kings retained their current holdings in Brittany, FLANDERS, AQUITAINE, and SCOTLAND". AQUITAINE in this context means SW France. Icould give more detail if you wish.
Perhaps summarise that in a single sentence? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker, I have been staring at this, and have no objections to making changes, but am struggling to see what they might be that would address your concern and also improve the article. I write "but as the Truce of Malestroit, signed in early 1343, was still in effect, the local lords were reluctant to spend money and little was done." I could add something like 'which forbade fighting between the French and the English', but it seems hugely redundent to me. If you disagree, let me know and I'll add it. Or if you are after something else, could you unpack it a little for my Christmas fodder slowed brain? Cheers.
Nah, forget it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should. Fixed. (In a previous discussion you persuaded me to skip the leading de, but not d'.)

Down to 1346. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Not done. I use south west, unhyphenated, except when a hyphen is required because south-west is used as a compound modifier.
OK. Presumably that is a style guide thing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have always considered it a normal variety of English. It is only since I have been editing Wikipedia that I have noticed widespread uses of other variants.
Good thinking. Tweaked.
The destruction of the towns was arguably more important than thefts from individuals, and the sources put stress on it. I have left the first mention ("burning every town they passed") and changed the second to "... to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth by razing his towns and stealing the populace's portable wealth." Does that work?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh! No idea what I was thinking. Actually it was a real mess. I have shuffled things around and I think that the chronology now flows.
Much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An ex-member of the UK Supreme Court. Added.
Amended.
Done.

Down to 1347. More to come, tomorrow probably. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Clarified.
Done.
He launched some minor opportunistic raids. He had not expected Philip to recall the French army. He was correct in this, the army failed to effectively reassemble. It seems clear to me, but I could readily add this detail. Or more?
Yes, I think it needs to be explained. "partly because he had not expected Philip to recall the French Army in response to his raids" (or WTTE) would do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.
Ah, edited out as I tried for a more summary style. Tweaked.
Indeed. Most of the aftermath is new information. Am I missing your point?
There is no hint earlier that Flemish independence was threatened, so it just begs a question "what threat". Is it really necessary, if so, then I think the threat to Flemish independence needs tro be explicitly mentioned at the point in the chronology that it is first raised during the campaign. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded their first substantial mention to "It was also close to the border of Flanders; which was nominally part of France, but in rebellion, allied to the English and willing to send troops to assist Edward."

That's me done. Great work thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Peacemaker, your usual insightful review. All of your comments responded to, a couple with counter-queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, always a pleasure Gog. A couple of responses above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, your come backs all addressed, at least one with a further query. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy New Year Peacemaker. Just a reminder in case this one had slipped off your radar. If it hadn't and other things are occupying you then, obviously, no worries. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, supporting now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

Back once again with the renegade master. I was looking for something HYW-related, so this is a serendipitous find. A few comments/suggestions.

Am I missing something? I already use that map in Background.
Testing, testing!
And so? (There isn't a convenient place to put it any higher up. It needs to be on the left.)
And so, ((multiple image)) is your friend; see, for example, [126].
Done.
I am indifferent, but see reviewer's point above. That template is used at the only other mention.
I probably shouldn't have distracted things by mentioning that template, the MOS point is that foreign terms are italicised rather than bolded: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
? I know that. The lang template is used.
Edward could spare lots of resources for the war, just not for Gascony. I think the current wording explains things well - I am enboldened by it having survived ore than half a dozen prior FACs - so could you unpack your objections to it a little more for me? Ta.
Edward could spare lots of resources for the war, just not for Gascony, yes, that would help.
You are losing me a little here. Going back to your first comment re "I don't see the connection between the war starting in any location and the need for its funding" I think most readers would see an issue over a war being started to retain a region and then few resources being sent to it to actually defend it. Re your last comment, you are losing me a bit. Would "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward spared few resources for it" do the trick? Ie, It was Edward's conscious choice.
Done.
Done.
Really? Each mention of each treaty states the year it was agreed. A reader will, surely, expect the Background to be a rapid run through, and not jarred that two paragraphs on in a new sub-section events have moved on chronologically.
I can't find this quote. When I do, what is the issue with it?
Ah, the quote is actually by which time it proved impossible, apologies.
I can't do that without jumping around chronologically. When it was signed it wasn't intended to be tenuous. Nor, probably, expected to be. It only became so later, which seems an appropriate point to mention it.
Serious question, when you say "why", do you mean that, or 'the ways in which it was'?
Both, really; but I accept that that may be a level of detail suited to their individual articles rather than per summary style.
"Stafford himself" is a no-no. At least for me. I mean, who else could he be?
True; but how to address the repetition of be/siege three times in ~20 words?
Ah. We now have one "besiege" and one "a second siege". Better?
Too much detail. I could readily include some, but who cares?
Nobody cares until its too late.
But they weren't "forced", I can think of several other things they could have done. Leaving aside the question of it not being supported by the sources. "to no avail" added.
I think that the first version spells it out a little better for the uninitiated.
And, presumably, the immobile.
Good point. Done.
The date of Bergerac is unknown, other than that it was in August, which I already give. I have added something for the muster, it would almost certainly have occurred over weeks or months. I have added the year at the start.
Tweaked.
Yes, but who cares. If I name checked every commander in every battle in the article it would bore the average reader silly. Want more detail? Read the next article down - Gascon campaign of 1345. Or the one on the actual battle. (They're all quite good. ;-) )
Indeed. Done.
Oops. Done.
Done.
I made this change, but it then read as if the two were connected, or the first caused the second. So I reverted. I take your point, but do you have any other suggestions for rephrasing? Otherwise what we have may be the least bad.
Fair point re causality.
Done.
Subtle. Done.
Fair. Tweaked.
I am missing your point. (Er, or are you suggesting that I add "at"? If so, in the name of grammar, why?)
You shouldn't believe the tosh they write on Wikipedia. Good point. Half plus one? No? Changed to "Much".
I just a hack writer and simply bung numbers into the templates. But the MoS opines "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, provide a conversion in parentheses. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. See ((convert))"
Yeeeeas... I see miles is spelled out in full there, and only km abbreviated? (I assume length?) Odd disparity.
A detail for his bio, not an article where he gets a walk on part.
Tweaked.
The duplication is deliberate.
Hack wordsmithery!
Hey, it was got me more bronze stars than you could point a pointy thing at.
I don't believe that pits are weapons. Nor apparently does Area denial weapon, which does not mention them.
Meh. It literally says In medieval warfare, sharp and sturdy stakes were buried at the bottom of long lines of ditches, pointed end up diagonally, in order to prevent cavalry charges in a given area
That has to be the least helpful link I have ever included, but done.
Done. (Although personally I think it pushes WP:OVERLINK past breaking point.
Ah ha. Good spot. Lost in my boiling down. Removed.
Er, yes? (If you mean what I think you might, I have "burning town" two sentences later and wish to avoid "burnt ... towns ... burning town".
Possibly, but from a military PoV the former was what was important.
Reading the whole sentence, that doesn't work.
Ah, reread Clausewitz. I prefer it as is.
For this period, your bible would be Vegetius.
No they weren't! Where'd you get that from. The Scots were out for loot and would have buggered off come what may with a few monasteries more or less looted. Crécy was, well, Crécy. I think WP:DUE is about right. I have no particular objections to expanding Neville's a little, although the Scottish tactics were unimaginative to the point of there not being much to say, but "strategically they were on a par" - pah!
If I were to start listing all the things in the MoS that looked odd to me ...
  • the French ability to assemble their army in a timely fashion had not improved since the autumn This is a classic line and worth mentioning in despatches.
And it is highly encyclopedic! :-)
Argh! Why? You think a reader won't know what it means? (An earlier reviewer made the same suggestion.)
D'oh! Removed.
Not that I can readily see, this side of Easter-egging, but I am open to suggestions.
After an hour's ceaseless searching á la Lord Percy Percy, we do have Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453 as a standalone article.
And added.
Cheers, Serial Number 54129, just what it needed - a damn good kicking. (FAC has missed you.) All of your points addressed. Note that some responses are queries and some are "Hell, no!" Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you here Gog the Mild—I got a bit bogged down elsewhere, which involved a massively complex timeline and concomitant trolling at the WP:VPT, which was mildly distracting and hardly conducive to that Chimera we call a 'collegial editing environment'. I hope my replies here range from the usefully sardonic to the "Who the hell is this guy" :p and I look forward to supporting this article's promotion. Cheers! SN54129 14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once more into the breach, etc. (I never did like those choices; what would a rational army do?) At last, some responses. @Who the hell is this guy Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Edmund, "those people over there, they're not fighting, they're just lying down". Happy to support. SN54129 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Gog the Mild It looks like you still haven't responded to Peacemaker's comments on 5 January and Serial's on 11 January. (t · c) buidhe 10:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Given four supports and source and image passes, could I have permission to nominate a further article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead (t · c) buidhe 13:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Changed.

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

This article at first glance looks neat and detailed! If my comments are resolved, I'll strike for support. GeraldWL 09:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "English offensives in 1345–1347"-- "English offensives from 1345–1347" sounds more suitable to me
I disagree. "from" reads unnaturally to me. Do you have style guide support for your suggestion?
Done, but at second mention in the lead. I am concerned that linking the second word of the article, given that this one has no bolding, will mislead a reader into thinking that is the title of the article. I am open to being persuaded that this concern is misplaced.
I can understand your view, but I don't think readers will at all think Offensive (military) is the main subject of this article if it's linked at the beginning of the article. I've seen links in the first or second or third words in an article; they look fine. For example, the article I helped improve to FL (List of Latvian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film) has the link to Latvia in the very beginning. Doesn't seem like a problem at all.
  • "which was spectacularly successful." Why "spectacular"?
OK. Now linked at first mention.
At root, because that is my paraphrasing of the scholarly consensus. I can provide quotes of the sources in question if you would like.
Well if it's scholarly consensus then I'm fine with it, but I think it's that information on the war was collected and scholars regard it as spectacular; in that case I prefer "which scholars regard as spectacular."
That's not how Wikipedia works, or every sentence of every article would start with "It is the scholarly consensus that ..." Instead one writes in Wikipedia's voice and uses the cites to support it. As you are querying its use in the lead I have expanded a little in the main article here to support it - including using direct attribution to the words of leading scholars. If you think I have stepped the wrong side of summary style, let me know.
  • "became known as Edward III's annus mirabilis (year of marvels)." annus mirabillis mustn't be bolded, as there's an article on that phrase, thus it must be wikilinked instead.
Perhaps you could discuss this with reviewers FunkMonk, who suggested above that it be bolded, and Serial Number 54129, who also opines on this, to see if you can reach consensus. I am easy either way
Funk's comment was "Might almost be tempting to bold "Edward III's annus mirabilis" in the intro then, as I guess this is the article that covers that as a subject too?" which is definitely false as there is a separate article that covers the term. Serial's comment was "Should annus mirabilis be bolded? It is not, later on; suggest the [undefined] Error: ((Lang)): no text (help) template." Please don't take my language as harsh, but I don't think Serial checked Wikipedia for "annus mirabillis". So I think it should definitely be unbolded italicized, then linked. FunkMonk, Serial Number 54129, thoughts? GeraldWL 17:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the issue, the year in question was termed his annus mirabilis, so in the context of this article, that is part of the scope. I am well aware that annus mirabilis is probably a more general term, but here it has a specific meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahhh I can see the foreignitalic point, although I'm still firm on unbolding. Sadly I still don't understand the "specific meaning" you're referring to, Funk; perhaps philosophically but this is an encyclopedia and not everyone has the same philosophical depth. GeraldWL 17:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather have argued that the entirety of Edward III's annus mirabilis was to be bolded, to be specific, but it's certainly not an issue I feel strongly about. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't just opine, I porcupine. IMHO, it's nothing to do with whether we have an article, but whether we bold uncommon non-English terms, to wit: we don't. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is perfectly clear that Latin terms are italicised, and further suggests use of the ((lang)) template to do so, rather than ''...''. I don't know what me checking—or rather, falling to check!—Wikipedia for "annus mirabillis" has got to with anything  :) thanks for the ping Gog, sup?
Having said that, I've already supported, and I won't be withdrawing that, obvs, as it's the broader picture, etc. SN54129 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All mentions, bolded and not, are in italics and in lang templates and always have been. This is, I hope, uncontroversial. On the bolding, I am happy to go with a best out of three vote. With some trepidation I also invite reviewers Tim riley and Peacemaker67 to opine. FunkMonk, I am taking your preference as for bolding; Gerald Waldo Luis, yours as against; Serial and others - ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom pass by an opportunity to carp or cavil at FAC, but even so it simply never occurred to me that bold type might be wanted here, and as you are kind enough to invite my opinion it is that I really don't think bolding would be helpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 18:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tim. I don't understand why it's both such an issue and so easily confusable  :) Still, it wouldn't be Wikipedia without! SN54129 18:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nays have it. Debolded. Thank you all. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris"-- suggest adding a comma after "1337" for more natural reading flow.
Um, I have a firm position in the Comma wars debate, and adding a comma where you suggest, to me, rather than improve the flow, looks as if one is recording a speech defect. I am aware of the fad for inserting commas after dates, it is not a style used in this article.
  • "and whenever an English army campaigned on the continent during the first eight years of the war it operated in northern France"-- same reason, add comma after "war"
See above, I would also refer you to grammarian Lynn Truss [127].
  • "In 1340, Edward laid formal claim to the Kingdom of France"-- Link Kingdom of France
I am quite sure that this is MOS:OVERLINK, but nevertheless done.
I don't think it's overlink really, since readers with zero knowledge of history might confuse the Kingdom of France with the current France.
I think you are missing the point of OVERLINK, but the point is moot.
  • Suggest linking the image captions of Edward and Philip
Done.
  • "William, Earl of Northampton, would lead a small force to Brittany, a slightly larger force would proceed to Gascony"-- remove redundant comma after "Northampton". Change the comma after "Brittany" to a semicolon.
It is not redundant, the two commas enclose a parenthetical phrase. A comma is more appropriate here than a semi-colon, IMO.
  • "who sailed for Gascony in February with an advance force." Advance or advanced?
Advance. As in advance guard. Or see [128]].

More later.

Hi Gerald Waldo Luis and many thanks for dropping by. I have addressed your initial batch of comments above and await with interest your further thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for clarifying some stuff; I have to admit I'm an ESL and not much of a war geek, so forgive if I mess up. Anyways, second batch.
That's fine. All well-intentioned comments are welcome. Either I can easily respond to them - in which case fine - or I can't - in which case you may have picked up a real issue.
  • "while the King and his council"-- I suggest removing "his" from the link, as it suggests that the link covers the King's council, when it's about a term referring to king councils in general.
If with your second point you are suggesting that the Wikilink should include the definite article I believe that would be contrary to the MoS. Re your first point, I don't understand. The council in question is Edward's personal or "Royal" council and so "his" seems completely appropriate. It was a meeting of his counsellors, in council, to advise, or counsel, him.
It's basically like this. The link (Curia regis) is "the name given to councils of advisers and administrators in medieval Europe who served kings, including kings of France, Norman kings of England and Sicily, kings of Poland and the kings and queens of Scotland." In this article, "the King" refers to only one king. My concern is that if the wikilink encompasses "his council", readers would think that the link's subject is the council of this king, when curia regis refers to an array of kings, as well as queen. Although if the MoS has no problems with it, then I'll let it pass.
Wikipedia is, of course, an unreliable source. If a reader understood the phrase "the King and his council" to refer to the council of just this king, a reader would understand correctly. If the Wikilink obfuscates this, then I could remove it?
I am aware WP is not an RS; I was just concerned that the definition of a council in that article would be not as what readers thought it was. So if it's "his council" then readers would think that the link is about the King's council, as in just about the council of the King discussed in this article, but then the link is about king councils in general. If it's "his council", then readers would know that Curia regis does not only refer to the council of the king discussed in this article, but councils in general. GeraldWL 03:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.
  • "of the south-west front on 8 August." I believe "south-west" does not have to be hyphenated, right? Or is it a must in the English variant this article is written in?
Nothing to do with variants. You are quite right, but like any other compound modifier they are hyphenated when appearing before a term. (As in "much small-scale fighting continued".)
  • "and to cause them to call for reinforcements – to no avail." The dash could be easily be replaced with a more encyclopedic comma, with a "but" after that. I feel like dashes are generally used in such cases to evoke a dramatic feeling, something you would see in nonfiction books or novels.
I disagree. A dash is a perfectly normal piece of punctuation. Commas are also used in works of fiction. Dashes are much used in encyclopedias, dictionaries and scholarly works.
Oh, alright then. Guess it was just me new to this usage of dashes, at least within Wikipedia.
  • "Monchamp near Condom"-- well that Cathedral does look like a... condom...
The prophylactic device has to be named after something. Or, in this case, somewhere. (Actually that is probably an urban myth.)
  • "such as a team of 24 miners.––" Why the dashes?
A typo, removed. Well spotted.
  • "In early October a very large detachment"-- add comma after "October"
See above. This article does not use the convention of inserting a comma after a mention of a period of time. Proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to change the former usage when copy editing.)
  • "After a night march Derby attacked the French camp"-- add comma after "march"
See above.
  • "a nephew of the Pope"-- "a nephew of Pope Clement VI". And add a comma after that.
A comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent".
Second batch of comments responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the English no longer having access to a port in Flanders, but with friendly ports in Brittany and Gascony"-- Shouldn't the "having" be "have"?
No. ("having" is used as the present participle.)
  • "His army marched south through the Cotentin" --> "His army marched south through the Cotentin Peninsula"
Done. You don't like native usages, do you?
I have gone with what the sources universally use, and what I am used to seeing. I don't insist that this is "correct" nor easier for a reader. Hence my changing it regardless.
Ehhhh it's not necessarily I dislike, I just thought using an English version (where an official one exists) would be simpler especially for those not native to the language. It's fine though if you don't want.
  • Link River Seine
  • "reaching it on the 7th." I think you can replace "reaching it" with "arriving" for more natural reading flow.
Done.
  • "The French army was very large for the period, and several times larger than the English force." I think you can drop the "and"; that way, "several times larger than the English force" can act as an emphasis to how the army was "very large for the period"
Done.
  • "They continued to devastate the land, and set several towns on fire"-- I don't think the comma here is needed.
If the sentence ended at "fire", you would be correct. As it continues with "including Wissant ..." "and" is needed.
  • "It was also close to the border of Flanders; which was nominally part of France"-- semicolon or colon?
Changed to a comma.
  • "officials at all levels of the Chambre des Comptes (the French treasury)"-- can't we just use the English name Court of Auditors?
Because that's not what it was. If you don't like using its correct name, how about 'officials at all levels of the French treasury (the Chambre des Comptes)'?
Nah it's fine, sorry I just read the link title and thought that way.
This batch of comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, just to let you know that I am ready for the next batch of comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog, apologies, me and my family were pretty busy yesterday in preparation for Chinese New Year: new clothes, decor, food, so forth so forth. Anyways here's my last batch of comments. Damn its been fun skimming through this article. GeraldWL 07:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These included French and mercenary Italian galleys and French merchant ships"-- two and-s which makes it confusing for me at first read. Suggest changing the second and to "as well as".
  • I agree on linking long tons, but tonne I think is a relatively common measurement and linking it would be overlink. Suggest just changing the "t" to "tonne".
  • "Edward repopulated Calais with English, and a few Flemings." Should it be "the English people" or is "English" just fine?
Just "English" is fine. Adding "people" (no definite article) is not wrong, would would only be used if you wished to clarify that the town was not repopulated with eg horses or budgerigars, so in this context would read (very) oddly.
  • "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries"-- "acting" sounds like they're fake emissaries; are they? If so I suggest using the clearer "forging" or "faking".
No, acting is the correct formulation. As in the current UN Convention on Special Missions which uses the word 20 times. Eg the title of Article 14 is "Authority to act on behalf of the special mission", or in "Use of terms" there is "the “head of a special mission” is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity", or

in that capacity" or "members of the special mission acting on behalf of the mission".

Done.
  • Aftermath section looks just fine, altho I suggest removing "end" from the link. So "did not end until 1453" --> "did not end until 1453". This is because the sentence consists of "did not end" and "until 1453", not "did not" and "end until 1453". If I'm even making sense lmao--
No, that kinda makes sense, but I am not sure that it is mostly helpful to a reader. "until 1435" linking to until 1453 seems a bit WP:EASTEREGGY to me.
Seems WP:OVERLINK to me, but done.
  • Sources look good.
  • Images are fine, although I would prefer a more relevant photo for the Fall of Calais one, as the current is just for decoration purposes.
True enough. It seems to me better than nothing, but any suggestions for a better one would be gratefully received.
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, that is excellent stuff and thank you. I think that I have addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem man, and the article looks more fit for FA now for me. Technically there are a couple of stuff you missed in my comms, but I rereviewed them and at its root there's no problem with those. Support. GeraldWL 01:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: thanks for the support. You are quite right, I missed a couple - apologies. Seine mow linked. Linking tonnes - that is done by the template, which is very widely used - and I am loath to mess with it unless pressed very hard. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 February 2022 [129].

The Shadow (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the pulp magazine associated with the phrase "The Shadow knows". The Shadow was invented to read a line on a radio show, and ended up as a franchise. A note to potential reviewers: the scope of the article is the magazine itself, not the character or the other media in the franchise, so there's nothing about cultural interpretations of The Shadow -- that discussion is in the article The Shadow, which is about the character himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • The first paragraph could make it clearer what the relationship is between the novels and the magazine. Also could be clearer in the body. One things of a novel as longer than a magazine. While I see that the format is made clear later in the article, it might be better to be clear up front.
    I've added a couple of sentences that I think address what you're asking for -- I assume the problem was that the structure of a single-character pulp was a lead novel about that character in every issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Bibliographic Details" seems a bit repetitive of what has come before.
    I've cut mention of Moran and De Grouchy, who are not important to the history, from the publication details section; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask the logic behind the article title? If it bore the title The Shadow Magazine through its glory days, might not that be better?
    It could reasonably be at either location, I think. The sources index it both ways. I picked The Shadow because the source I started with, Tymn & Ashley, has it that way, and that's one of the best sources -- Cook has it the other way but I've found more errors in Cook than in Tymn and Ashley. Hulse and Gibson both have The Shadow, so that seems enough of a majority vote to keep it that way. I did just change the redirect from The Shadow Magazine to point to the magazine article; I hadn't realized it was going to the character article, The Shadow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, just checking you haven't forgotten this.... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry, had forgotten I needed to look in again. All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I have only done a brief read-through of the article so far. I am only vaguely familiar with The Shadow, but I look forward to doing a much deeper dive into the article. I have made some edits (as shown here), but they are to remove some additional spaces between sentences and add some commas. Feel free to revert anything. I hope my comments for now are helpful. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one minor edit (here) to move up the Doc Savage wikilink to the first instance that it is mentioned in the article as it was linked on the second mention. I have read through the article a few more times, and I do not have anything else to add. You have done great work with this article as always, and I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, although I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I had a read through "Laundromat", and it looks fine; I left a couple of minor notes at the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Looks like a comprehensive piece at quick scroll. I especially like the issue data table; I usually hate numbers but this is beautiful. GeraldWL 16:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "The lead character was The Shadow, a mysterious crime-fighting figure" --> "The eponymous lead character was a mysterious crime-fighting figure"
  • I’d rather not use eponymous if I can avoid it as it’s not that common a word. I’ve changed this to “Each issue contained a novel about The Shadow…”; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me :) GeraldWL 09:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to let him write the first novel, The Living Shadow"-- link The Living Shadow
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and then to twice-monthly publication" --> "and then to bi-monthly." I don't see what the word "publication" serves here, a clarification would be great.
    I don’t think “publication” is necessary so I cut it. I can’t make it “bimonthly”, though; in sources about magazines “bimonthly” invariable means “every two months”. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final issue was dated Fall 1949." Would like an extension: "The final issue was dated Fall 1949, published in July."
    The trouble is that I don’t know for sure that it was published in July. The cover date of a magazine indicates the date it comes off the newsstand, not the date it goes on sale or the date it’s published. So I try to avoid saying e.g. “the novel was published in April 1931”, in favour of saying things like “in the April 1931 issue” or “in the issue dated April 1931”. It’s not always possible to avoid making it sound like the cover date is the publication date, but I’d rather not do it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1919 issue of The Thrill Book at left"-- italicize The Thrill Book.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1915, New York publishers Street & Smith began publication of Detective Story Magazine, the first specialist genre pulp magazine." Extend "New York" to "New York City" to be more specific, as NYC is located in a state of the same name. Link Street & Smith and Detective Story Magazine.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a professional magician who had done ghostwriting"-- link ghostwriting
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the train to Philadelphia"-- "a" instead of "the"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was Theodore Tinsley"-- "The second author" instead of "This"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later.

Thanks for the review. I think I’m now caught up with all comments. I still don’t have heat at the house but we’re in a hotel so it’s warm enough to type! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Mike, and I'm glad you've found a place to feel comfortable in the meantime. I also apologize for this late reply, exams are coming up in two weeks so need to crush my mind... anyways, the remainder of my review:
  • "Underlining indicates that an issue was titled as a quarterly (e.g."Fall 1949") rather than as a monthly." Considering Fall 1949 is the only issue underlined, calling it an example is pretty weird.
    I'm not sure what you mean -- the last four issues are all underlined in the table. Do you not see an underline for those issues? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first novel, titled The Living Shadow"-- add "(1931)" after that.
    Since the year is mentioned just moments later, I've reworked this sentence a little bit to avoid saying "1931" twice -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest removing the first two ref. 7-s, as they're duplicate, and ref. 7 is covered in the next sentence ([7][13]).
    I think the first one is required because it's a direct quote, and it's a rule that quotes are cited no later than the end of that sentence. I could remove the next one, but that would imply that source [13] was used for the sentence starting "The young man", so I'd rather leave it -- I think it's best to omit a citation only if the next citation in the paragraph would be identical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is The Living Shadow italics but the others are quotations?
    I was inconsistent; now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fans of The Shadow regard the magazine's best period"-- I feel like it's "The Shadow" as in the magazine, thus must be italicized
    I think it's really the character that they are fans of -- the magazine has short stories that don't include the character. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pulp historian Lee Server" --> "Another pulp historian, Lee Server,"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, argues or argued? The piece was published in the past, so I think it must be past tense right? Or is there a stylistic choice?
    It's a stylistic choice, similar to historic present. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elliott's fifteen Shadow novels in the 1940s are "held in low esteem by pulp devotees, and not entirely without reason", according to Hulse." Remove the ref after this as it's duplicate.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is reputed to be the model for depictions of The Shadow: Lawlor is supposed to have kept a suitable cape and hat in his office." --> "is reputed to be the model for depictions of The Shadow, who is supposed to have kept a suitable cape and hat in his office."
    I think perhaps you're misreading this? Lawlor kept the cape and hat in his office, so Rozen could sketch Lawlor in poses as The Shadow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "painting seventy of the covers" --> "painting seventy of all the covers"
    I made it just "painting seventy covers". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Shadow was published by Street & Smith, and produced 325 issues between April 1931 and Summer 1949." The first bit is kinda dull as it just repeats the thing we already know. Suggest change to "Street & Smith produced published 325 issues of The Shadow between April 1931 and Summer 1949."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jul–September" --> "July–September"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in a 1994 movie" --> "and in a 1994 film"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done; see above for a couple of comments/questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for some of the comments based on misunderstanding/misreads, I think you've responded to my comments well. Support -- great work! GeraldWL 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. And I meant to say thanks for the compliment re the issue grid; I use them in lots of magazine articles and I'm glad to hear they're doing the job they're designed for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do love them! I shared it to some of my acquaintances and we all have the same thoughts. I'm currently making a Signpost article about "Wikipedia as art", and I'm planning to cite this article as an example. GeraldWL 11:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

who or what convinced the publisher?
Changed to "which convinced": it was the fact that listeners were asking for "The Shadow magazine" that convinced them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing "it" with purblicaion might improve readability?
This was originally "from quarterly to monthly, and then to twice-monthly publication"; I removed "publication" per another reviewer's comment above. I don't mind re-adding it at either place in the sentence but I would prefer to get agreement before doing so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>The word publication is definitive and reader freiedly - thus more apt than it in ths situastion. Pendright (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publication histry:

CBS -> Isn't first mention usually spedlled out
Yes, generally, but here I think far fewer people would recognize "Columbia Broadcasting System" than "CBS". Looking at the article on CBS I see it's no longer an abbreviation, in fact -- apparently that ceased to be true in 1974. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>FYI: According to Google, CBS changed its name again in 1997 to the CBS Corporation. I would urge you to follow the generally accepted paractice of first mention as best you can. Pendright (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link dime novels
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for a Nick Carter novel -> "of" a Nick Carter novel
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above addition
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re-used -> reused
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather a long sentence?
    I think it's OK -- it's a long but connected thought. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "Chinese man" to a man of chinese descent
    I'd rather not -- I'm already at the limit of interpretation just by referring to him as Chinese, though I know from the sources that that's what's intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on "a" wall behind him" -> on "the" wall behind him
    I made this just "visible behind him" -- there's no indication of what the shadow is actually on, so this is probably safer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The" circulation
This wouldn't be wrong, but it's not idiomatic -- the sources more often omit the article than use it. I'd like to leave this as it is if you're OK with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Although the writer must be true to the facts in the sources, it is he or she who chooses the pros and the grammar that will be used in the article. You call it! Pendright (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
who decided?
Ralston and Nanovic -- is this not clear from the structure of the sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the format used, isn't a comma required after the year?
I'm not certain but I don't think so. For a monthly magazine I would usually say "...in the November 1936 issue, titled..." with no comma there; the date is an attributive phrase. Here the date happens to have a comma in the middle but that doesn't change the fact that it's an attributive phrase, so I think the comma is not needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tell readers why there was a paper shortage - you did in the lead
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and his place was taken by Babette Rosmond in June 1944
  • seems to be an extra space at full stop.
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
returned "for" the August–September 1948 issue,
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception:

Could add "were" between who and featured
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could drop the second "more"
I think it's OK as a parallel structure to indicate that both are equally true. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nonfiction is not a hyphenated word
It is in the UK! You can blame my schooling; fixed for this AmEng article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lawlor is supposed to have kept a suitable cape and hat in his office.
Why is and not was?
Historic present; this is supposed in the sources, rather than (or perhaps as well as) supposed at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic details:

and stayed as "the" editor
I went ahead and cut the word "editor" completely -- it's there at the beginning of the sentence so I think the reader is not going to be confused. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was 'the" pulp format
It's more common to see it in the sources without the definite article, though you do see both; I'd like to leave this as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the comma after after 1943
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could use a comma after 55
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
monthly from October 1931 to September 1932, and [it] appeared on the 1st and 15th of each month from October 1932 until the [issue of] March 1, 1943[,] issue, which was followed by [the] April 1943, inaugurating [the] a monthly sequence that ran until January 1947.
Consider this or something like it
Consider these changes
Changed to "the", but I think we need the second comma -- it's a parenthetical pair. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - @Mike Christie: Pendright (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've either made the changes you suggested or have commented above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Supporting! I left a few comments in response to yours - none are contingent on my support. Pendright (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added "publication", but for the moment I'm going to let the other two lie. Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good luck the rest of the way. Pendright (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Thanks for the review, Nikki; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Aoba47 (pass)[edit]

  • There doesn't seem to be the file you're mentioning, and there's no "Summary" section.
  • The red link is in this part. It is in the section between the image and the WP:FUR box. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! I changed the source to similar to the below navbox.
  • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47, I FIXED IT! :D Turns out it was just caused by a redundant underscore in the image2 parameter.
  • Awesome! Thank you for fixing. It is nice to learn what was causing the issue and hopefully this will help other people who have a similar problem :) Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, and yeah I knew there was a rendering problem lmao, hope others would benefit from this (Diff).

I hope this image review is helpful. I just one question about a link in one of the images and a suggestion for improving the side-by-side image layout. Once both comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to mark this image review as passed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. This FAC passes my image review. I hope you are having an excellent end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Aoba47 and Gerald! Nice to show up to find someone else has not just done the review but fixed the problems! I appreciate the review and the help; and it's nice to discover what caused that weird problem with the side-by-side images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, Mike, it's always nice for me to investigate these little problems (in a way satisfying). Hope y'all have a great day too! :) GeraldWL 02:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2022 [130].

Black-and-yellow broadbill[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another broadbill article, this one requiring less effort since it shares a lot of sources from my last one. Have at it. AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This is a high-quality article that is a pleasure to read. It is short but appears to be comprehensive. I only have a few minor comments.

I was using Asian broadbill as a common name, based on how it's used on eBird/BOW (Asian and Grauer's broadbill), although I could replace it with typical broadbills per IOC if you want.
BOW uses "Asian and Grauer's Broadbills". Truncating the name to "Asian Broadbills" is misleading. I suggest you follow the IOC and use "typical broadbills". I notice that BLI also uses "Typical Broadbills", see: here. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to typical broadbills throughout.
Added footnote.
"The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was then considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Most authorities had split the Visayan broadbill from the wattled broadbill well before 2017, the date of the Selvatti study. See the Avibase entry here The IOC listed separate species in Version 1.0 (2011) (but H&M4 published in 2014 still has the Visayan broadbill as a subsp). Selvatti et al would have been well aware of the split - perhaps they didn't have a sample. How about "The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was formerly considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Link conspecific and the note itself needs references. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

Feeding

Not really sure. Mentioned in source, so I guess might be important, and different types of birds probably have unique ways of holding on to trees?

Breeding

Yeah.
Added.

References

Done, I think for all.
Done.
Added, not exactly sure what eds means and where that should be added.
Done.
Done

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced link.

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great work - Aa77zz (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Not sure how to do that, could I just replace with this?
Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with second image.
Replaced with better image by Cephas which has sources.
Passing review after a double check and some tweaks to get rid of sandwiching (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Not really, both appear to be straightforward junior synonyms.
Removed.
I've added links to cricket and locust, grasshoppers, ants, beetles, and bees are all sufficiently common and well-known that I think linking them would constitute overlooking.
Source just says "small molluscs"
Done.
Fixed.
Added that they were foraging near the nest.
No info.
The other countries are all pretty well-known and linking them would be overlinking, but I'd guess about 70% of people don't know Brunei is a country.
Done.

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

That's the only issue I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Whether or not a space is placed between initials is a matter of taste and is not specified in the MOS - but it should be consistent in an article. (Fancy software would use a thinspace.) (some editors omit the periods - again a matter of taste.) - Aa77zz (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that currently is not consistent. We have both "Zubkova, E. N." (with space) and "Dekker, René W.R.J." (without space) More instances were with space, so I suggested to switch to that format. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
Done.
Done.
Done
Replaced link
Christopher Helm as the publisher should be sufficient to identify the book. Christopher Helm is owned (an imprint of A&C Black). But at least some libraries use Christopher Helm: see Worldcat and the British Library. Another example: Nature is part of Macmillan, which in turn is part of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group - but Nature is usually considered as the publisher. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Helm's an imprint of Black, since the book was publishes after the buyout I've piped the link to Christopher Helm Publishers, which redirects to A & C Black.
Added IOC World Bird List as website.
Well, it's managed by Denis Lepage, a subject-level expert, and hosted by the Canadian partner of Birdlife International.
Fixed.
Done.
Added.
Added.
Removed.
Added spaces.
Added.
Linked.
The date of the issue in which it was published is December 2019.
Done.
My understanding is that access dates are not necessary when the link is to a scanned version of the document. They just add clutter. The cite journal documentation here has: "Not required for linked documents that do not change" and "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." - Aa77zz (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an approach, just use the automatic citations, but as mentioned above, url access dates don't seem to be necessary since all the refs you mentioned are either journal articles or books.
Is there a tool for doing this or will it have to be done manually?
Manually. You'll get the ISSNs at https://www.worldcat.org/ or the Wikipedia pages of the journals. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or can even try [132], though I am not sure if it'll add ISSNs. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2022 [133].

Marmaduke–Walker duel[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Confederate generals begin to dislike each other after the botched attacks at Helena, Arkansas. Things boil over during the Union advance on Little Rock, and the two eventually decide to hold an illegal duel. Both show up despite being ordered to stay in camp, and Walker is mortally wounded. Marmaduke is briefly arrested, but is released and suffers no long-term consequences, becoming Governor of Missouri after the war. Hog Farm Talk 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Further to my source review at ACR, the sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I looked at this at ACR, but let's see what else I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Looks good. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Not a big deal anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. Well-written and concise. I only have a couple of quibbles, below, that don't affect my support.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 6 February 2022 [135].

Interstate 182[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short freeway in southeastern Washington that took 17 years to build and was the compromise for a bitterly fought over routing debate. Unlike many urban freeways, this one was coveted by its eventual host cities, who did everything in their power to get part of the Interstate Highway System to their doorstep. This freeway is a companion to Interstate 82 (an existing FA) and would complete half of a featured topic on related routes. SounderBruce 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support form truflip99[edit]

Will provide comments later. Hoping you can provide comments for my nom as well! truflip99 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Route

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

Couldn't find many issues. Great read overall. --truflip99 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: Thanks for taking the time to review this. I think I've addressed all your points. SounderBruce 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Since often I see FACs being stuck at source reviews, let me try and do one in the meantime. Reviewed version. Sources are reliable and verifiable, as stated in the GAN.

Besides the above issues, most citations have consistent formatting. No major issues. ZKang123 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Citations are only linked on first use to avoid overlinking. I've fixed References 34 and 76 and linked the first use of the Tri-City Herald, which is available online but with a library card that does not permit easy linking; as there is no requirement to have online sources, I won't be linking them, but would be happy to provide copies if needed for spotchecks. The Associated Press is the news agency from which these stories are originally being sourced from, so the parameter is being used appropriately. SounderBruce 08:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted then. Issues above were satisfactorily addressed. Passed. ZKang123 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 5 is throwing an error that needs to be corrected --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As @SounderBruce said in an offline chat: also there's a warning on Citation 5 because CS1 got changed and screwed up a lot of norms. I supposed its more of a template technical issue ZKang123 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fredddie[edit]

Carving out a spot to do a review. –Fredddie™ 23:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead
Route description

Looks good, maybe some word repetition

History
Overall

Otherwise this is a great article and is a good example of a well-researched road. –Fredddie™ 04:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of your points except for the map, which I will continue working on over the weekend. SounderBruce 06:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to add the newspaper map, as it seems to be eligible for PD use, as the entire newspaper edition for that date did not have a copyright notice for news content (only advertisements and inserts from other magazines). @Buidhe: As this image was added after your review, I'd like to get your opinion as well. SounderBruce 05:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can't view the entire issue but am skeptical, most newspapers and magazines in this era were copyrighted. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a query for "All rights reserved", "copyright", and the copyright symbol, and it didn't turn up anything attributed to the newspaper itself, only the aforementioned advertisements and inserts. The front page has no such notice on the masthead, and neither does the editorial page where it'd be commonly found. SounderBruce 05:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get the copyright status of that map figured out, but if we have to remove it, that's not going to change my support of this article. –Fredddie™ 06:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you did a thorough search like that then I'll accept it per WP:AGF. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've implemented all of the changes that you suggested. SounderBruce 09:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 6 February 2022 [136].

Laundromat (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Laundromat" is a R&B/pop song with lyrics that use the laundromat as a metaphor for the washing away of an old relationship. While I love these gimmicky songs, I am far less happy that R. Kelly was involved in pretty much every aspect of this one (to the point that even his absence from the music video was discussed). "Laundromat" is a single from Nivea's 2002 self-titled debut album, but I first heard about it when Solange Knowles covered it at an actual laundromat in 2013. Thank you in advance for any help, and I hope everyone is doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • That is interesting. I am not having that issue in my browser, but I have removed the image. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the image review. The sample uses the album version of the song. How would you recommend representing that in the sample? Also, thank you for moving the "External links" section to the right position. I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest putting a full citation in the source field, specifying the album details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Apologies for that as I had a brain fart. I believe that I have addressed this, but let me know if this information can be better represented. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • That is a very good point. I have rearranged this section to address this point, and I have split the first paragraph to avoid it from being overly long, but please let me know if further work would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decide to ultimately cut this part as I do not think the quote adds that much. The sentence already says Kelly was not present at her performances of this song, and her quote for the performances does not really add anything further about the matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review! I made a great deal of rather silly mistakes while writing this article. Please let me know if there is anything that could improve the article further and I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review and support. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that it is important to be concise. I have responded to the point on the semi-colon and MOS:LQ points in the comment below. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually not sure how this got there. I usually use a colon before full quotations so I am not sure how the semi-colons got there (or why I would have used them). I have revised all the instances to make the colons instead, and I have hopefully fixed the MOS:LQ issues, but let me know if I somehow overlooked anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very silly mistake on my part. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Let me know if further revision would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should conclude my review. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review and apologies for some of the rather silly mistakes in the article. I appreciate that you took the time to do this. If there is anything else that could be improved in the article, I would be more than happy to address it. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with your changes and replies. Happy to support this. FrB.TG (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Realmaxxver[edit]

  • Thank you for the comment. I appreciate any feedback. Critics praised R. Kelly for various things. Some reviewers said that his songs were highlights from the album, another specifically pointed to the production in regards to how Nivea sounded on the song, and yet another talked about his vocals on the track. I do understand your point and I have expanded the caption to hopefully further clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Heartfox—pass[edit]

  • Removed. The citation does not add much to the article so it was not necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I was unaware of how to format EBSCOhost citations as I have only started to use that resource recently. I have used your suggestion. Thank you for that as it clears up a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for checking. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I have added this part to the citations. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page 278 says that Cannon was Kelly's stand-in for the music. I have revised this part to be reflect that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point about the mixed reviews. It is a generalization and I have removed that part from the lead and the article. But, I do think the part on Kelly's contributions and Knowles's performance is supported as the article has positive reviews focusing on these aspects. The article is not saying that everyone loves these parts or they are universally loved, but that they were praised by some critics who are included in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is likely that the US release date was different, but the citation does not give an exact date. Revised this part to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand wanting to only provide the available specific date in the infobox and prose, but then the sentence should indicate that April 28 is the UK release.
  • Good point. I have revised the prose and the infobox to be more specific. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank your catching this. I have added this to the article. I could not find further information on the cassette unfortunately, but it could just be lost to time. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. I have revised this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the previous weeks' issues only list "Don't Mess With My Man" so I would stick with the 98.
  • Thank you for catching this. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how I missed that. Apologies for that. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nivea was released in 2001 internationally with a different (and in my opinion better) track list, and the album had a US release in 2002. The Kelly tracks, such as "Laundromat", are only on the US release. I could include this information in the article, with a citation to the international version of the album as I could not find coverage that explicitly discussed Kelly's tracks only appearing on certain releases. I wanted to get your opinion about this first. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence should specify it is referring to the US release.
  • Revised and I have added a sentence with a citation to the international version about these differences. Maybe one day, I will come back and work on the album article as its development is interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it so far :) Heartfox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the source review! I appreciate it a lot, and you have helped to improve the article immensely. Apologies for the silly mistakes on my part. I am not sure how I missed those lol. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. I have addressed most of them, and I have tried to leave responses for everything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Apologies for the second ping. Just doing this as a follow-up as it has been roughly five days since your last message and I wanted to check in on the status of the source review. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how that happened. I have revised the citation. I will address your other (very helpful) responses later tonight. Apologies again for the double-ping and I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the responses. I believe that I have address everything, but please let me know if there is anything else that would benefit from further revision. Thank you again for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for bringing this up. I went with your suggestion and used the physical album as the ultimate deciding factor on the length, which also matches the Billboard citation so that makes me more comfortable with this decision. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. There were a few other "Niva" misspellings so apparently I couldn't spell that day lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay and continued comments! Also these are just simple things listed above and thanks for being a great editor to work with :) Heartfox (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: There's no need to apologize. I appreciate the comments. I want the article to be in the best possible shape so I am more than happy to work on anything for that purpose. Take as much time as you need with the review. Thank you for being a wonderful editor to work with and I hope that we continue to work together in the future :) Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for the source review. Heartfox (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Thank you for catching that. I am not sure how that happened tbh. I have fixed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is standard practice in song article to put the credits/personal in the prose of the article as well as in a separate section. That's why there is a separate section for charts and the charts are mentioned in the prose. In my opinion, it is done because it would be somewhat jarring to not include credits in the prose, but a separate section is helpful for readers who just want to look at that information at a glance. I hope that clears it up, but let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert on music articles, so if that's the standard, definitely stick with that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nivea and Kelly never performed the song together live. They just recorded the song together. I thought the performed part clarified that, but I have revised it to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. I thought it may be notable because it was mentioned in the review of the album, but that alone does not make it particularly noteworthy. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed you removed the reference to Totally R&B as well – I think that one merited mention since the album was covered elsewhere. My concern was that Flow didn't have any external coverage, so it didn't seem like a meaningful detail. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. I misinterpreted this for some reason even your original comment was clear. I have added Totally R&B back into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, I really liked that year. I have removed one of the instances. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. Thank you for noticing as that is less than ideal as consistency is important. I decided to go with "Don't Mess With My Man" as that is the format used in Billboard articles. I originally tried to look at the album itself, but it presents all the songs in lowercase on the back so it was less than helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the link. Somehow, I must have overlooked this during my web search. I have replaced the ProQuest citation as it is better to have something that is more readily available to readers. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still seems to switch back and forth – earlier mentions in the article tend to use "with", while later mentions use "With". RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. I must not have published this edit, but now it should be implemented throughout the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is on the article so it should be in good shape. It should be "featured singles". Unfortunately, the Nivea articles are in pretty rough shape, but that is too be expected for an artist who is not particularly popular. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RunningTiger123: Thank you for the comments. I greatly appreciate your help and apologies for the silly mistakes on my part. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article more, I would be more than happy to do so. I hope you are having a great end to your week and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks great now! I knew nothing about this song beforehand and it's always cool to read about an entirely new topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support. It is always fun to read about a new topic. I need to go outside of my comfort zone on here. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak[edit]

  • I went with something simpler and just say "is a song by American singer". I have seen the "that was recorded by" sentence structure used in song FAs, but I agree that being concise is important. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the link is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I think it is important to emphasize why the venue is important/relevant to the conversation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one word. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree as those words mean different things. I used reviewed here because the song was reviewed under a specific genre, I think that it is important to note. I do not think "viewed" would work in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the sentence about Solange's performance in the lead, I think it is important to emphasize that a song called "Laundromat" is being specifically tied to the venue in the promotion (and in the cover performance). Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help. I have implemented most of your suggestion, except the ones that I noted above. I hope you are having a great weekend so far, and if there is anything I can do to further improve the article, I would be more than happy to do so. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adressing everything, I also see your point where you commented. I support the article for promotion and wish a lot of luck Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and for your review as a whole. You have helped a lot and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • I had some difficulty with this part as it is rather complicated and builds on a lot of sensitive information and history. I prefer your suggestion, and I have implemented that in the article if that is okay with you. Articles that specifically tied the allegations against Kelly and his commercial success focused on the 2002 child pornography charges. While some articles mentioned his illegal marriage with Aaliyah, the focus was mostly kept on the then-recent charges. I tried to be specific in the article with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution sentence, but I would be more than happy to revise this part to clarify it more. Aoba47 (talk)

That's everything I have; looks in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thank you for the review! I honestly did not expect it this quickly. I have revised the bits about R. Kelly's charges, the track listings, and the Solange cover. I would be more than happy to look at how R. Kelly's charges are discussed in the article again. The focus was on the 2002 child pornography charges as journalists were discussing how such a recent occurrence did not negatively impact his career. I have left an explanation about the Kelly/Cannon collaboration parts. I am honestly on the fence about it as I can see why it would be read as irrelevant to this particular article, but I wanted to leave my rationale and hear your opinion about it before doing anything further. Again, I hope you are doing well, and thank you for taking the time to look through this article. I greatly appreciate that as always! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the one point about the allegations left; the only concern I have now is that we still say 2003 in the lead, but you say above that the focus was on the 2002 charges. Would it be best to just remove the year and make it "evidence that the sexual abuse allegations against Kelly did not hurt his career"? If we remove the date and just say "sexual abuse allegations" instead of specifying the charge, it can refer to any charge prior to that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: Thank you for the comments. I went back and forth on this one. I ultimately decided to keep the more specific 2002 child pornography arrest in the lead and I have copy-edit the part in the "Commercial performance" section to more clearly reflect that. Since the articles were quite specific with this, I think it would best to reflect that as readers may think more weight was either given to past allegations (such as the Aaliyah marriage) or allegations that came afterwards. I hope that clears things up and apologies for the confusion there. I wanted to really think this through carefully as it is a sensitive issue and I wanted to give it the time and respect it deserved. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good; it's now consistent and I think the phrasing is a little smoother. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will re-examine this part again tomorrow when I have some more time/distance to see if any further revisions would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and your support. You have helped me to improve the article a lot, and I appreciate the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [137].

I've Just Seen a Face[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by the Beatles, composed by Paul McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney. It first appeared in August 1965 on the album Help!, and most people today know it from there, but its first release in North America came as the opening track of Rubber Soul. Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: NFURs look good, song length is appropriate, images on Commons look good. Good luck with your nominiation! Sennecaster (Chat) 22:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

  • Thanks for the comments, Therapyisgood. Both "of" and "on" sound fine to my ear, but I'm not especially confident in these sorts of subtleties, so I've changed it per your suggestion.
  • Changed.
  • To be specific: I think notes 1, 2, 4, 8, and maybe 9 are purely excess. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cut note 9, with Greg Kot's other comparisons, but I find the other notes helpful. In particular, I think notes 1 and 2 detail information that a reader would end up having to research on their own if not supplied in the note, something I think is especially true of note 2. Note 4 adds to the comments of John Kruth and the various authors in the first part of the sentence; in my research, I've found that the three songs being recorded on the same day is one of the most discussed aspects of its recording. Lastly, for note 8, I think it is important because it discusses how folk rock enthusiasts reacted to the album immediately after a discussion of how the opening track reinforced perceptions of album as folk/folk rock. Tkbrett (✉) 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • The song begins slightly away from the home key, which ties in with Pollack's comparison of the intro to "Help!" I've reworded that part to clarify the situation.
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • The former. This is what he writes: "This edition of Rubber Soul didn't even have the same songs – it began with 'Drive My Car' instead of 'I've Just Seen a Face.' But Rubber Soul became my favorite record – I couldn't even decide which version I loved more, since 'Drive My Car' was the funniest song ever, while 'I've Just Seen a Face' was the most romantic, except almost as funny as 'Drive My Car.'"
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Although I am currently taking an extended break from Wikipedia (for both reviews and my own projects), I still feel obligated to review this FAC since I participated in the first one. As I have said there, I have very little knowledge of the Beatles, but I have a much firmer grasp on song articles both in the FAC/FA context and Wikipedia as a whole. I hope my comments are helpful:

  • I did it to save space in the infobox, but have used "country and western" everywhere else since that's what the sources use. Changed "&" to "and".
  • I bumped up the width from 25 to 30%.

Other than those points, the article looks good to me. I supported the first FAC, although I understood the opposition as this article has to balance out a large amount of coverage, which is understandable given the attention the Beatles had and continue to receive. I usually work on much, much more obscure songs so I have never run into this challenge myself lol. I am glad that discussions took place on the article's talk page after the first FAC. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoba47, it's very kind of you to return from your Wiki-break for this nomination. Tkbrett (✉) 13:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Preliminary remarks[edit]

Doing... Should be done by early next week. JBchrch talk 10:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one question as I'm doing this: could you please explain your use of the |orig-year= parameter? I'm a little confused. JBchrch talk 14:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it to refer to the date the book was first published. For example, Ian MacDonald's book, Revolution in the Head, was originally published in 1994, but I've used the third edition, published in 2007, hence "MacDonald, Ian (2007) [1994]". Should I be using more specificity or just drop using the parameter all together? Tkbrett (✉) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this parameter should be used for a re-publication of the same work. For instance, if Classic Books Inc. republishes An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 2022, we would have |year=2022 and |orig-year=1748. I don't think |orig-year= is suitable for subsequent editions, where the content changes. Off-wiki I don't remember seeing reference to the year of the first edition when subsquent editions are cited. So I would suggest dropping the parameter all together, yes. JBchrch talk 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, that makes sense. I've gone ahead and removed them. Tkbrett (✉) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already leaving this comment since I assume it may require a bit of research: do we have a page number for Smith 1972? And who is Alan Smith by the way? JBchrch talk 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Smith is a former editor of NME (New Musical Express), a British music publication which was a much bigger deal back in the 1960s ([138]). An interview he conducted with John Lennon and Yoko Ono was published in the February 1972 issue of Hit Parader magazine, including an extended part where he and Lennon went over every Lennon–McCartney composition to determine "how much was written by who". As one of the few instances where Lennon comments on the composition of nearly every Lennon–McCartney song, it has proven to be a useful primary source for researchers; take for example historian Erin Torkelson Weber, who uses it in her research on the origins of "Eleanor Rigby" (the interview is mentioned on p. 95 of her book and is cited on p. 229).
Smith's extended interview with Lennon has been uploaded to the Internet Archive as plain text here and here. I haven't been able to get my hands on an actual original copy of the magazine, nor have I found a digitized version online, so I have not been able to supply the actual page-range of the piece. I do realize now though that I titled it incorrectly: "I Don't Like All This Dribblin' Pop-opera-jazz. I Like POP Records" was what it said on the magazine's cover, while the piece's title was "Lennon/McCartney Songalong: Who Wrote What". Also, this copy on AbeBooks indicates it was issue 91 of the magazine. Tkbrett (✉) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I'm not super comfortable with its use as a source given that all we have access to is a plain-text archive, which doesn't identify the page. Since it's used only once and in addition to other sources making the same claim, is it necessary to keep it? (Also, letting you know that this is the only source I have "quality" issues with at the moment, all the sources I have checked seem fine, but more on this later) JBchrch talk 22:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really necessary. Lennon had an interview with Playboy in 1980 where he provided the exact same information, crediting the song entirely to McCartney. That interview is much more easily referenced, so I've removed Smith 1972. Tkbrett (✉) 22:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quality[edit]

The article is sourced to high-quality sources that meet the FACR criteria. During the previous FAC, the nom received the advice to tone down the number of sources, therefore I've not attempted to find additional sources that could be used or be cited. JBchrch talk 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" section[edit]
  • I've only linked the first instances of publishers. Should I be linking them every time where able?
  • i think so, yes, as—if i'm not mistaken—consistency is more important than OVERLINK.
  • All are now linked.
  • The Internet Archive link is titled incorrectly. The actual content is from vol. 2 (note the top mentions "Original text from: Keith Badman. The Beatles Diary Volume 2: After The Break-Up 1970-2001").
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • Added orig-year and fixed link.
  • I used the 3rd edition, so I've fixed this link.
  • The copyright page lists her as "Sawyer, June Skinner, 1957–"
  • Fixed.
  • Added.
  • The original version was published in 2000 by 44.1 Productions in Chesterfield, MO, while the "Remastered" edition was published in 2018 by Open Your Books in Chesterfield, MO. I've used the 2018 edition.
  • Would you have a hyperlink establishing the existence of this version? I can't find it on my own (probably missed something).
  • The "Remastered" edition was released only as an e-Book, being directly sold from their website. Since there's no print version, I'm wondering if WorldCat would include an entry. I did a bit more digging and see that they actually own the publisher, Open Your Books, originally known as 44.1 Productions. I'm not sure if this makes the source self-published. Tkbrett (✉) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's interesting, thanks for taking a look. In that case, I think it's probably be self-published. Is it necessary to keep it or could you do without? JBchrch talk 21:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the only source which provides explicit dates for performances, so I've had to remove that information. It's not the biggest loss in the world, so I'm fine with removing it as a source to avoid the headache. Tkbrett (✉) 00:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice catch. Fixed.
  • Added.
  • Fixed.
  • Ah, good point. The table of contents doesn't list a name for the contribution either.
  • Fixed.

You didn't mention it above, but I think Castleman & Podrazik was actually published in 1976, not 1975, as per its copyright page. Tkbrett (✉) 16:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like both are acceptable, since we have a 1976 publication date at the bottom of the page. Whatever you prefer. JBchrch talk 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll stick with the 1976 dating. Tkbrett (✉) 18:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Citations" section[edit]

Doing... JBchrch talk 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC) No issues detected. JBchrch talk 16:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks[edit]

Doing... JBchrch talk 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riley 2002

23a ok
23b ok
23c ok
23.g. Shouldn’t it be specified that Riley refers to the 1976 live album rather than Rockshow? Or am I missing something?

  • I see now that Riley isn't directly referring to either the album of the film, but instead the tour in general, so I've changed how it's incorporated into the article. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

82 ok

MacDonald 2007

1a ok
1d ok
1e ok
17 ok
27 ok
127 ok

Gould 2007

37 Nitpicking here, but the use of « suggests » take a slight liberty with the source material, which does not seem to connect these two things this clearly.

38 ok
55 ok
64 ok
73 ok

Everett 2001

12 Can you please give me a quote?

  • I've fixed this up. Here's 280: "The Beatles returned to the studio on February 15 [1965] for six straight days of work on the new soundtrack. ... Of the eleven songs taped during this week, [list of the eleven songs] ..." I've also added page 296 and 304–305 to the citation, since 296 says, "the Beatles rushed to the studios on April 13 to recorded Lennon's 'Help!'" and pages 304–305 lay out the album's track listing, while also stating "[t]he final contents for the British LP featured film songs on Side 1 and others on Side 2". This makes it clear that six of the seven songs recorded for the film were done during the week in mid-February '65. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22b ok
22d ok
22f Can you give me a quote for Harrison?

  • The first part of the sentence says: "This recording consists of two backing tracks: Harrison's acoustic twelve-string, probably Lennon's Framus ('Guitar I,' ...) ...". It took me a while to understand what this was saying. I initially thought it meant Harrison played an acoustic twelve-string and Lennon played a Framus. That didn't make much sense to me, since the Framus is an acoustic twelve-string, and as far as I knew, Lennon's was the only acoustic twelve-string in the band's possession at that time. I actually emailed Walter Everett a few months ago for clarification. He explained that the part of the sentence I quoted above is actually only talking about one guitar, and what it's saying is that Harrison borrowed Lennon's guitar for the recording. When I reread the paragraph with that in mind, it made way more sense. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. If only this book had gotten to FAC and its rigorous copyediting, we probably wouldn't have had this problem. JBchrch talk 14:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polack

20b ok
20g ok
20m ok
20r ok

Last one for the road : 124a ok. JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source check is a pass. JBchrch talk 14:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tkbrett (✉) 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by CPA[edit]

  • I couldn't figure out how to resolve it while keeping both the quote box and the infobox, so I've incorporated the quotation into the text. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 14:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting a little as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

That takes me down to the end of the "Release" section; I'm out of time for the moment but should be able to finish the review tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

That's it for this pass; only a couple of minor points outstanding now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Mike Christie! I especially appreciate your thoroughness in the composition subsection, since it helped clear up some errors that slipped through early in the writing process. Tkbrett (✉) 15:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [139].

Armenian genocide[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a delay, I think it's time for this level-4 vital article to come back to FAC. I really appreciate the feedback I received on the last nomination, which I did my best to address, and am looking forward to additional comments. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus[edit]

Hello. As on the last FA review, I am here just to note some minor details and will not engage in full review.

Source review - pass[edit]

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (non-issues)

Comments by a455bcd9[edit]

Thanks for working on this important article. A few remarks:

Lead[edit]

[I'll check the rest later]

Armenians in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

References

  1. ^ Kévorkian 2011, p. 279.
Land conflict and reforms[edit]
Young Turk Revolution[edit]
Balkan Wars[edit]
Ottoman entry into World War I[edit]
Onset of genocide[edit]
Systematic deportations: Aims[edit]
Administrative organization[edit]
Islamization[edit]
Destination[edit]
Death toll[edit]
International reaction[edit]
Aftermath[edit]
Trials[edit]
Turkish War of Independence[edit]
Legacy[edit]
Turkey[edit]
International recognition[edit]
Archives and historiography[edit]
Overall view[edit]

The article is great. I read it a few months ago and it is way better now: congrats! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Give me a ping once most of A455bcd9's comments have been addressed, so I am not picking up issues that have already been raised, and I'll recuse and give this a look over. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild It looks like I've addressed A455bcd9's comments! I would really appreciate a review from you if you're still planning to provide it. (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing to review. Feel free to remind me if I have not started in two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Fine. In which case you need to change "ethnic Armenians" to whatever it is that you are saying was destroyed. Eg, 'destruction of Armenian population and culture' or 'of the Armenian people and identity' or similar.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Yeah, that was what I immediately thought. Personally, yes, 'about 1,500 years', but it is a minor issue.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWI & Onset

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deportations[edit]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well up to your usual standards. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, a couple of afterthoughts added above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done both, thanks again for your review! (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jr8825[edit]

I hope to give this a read through and provide some feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 14:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: apologies for taking so long to come back to this. I read through the remainder of the article today. I made a few minor tweaks mostly for style, feel free to undo any of them if you think they're not an improvement. I also have a few more nit-picks/comments for your consideration:

Brief comment from Aza24[edit]

Though the Cultural depictions has "Armenian genocide in culture" listed as the main article of the section, it doesn't seem to cover the full scope. Essentially the section focuses solely on literature and one film. The biggest omission is Arshile Gorky, who is a hugely important artist and seemingly directly impacted by this event. I feel that at least the fact that music have been created as a reaction to the genocide should be included. Something like "numerous works of music have been created in response to the genocide including pieces by [insert a few of the most notable names here]". Looking at the musicians, I know that Komitas, Khachaturian and Hovhaness are very important composers. Considering how many films have been made, it might be worth noting that as well. Again, not looking for a major expansion of this section, just something like 2–3 more lines; at least one for Gorky and 1–2 for music/film, otherwise, the sole inclusion of literature and a single film doesn't make sense. Aza24 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, I've expanded the section accordingly. However, I do believe that Werfel's book—because of its high popularity over a long period of time, and high influence—as well as Ravished Armenia due to its impact on fundraising and influencing Western views on the genocide at an early date are arguably the two most important works to be mentioned in this section. I am not finding as many sources that connect music to the Armenian genocide as with film or other cultural products so I didn't add a sentence on that. (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries! I trust your judgement, and am happy to see Gorky be included, as his art seems to directly tied that it would be an omission not to mention him. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John the Janitor[edit]

Is there a reason that article prefers Erzerum instead of Erzurum? Also, I think archive and historiography part could contain a see also link to Kemalist historiography article.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I attempt to consistently use the most common Ottoman Turkish romanization. As you can see from this NGRAM, the spelling "Erzurum" only came into use in English because it's the modern Turkish spelling, during the era of the Ottoman Empire it was romanized as "Erzerum". Added a link to Kemalist historiography. Thanks for your work expanding that article! (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking the article. However, I think sticking to the more recent spelling would be better as it seems to be more common since last 40 years, unless Wikipedia has a guideline urging to use the old versions in historical context. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that the general practice is to use the historically accurate English language name. See for example discussion on Constantinople/Istanbul. This is also followed for respellings such as Kiev/Kyiv and Danzig/Gdánsk. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I support the article to become a featured one. 👍 Best regards. 😘--John the Janitor (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartography[edit]

I am willing to make or remake some maps for this article, just let me know what you need --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images look reasonably sourced and placed to me. Most images lack ALT text however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Will take a look at this one. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here on a very difficult topic, I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka[edit]

...more to come... Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this thoroughly researched and exceptionally well written article. I hope many people will read it. Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns but one were addressed. I support this nomination. Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Just noting, particularly for the benefit of fellow coords Buidhe, Gog and Hog Farm, that I'm aware a process of elimination gives me sole responsibility for closing this, and I'll soon be walking through to see where we stand... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking now that the latest reviews seem to have wound up, the origin/attribution of a few quotes are unclear to me:

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: , permission to nominate another article while Ian looks at this one? Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grapple X[edit]

Had initially started looking at this a few weeks ago before an unfortunate laptop droppage left me working off a phone for a while, so I'm only getting back to leave some comments now. By an large a very thorough and clear article so I don't have much to quibble about but here are my concerns:

That's it for me—not too many points and hopefully all can be addressed or responded to. Good work. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Sorry I missed your reply on Tanzimat. Just one more query: "many now had to pay double taxation: both to Kurdish landlords and the Ottoman government." Surely payments to a landlord are rent and other charges, but not tax? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Dudley Miles, thanks for your helpful comments. Before the mid-nineteenth century, many Armenians paid taxes only to Kurdish rulers; because of imperial centralization they now owed taxes to the central government but the Kurdish chieftains still expected "protection" money and collected it using illegal, violent methods. Clarified with the addition of a new source. (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [141].

Wonderful Parliament[edit]

Nominator(s): ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud. ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Goodness, is it that time already? Where does the time go? Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for looking in Gog the Mild: I've actioned all your points ([142]), but have only replied to those I felt need explanation, if that's OK. Thanks again! ——Serial 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes perfect sense. I shall have a look through your changes and comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That all looks good. Onward, ever onward.
Ah!

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gog the Mild, actioned with this edit, see what you think. ——Serial 19:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gog the Mild, and also for the minor copy edits you've been quietly doing en passant, always appreciated. See what you think of the latest series of edits? Cheers, ——Serial 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Gog! ——Serial 16:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, I appreciate the thorough review! Interestingly, this article has renewed my interest in all things Hundred Years War-related, so I'm off to mooch around. All the best! ——Serial 14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Personally I think I am coming to the end of my current run on the HYW. I am working to get Battle of Poitiers and its associated campaign to FA and then intend to take a break to work on other things. I may well come back to it, but 26 FAs on the Conflicts of Edward III seems sufficient for now. What you considering for your next? (Merciless Parliament? (I have Battle of Radcot Bridge under consideration.)) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you should mention Radcot Bridge; obviously, I glanced at it in the course of this article, and it's so bloody awful, my fingers got itchy there and then. Three lines on the battle and two massive quotes?! Incredible! As it happens, I have some sources, so. ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and are correctly formatted. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, this section must be overtime  :) ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

I hadn't spotted this FAC until a kind Wiki-colleague drew it to my attention today. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. once I've given the article a proper re-reading. Tim riley talk 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim riley, thanks for looking in; apologies for not pinging you in the blurb, but, the (great!) GA review was ages ago, of course, and you've moved on, etc. But, cheers!—and hoping this finds you well. ——Serial 18:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First points from a quick canter through for typos etc: these four words need attention, I think:

More anon. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor points on the prose:

I hope these comments are useful. I have no problems with the content of the article, which seems well and widely sourced, balanced and clear. Not being familiar with the subject I cannot comment on how comprehensive the article is, but I have no reason to think it may not be. – Tim riley talk 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your review Tim riley—there's a couple of points I'd like your further advice on, or confirmation of, but yet again, thanks to you, I've learned more on the nuances of my mother tongue than Leyton Comp ever managed... although that might not be difficult! ;) Thanks again! ——Serial 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of afterthoughts from another dip into the article: first, "focused" is better spelled with one "s" (though the OED somewhat grudgingly allows the double "ss"); and secondly, capitalisation – an ever-present bugbear – might need a bit of polishing: does "Regency Council" need caps, and even if it does, then does "Council" in the next sentence do so? And I have my doubts about the capital R in Royal prerogative in the relevant section heading. Tim riley talk 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for this also Tim—I've made those adjustments and hopefully caught all the over-caps, I think. I really appreciate you looking in (and the anonymous wiki-colleague who drew it to your attention in the first place!) ——Serial 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Willing to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me, as far as I can judge, to meet the criteria as to content, and the prose will now suffice, I think. Tim riley talk 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet[edit]

Mentioned I wasn't sure whether to review this or not, but noticed it falling down the list...Will come back with comments. Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments
General[edit]
  • Most footnotes are placed after the ref, but a couple (note 2 in "Political background" and note 10 in "Richard's absence") are placed before. I can't on my end see a difference in kind between the ones placed before and the ones after. Is there a reason for this or was it accidental?
    The latter, and snow blindness! Sorted.
Lead[edit]
  • They saw de la Pole as both a favourite who had unfairly benefited from the King's largesse, and the minister responsible for the King's failures. They demanded de la Pole's impeachment. This wording stood out to me as choppy, but I'm not sure how much that reflects choppiness and how much it's just idiosyncrasy on my behalf. I have the sense nonetheless that the second sentence is overly abrupt and the repetition of "They" as first word avoidable. It might be worth experimenting with alternative phrasings (e.g. turning it into a single sentence, or alternatively expanding on the Houses' perspectives of de la Pole to make it multiple sentences with one focusing on perceived undue benefit, one on failure, and one on the impeachment demands).
    I didn't want to add too much extra detail to the lead, so I went with a rewording: how does Seeing de la Pole as both a favourite... parliament demanded the earl's impeachment?
    Looks good, no worries. Vaticidalprophet 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first, the King refused to attend the parliament, instead attempting to dissolve the sitting, although without success. Could "although without success" be better omitted, cutting down on the number of sentence clauses by saying "instead attempting unsuccessfully to dissolve" etc.? The current phrasing takes a while to get to the point.
    Excellent, thanks.
  • Armed conflict broke out between crown and nobility, eventually resulting in de la Pole's exile and death. Though I think generally articles could do with more rather than fewer links, I'm not sold on the "exile" link here. It's a common enough concept you'd expect readers to be familiar, especially if they're already reading a more niche article on an issue that culminated in one. Perhaps more concerningly, if a reader did happen to click through, Exile is in sorry shape and wouldn't be useful to anyone who did want to read more.
    Good point, unlinked.
Political background[edit]
  • One 20th-century historian, Clementine Oliver, has described la Pole as a "staunch loyalist" is missing a "de".
    Check.
  • Some young nobles—such as the Earls of Arundel and Warwick—had "been kept in good humour since 1376 only by a lavish distribution of Crown perquisites and war salaries, argues the historian M. V. Clarke". Is the closing quote placed too late here? By the source, I assume it's meant to be after "salaries" rather than after Clarke's name.
    Well spotted.
  • PROME's first appearance in the main body of text a section later is spelled out, but its first appearance at all is here, in note 4. It seems worthwhile to spell out its first footnoted appearance as well as its first main appearance, given the footnote is so much earlier (but keeping the main appearance given the uncertainty of whether footnotes are read or not).
    Done, with a hint of cynicism to the poor ole footnotes.
  • The previous parliament had attempted to force a commission upon the King in an effort to reform the royal household and especially its expenditure;[22][21] There appears to be an accidental semicolon rather than full stop here, given the next sentence(?) starts with a capital letter. (I'm also of the opinion refs look better in numeral order.)
    Yeah, swapped that, and also the refs are now numerical.
  • This commission was, effectively, a regency council for the King. Given the sentence's length, does "effectively" need to be set out with commas?
    No, okay.
  • No military successes had been achieved since the previous parliament (for instance, a victory over the Scots would have diverted some negative attention from the King's finances and patronage), so by 1386, "the Commons had no good reason to overlook the excessive generosity of the King or to acquiesce in his government's arbitrary taxation" as historian John Palmer put it. This is a long sentence with a lot in it. The bracketed text is worthwhile contextualization, but might be better footnoted than taking up space in the main body of the article. (That might also allow for it to be expanded on a bit, if the source gives further examples of relevant victories or the benefits they would have had.) Also, this looks to be the only unlinked (whether red or blue) historian -- I assume not any of our John Palmers given what's on that list, but could be linked to the currently-nonexistent John Palmer (historian), or are you confident he's non-notable? (Similar note: not sure on the need for "continues Palmer" in the following sentence, given you've already noted you're quoting him.)
    Ah, complex. You're right about that crappy sentence, so as per your suggestion, I've added an (expanded) footnote regarding why the invasion and the king were unpopular as a result of it, and what benefits he could have expected had it gone the other way. Also redlinked Palmer (must've been an oversight). Not so sure not inline citing Palmer: attribution of a direct quote, of course, but also it just didn't read that smoothly without it... I'm certainly not arguing over it though.
    This is excellent now, good footnote -- and no complaints about the second quote attribution, the clunkiness is mitigated by switching up the preceding sentence as you've done now. Vaticidalprophet 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later sections to kome. Vaticidalprophet 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on the royal prerogative[edit]
  • With note 8, adult, compos mentis monarch might be better phrased as compos mentis adult monarch, but I'm stopped in my tracks a bit by the specification of "adult". The referent is Edward III, who was of course himself an adult, and as Richard II was himself a child when he ascended the throne and was still very young at the time, it seems to be an unnecessary level of specifics?
  • although the charges themselves were neither "frivolous, trivial or paltry," argues Roskell doesn't seem like something that needs to be quoted rather than own-words phrased. The article quotes quite heavily, which I've no problems with -- great turns of phrase in sources are worth sharing -- but this is a relatively brief statement of facts. Because you're attributing each source inline when you quote it, quoting for fairly short statements as here adds sentence bulk that veers from the point a bit.
    Makes sense—have removed "adult", as you say, since all the parties involved were.
  • This has led some historians to question the validity of the claims against de la Pole; for example, in 1927, N. B. Lewis suggested that they were "trivial or unfounded... merely pretexts for dismissing the chief minister of an unpopular King." -- sneaky WP:LQ there
    Check.
  • This is the event described by Henry Knighton as the "occultus rumor" in which the King invited forty members of that parliament to a dinner—and then dispose of them. Great line, very intriguing to the metonymical bright fourteen-year-old, but is 'dispose of them' a bit too abstract? If he (so they say!) poisoned them, it's more attention-grabbing to make it explicit. (If you do want to keep the current wording, it should be 'disposed of', not 'dispose of'.)
    Well, the sources (both primary and secondary) aren't as explicit as to say exactly what the king was intending to do; Knighton uses the phrase and destroy them, while another chronicler merely suggests that they were told have been arrested (which perhaps I should add?). Tweaked slightly.
  • The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King, on how they perceived his duty, which they supported by reference to mythological statutes and traditions. Saul describes these as "outrageous remarks". This is...interesting, but unclear. "Eloquently, if fictitiously" gets across the idea that they were, well, making stuff up, but it's not explicit in what ways they were doing so (and "mythological" is an ambiguous phrasing if someone's coming in without much background -- it could be equally interpreted as "statutes and traditions the Lords made up on the spot" and "statutes and traditions that exist in long-held myths and legends, but not reality"). Is it due to go into more detail about how they were fabulising and what about, past the given example of the supposed "Commons get to go home" law?
    This phrase of Saul's has probably caused the single biggest issue of discussion here! He is vague, and I suspect intentionally so; after all, he wants to interpret the actions of the long-dead, but can't... I've added a few bits, and tweaked my phrasing, which hopefully addresses your point (if, indeed, I've understood you correctly—apologies if not!)
  • In what modern historians have suggested was a political misjudgement,[35][55] the King had promoted de Vere from Earl of Oxford to Marquess of Dublin on 13 October. This enraged people all the more. May be some pleonasm here to both suggest this was a political misjudgement and then note it enraged people even more. (They sound pretty enraged by this point, anyway!)
    Indeed. But as my nan used to say, 'things may be so bad that they can't get any better; they are never so bad they can't get any worse'  :) I think I'll keep it, if it's all the same to you—the fact that the king was unable to make the promotions he wanted suggests something pretty extraordinary going on.
  • However, notes the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England (PROME) project, it appears that at least two of Richard's proposed creations—John, Lord Neville and the under chamberlain to the royal household, Simon Burley, to the earldoms of Cumberland and of Huntingdon respectively—were so unpopular that the King was forced to withdraw them. This doesn't seem to be a 'however' matter. Also, I've accidentally introduced an inconsistency on you -- sorry! In the footnote where I suggested expanding PROME, you italicized the full title after expansion, but it's not in italics here -- should probably be consistent between them, one way or another.
    Removed however and italicised.
Aftermath and King Richard's response[edit]
  • The Parliament is significant in the context of later events. Well, I'm not sure we'd have a 4000-word article on it if it weren't...
    True! The Parliament had long-ranging consequences... etc?
  • One historian has commented that "it is generally recognised that all the constitutional and political troubles of Richard II's reign can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament". Is the inconsistent capitalization here in the source (in which case it should probably be ((sic))'d) or is it an error in reproduction, so to speak?
    Sic'd, curiously.
  • You kind of drop the thread of de la Pole here. Your last reference to him is in August 1387, at which point he was returned to being the King's closest advisor. Obviously, he didn't remain in that cushy a position forever. You get into all the details of e.g. Tresilian's death, but given de la Pole is one of the major players here and the reader is primed to hear what eventually happens to him from the very beginning of the article, you do need to pick up that thread.
    Great point. He survived by the skin of; have added a few lines after the preceding gory details.
    Nice, although now it produces (on my screen, but as noted probably also many others) a very large paragraph made larger still by the fact it's compressed by an image. Is there a good spot to split that? Maybe from Although the court party was swept from power in 1386. This should be my last nitpick -- happy with what else you've done and to allow what else you've argued to allow, so planning to support soon as we can get that a bit more accessible to the poor smaller-screen reader. Vaticidalprophet 23:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch Vaticidalprophet, split at your suggestion. SN54129 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chaucer's attendance and literary depictions[edit]
  • This section is formatted as one huge paragraph. Even on my decent-sized laptop screen, it gets a bit wall-of-text blurring together. I imagine it'd not be fun to read on a phone. Is there a good spot to split it in two?
    Recent commentators have suggested ... seems a good spot.

That should be all of it. I've fixed a couple of very minor typographical oversights that would've been more trouble to mention here than to just fix myself (e.g. in1386 missing a space). It's a good read, mostly nitpicking, although the dropped thread of de la Pole's fate needs noting. Vaticidalprophet 21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for picking up those typos, Vaticidalprophet and thanks very much for your detailed and insightful review, particularly your thematic points. Your suggestions (almost to a man) actioned here. SN54129 18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Happy to support this excellent article for promotion. Vaticidalprophet 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks again for looking in VP! SN54129 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Serial Number 54129, just one last issue (don't worry, I won't redact my support pending it, but it seems worth mentioning now rather than post-FAC). Reviewing the note 5 footnote again (the one introduced on my suggestion regarding the failed English invasion of Scotland (1385)), you've managed to accidentally omit the contemporary political perspective -- The invasion was considered a failure by both contemporaries and modern historians. Of the former, while among the latter G. L. Harriss called it "ignominious" and May McKisack, "inglorious" doesn't actually mention the former. Assuming there was some kind of accidental backspace somewhere in the footnote's writing. Vaticidalprophet 02:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. In all my open tabs, windows, pdfs, etc., and the pile of books under the empties, I couldn't for the life of me find the quote (was a quote, of course!) that I was referencing. So, I have recast the sentence with what I had to hand. Hope that suffices! To b fair, I don't think it was a major point I was making anyway, but. SN54129 06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Buidhe[edit]

Reading through this article I just have one query for the nominator. Is "modern historians have been more critical" supported by the cited source or is it possibly WP:OR? Could I have a quote? (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you checking in Buidhe, what with your fellow coords either holidaying or buggering off  :) a couple of quotes for you that hopefully clarify things (inline). It's pretty much the consensus as to the efficacy of the parliament. All the best! SN54129 06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose unless the issues with original research are fixed. See WP:RS/AC (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking oppose as my concerns have been addressed sufficiently, but what is "a later contemporary"? This should be recast in less obfuscating language (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Buidhe, all obfuscation hopefully removed also! And there was no rush back: I'm a great believer in WP:NODEADLINE, so Gog's well-meant ping was albeit unnecessary, although appreciated. It is not, after all, the first time I've seen my candidate sink slooowly to the bottom of the pile, and I guarantee it won't be the last. All the best, SN54129 18:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "...observed with displeasure".
  • If you are not sure what it means I think it would be better to delete it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More rewording! Right.
Hi Dudley. just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wut SN54129 19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my computer. When I searched on it before the earlier one did not show up. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think you need sic here. It is an alternative capitalisation, not an error. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • lower-class implies to me manual labourers. I cannot think of a good way of putting it but how about "non-aristocratic"? BTW. In the ninth century King Æthelwulf married the daughter of his butler. It had a much higher status then. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, good compromise. Interesting about the status of these positions; certainly by the 15th C., offices such as a butler, king's carver, etc., were almost wholly ceremonial and held by those in favour of the king. Of course, they didn't actually decant the wine or carve a goose—there were minions for that—but it let them sit next to the king and keep him topped up  :)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2022 [143].

Hannah Montana[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Hannah Montana, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Miley Cyrus. This was a massively successful TV series and franchise which launched the career of Cyrus. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in December 2020. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous collaborators @JAYFAX: @Heartfox: @TheSandDoctor: @LM150: @Some Dude From North Carolina: @SandyGeorgia: @ImaginesTigers: @Casliber: @TheJoebro64: @Allied45: @Panini!: I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you! SatDis (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho[edit]

References[edit]

(MOS:REFLINK supports duplicate links in citations). TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheDoctorWho:, thanks for the comments. I have addressed all of the suggestions, particularly the changes to the references you have listed. I also added details on the two crossover specials you mentioned above in the "Filming" section. I was only able to include a short sentence on each, as there are a lack of FA-quality reliable sources on these. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! The added information about the crossover looks great to me. The article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder and I will ideally post a review within a week. To be fully transparent, I reviewed the article on the GAN level. As the article is rather long (and that is understandable given the show's popularity), it will take me some time to read through it again thoroughly enough to do a FAC review.

I do have one clarification question. From my understanding, Disney had operated under an unspoken rule that its shows could not air more than 65 episodes (which would be either two or three seasons). Was there any discussion on how Hannah Montana was an exception to that rule? I believe this rule was already thrown by the time Hannah Montana aired, but I was just curious if this was ever brought up in the coverage on the show since it went beyond what was previously limited. Apologies if I have already asked you this in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Aoba47:. The 65 episode rule was never brought up for Hannah. I can think of some earlier examples, such as That's So Raven being one of the first to break the rule. And for Kim Possible, fans specifically campaigned for a fourth season after it had already ended. A fourth season was becoming the new normal by the time Hannah was ending. Thanks! SatDis (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes sense. It is understandable that sources would discuss this rule in the context of shows that were either affected by it or those that were the first to break that rule. As you have already said, Hannah was neither of these two things so it makes sense for sources to focus on other things related to the series. By the way, I have done some small copy-edits to the article while I am reading it. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with or ask about it here. I do not want to take up too much space in this review space on smaller matters. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or if anything requires further clarification. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again and very likely support it for promotion at that point. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Thanks for the comments, all of your copy-edits were fine with me. All of the above has been addressed.
  • For the "another commentator", I struggled to identify who the author of the source was.
  • I would say something along the lines of "a reviewer for DVDizzy.com" so the publication is named in the prose and readers are made fully aware of where this information is coming from. I looked at the quote in the citation by the way, and I think it would be notable to mention that the reviewer finds that Stewart becomes more obnoxious as the series progresses. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thank you!
  • No further news on the spin-off, it appears to have just been a rumour.
  • That is what I thought. Any further news on this would likely get a lot of media attention. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reminder of the Kevin Hart source. I have added a few points, but I would appreciate you reading over the changes as I wasn't sure exactly how to include it. SatDis (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for adding the information. I made a small correction to the citation as Peacock is the publisher and YouTube is the platform that they published the video on.
  • Thanks, I fixed a similar Vanity Fair interview video.
  • I have not watched the interview yet, but was there further explanation for this sentence: "Cyrus explained in 2021 that she found it difficult to separate herself from the persona of Hannah Montana."? Was it because the media and fans perceived her this way or was it more on a personal level? I'd keep this part brief, but I was curious if there was more information. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: You are spot on for both of those reasons. I was actually thinking of including "personally and from media attention"? Not sure how to word that without confusing readers. Should I remove the line altogether? SatDis (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. I would leave the sentence in the article for now as I do think it is helpful and adds further context, but I would also be interested to see what other reviewers have to say about it. I support the article based on the prose. This is separate, but I would recommend converting File:Hannah Montana Logo.PNG into the SVG format as the tag suggests. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again for your time @Aoba47:, and I will look into the image conversion. SatDis (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could help. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Be warned though that it is about a much more explicit musical subject (a song called "No Panties"), but since Miley has performed "My Neck, My Back (Lick It)", maybe she would approve of this song too lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

I'm a very simple-minded creature. All this time I could've sworn that Hannah Montana starred Taylor Swift; I was confused when I saw the name Miley Cyrus everywhere. In hopes to make myself seem less crazy I searched to see if Taylor Swift had any connection to Hannah Montana, and was relieved to see she cameod in the movie. I'll have comments in a little while. Panini!🥪 14:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Lead
Story and characters and Themes
  • This also applies to the latter half of the first paragraph ("While Miley discloses...of her childhood") and the third paragraph ("Tyler Bickford of...element of childhood").
Production
Reception
  • Additionally, this has the same stray ref issues listed above.
  • Also also, "He called the series 'genre-defining'" is a pretty short sentence and could probably be merged.
US television rankings
Public image and Lawsuits
Other Media

Overall, solid article! Once these are satisfied I'll be happy to support. Please do reach out if you have any more FACs cooking in the future. Besides, it gets me free points in the WikiCup, which I highly reccomend checking out. Panini!🥪 18:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Panini!: Thank you for the comments, how funny that you thought this starred Taylor Swift. I hope the article filled in your missing information!
  • Disney+ was not its premiere broadcast, therefore I have removed the line altogether.
  • Actually, in the series, Blue Jeans being introduced also comes as a surprise (the horse is only mentioned on earlier occasions).
  • I have changed to "High School Musical (2006) and earlier franchises involving music." to encompass some of the other shows mentioned.
  • Thanks for the suggestion to move the Casting paragraph - I like how it sits now.
  • Upon reflecting on Reception, I have changed the lead to read: "However, television critics found fault with its writing and depiction of gender roles and stereotypes. The show helped launch Cyrus's musical career and established her as a teen idol; Cyrus, however, began to develop an increasingly provocative public image, which led to the series receiving criticism for having a negative influence on its audience." I believe this highlights a large chunk of the negative reception.
  • The television ratings table relies on averages which are referenced in the article for the episodes list. I believe this table should be removed and would like your opinion.
  • For the lawsuit, I have added "alleged he was unfairly terminated by Disney in response to giving testimony within the arbitration". Thanks for picking that up. Thanks for the praise of that section - it is amazing to hear the legal battle was recent.
  • I believe I have addressed everything, please let me know if I missed something. SatDis (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good here, so I'll leave a Support. About the table, however; it seems like every other Disney Channel TV show uses this table (except Shake it Up). However, the TV show MOS suggests combining the average viewership details with the series overview table (with citation for the numbers). I think you won't lose too much if the rest of those details are removed. Panini!🥪 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Let's not screw this up

  • This was gradual and hard to date.
  • It doesn't appear this way in my view; not sure how to fix that.
  • I have tried to tweak, but this is tricky when "she" could refer to Miley, Lilly or Hannah.
  • Reworded.
  • Have changed to "aged twelve" as it previously states "aged eleven at the time".
  • I actually think Hannah was an early example of this! Lizzie McGuire and That's So Raven have both parents!
    • I... was referring to those in Disney films, more... because, y'know, Bambi, Snow White, etc... Pamzeis (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as we are discussing the impact of other projects on the development of Hannah. And the musical consistency created by the executives.
  • Thanks for picking up. Moved.
  • Split!
  • Reworded.
  • Thanks for spotting that one.
  • Fixed.
  • Basically they could've received $18million but they were already $24million in debt. So no payment. It's written how the source states it so I'm not sure how I could write that without original research.
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • Reworded.
  • Shuffled.

I think that's it from me, in addition to a few tweaks that you can revert if you want to. Overall, great article! I definitely want to watch the series now. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Best of luck! Pamzeis (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pamzeis: Thank you for your comment and thanks for the suggestions. I have tried to respond to each above, and I hope it doesn't sound like I am negating too many of your ideas. I just hope I can help you to understand the purpose of some of the decisions. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have one more comment that is not that major:

Source review[edit]

  • Removed.
  • I have removed the use of this source aside from it being used for reception by a reviewer.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.
  • Due to this being an undergraduate work, I have removed.
  • Removed.
  • Removed.

There's also loads of academic coverage available at WP:RSP. Examples include:

And quite a bit more, just picking out a few.

I'm going to have to oppose on sourcing, given that the article uses quite a few lower-tier web sources at the expense of scholarly literature. Hog Farm Talk 06:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the source review. I have removed all of the sources listed above due to unreliability. Thank you for your list of academic coverage - I have actually already incorporated the "Tween Intimacy" source heavily in the article. I would like to incorporate more of these scholarly sources into the article, and I ask if you would be willing to provide another source review once that has been done? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How long do you expect this process of incorporating new sources to take? If it's just a few days, then this FAC can continue, but if it's going to take 2 weeks it's probably more appropriate to archive it at this point and renominate once complete. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: This can definitely be done within a few days. SatDis (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're done, and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 07:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related point on sourcing: I noticed that many of the sources have long page ranges, such as 66–82, 173–186, 225–241 etc. To improve verifiability, I try to keep all page ranges to 2 or 3 pages at most. According to previous discussions at WT:FAC, ranges longer than 10 pages should not be used. I would also provide a timestamp for where you can verify the information when citing a 20-minute long video. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I have added some further scholarly sources to the article and removed the unreliable sources. I have separated the long page ranges as suggested by @Buidhe: above and have added these journal articles to the "Bibliography" section. I have read through some further articles but I want to note that they wouldn't all have importance on this article, and I only want to add sources that have a significant use. The Vanity Fair video also has a timestamp. Thank you for looking over the sources again, and I hope the referencing is now of a higher standard. SatDis (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some spot-checks later, but the only further concern I have here with reliability/sourcing depth is that I'm not sure that DVDizzy is reliable to necessarily be WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion as a review/opinion. Hog Farm Talk 05:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm: let me know and I can easily remove the DVDizzy source. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose, but would still suggest removing the DVDizzy source. Hog Farm Talk 06:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you! I have removed the unreliable source. SatDis (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by TheJoebro64[edit]

Lede:

Premise

My first batch of comments. I'm just focusing on prose so it shouldn't take me long to do a full analysis. More to come. JOEBRO64 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheJoebro64: Thanks for the detailed comments! I have taken on board all of your suggestions. SatDis (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for the ping—I've just been extremely busy lately. I'll have some time tomorrow so I'll post my remaining comments in the morning. JOEBRO64 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. @SatDis:, sorry for keeping you waiting so long! Once these comments have been addressed you've got my full support. JOEBRO64 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by FrB.TG[edit]

  • Apologies, but there is a specific reason for this difference, and I am quoting from the article Apostrophe and they are different noun forms.
  • Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound - "all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation" - this is for Cyrus's
  • Basic rule (plural nouns) - "When the noun is a normal plural, with an added "s", no extra "s" is added in the possessive - this is for producers'
Ah, yes. That toally makes sense.

There is some work to be done but I think it can all be done in a reasonable amount of time. FrB.TG (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments, I addressed all of the above. And I apologise for the amount of NBSP issues, as I was unaware of it. Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for the prompt response.

Support on prose, good work. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate some feedback on my FAC. Totally understandable if the subject does not interest you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

This article already has more than 3 supports, but it looks like we're still missing an image review, planned spot checks by @Hog Farm:, and the review that @Pamzeis: was discussing above. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Informal spot checks I did came up clean, no copvio or source-text integrity noted in what I checked. Hog Farm Talk 06:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you!!! SatDis (talk)

Image review[edit]

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

I know I am late to the party, but this passes the criteria for a featured article. It is well written and well sourced. Well done, @SatDis:! --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2022 [144].


Nicoll Highway MRT station[edit]

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a Singapore MRT station that has a rather dark period during its construction history. Following what I learned from my previous two FAC nominations, I hope this will fit the criteria.ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==== Cmments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) ====

  • "S$270 million (US$150.7 million)" - inflation?
  • 100-by-130-by-30-metre is extremely awkward
  • Please specify "Circle line", "Republic Avenue", "Golden Mile Tower", and more. For example, "Circle line" to "Circle MRT line" with linking.
  • "intended" sounds like reading someone's intent. Removing them would be better for prose crispness, such as "The platform's dark, polished seats were intended to complement the rest of the station..." -> "The platform's dark, polished seats complement the rest of the station..."
  • List is not exhaustive

Overall: I found the article to be a good read, but I have a feeling that the prose can be better. I support the nomination for almost all criteria except 1a, 1c (haven't checked), and 1f (haven't checked). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will review this later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

History:

Station collapse:

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was decided against rebuilding at the original site due to engineering challenges and higher costs" - I suggest using active voice for this.
  • "while the 1.8 km (1.1 mi) tunnels" -This should be either "1.8 km (1.1 mi) of tunnels" or "1.8-km (1.1 mi) tunnels" (using 1.8-kilometre as an adjective)
  • "The new station site had thicker 1.5 m (4.9 ft) retaining walls reaching 60 metres (200 ft) in height[30] – twice the previous depth.[29] " - Two things here:
    • Does this mean the retaining walls are 1.5 metres thick, or the retaining walls are 1.5 metres thicker? If the former, I would suggest "The new station site had thicker retaining walls of 1.5 m (4.9 ft)"
    • Are the retaining walls 60 metres in height or in depth?
  • "On 29 September 2005, the LTA marked the start of the new station's construction with a ground-breaking ceremony" - The relocated site?
  • What happened between 29 September 2005, and 26 January 2010? That paragraph seems like it lacks detail, at least given how the section about the collapse has much more detail.
  • "Prior to its opening, passengers were offered a preview of the station" - This should be "Prior to the station's opening"; currently, the pronoun "it" refers to the noun "passengers" grammatically.
Services:
  • "that line had to be realigned as the new station did not have provisions for the line" - The word "line" is repeated twice in this sentence, being mentioned a total of three times, so I would rephrase this to make the sentence less repetitive.
  • By the way, has that future line been realigned at both Promenade and Nicoll Highway, or just Nicoll Highway?
  • Are the train frequencies all day?
Name and location
  • "As the name suggests, the station is located near Nicoll Highway underneath Republic Avenue" - For those who are unfamiliar with the area, it would help to add which neighborhood this station is in. More generally (for other MRT stations), it may be worth mentioning which region the station is in, like Central Region, Singapore, unless these regions get changed a lot.
  • "The name of the station was its working name" - This was the name given to the station while it was in planning?
  • "two other names for the station..." - This is also somewhat repetitive, given how it comes right after "the name of the station was its working name". I presume one of these was supposed to be the final names?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and has train frequencies ranging between 5 and 7 minutes " - I'd suggest condensing this to something such as "with trains running every 5 to 7 minutes"
Design:
  • "The two-level underground station has a length of 165 metres (541 ft) and the platforms are at a depth of 21.5 metres (71 ft)" - I would also condense this: e.g. "The two-level underground station is 165 metres (541 ft) long and the platforms are 21.5 metres (71 ft) deep"
  • "The platform's dark, polished seats were intended to complement the rest of the station's modern design" - Are these art seats?
    • No. Art seats only at interchange stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The station has two entrances, with Exit A of the station connecting to The Concourse via an overhead pedestrian bridge" - Two things here:
    • "The station has two entrances, with Exit A" should be consistent with regard to entrances/exits. So i.e. "The station has two exits"; however, I realise this could be repetitive.
    • ""The station has two entrances, with Exit A of the station" - The words "of the station" are unnecessary. I would suggest "The station has two exits, with Exit A
    • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are wider fare gates" - All of the fare gates are wide, or just some of them?
Artwork
  • "The station features Khiew Huey Chian's artwork" - Is this person potentially notable? If so, you can add a red link.
  • "four large 6-by-1-metre (19.7 by 3.3 ft) reliefs" - The word "large" can be removed, since the size is given right after.
  • "often-overlooked wild plants" - Are there examples?
  • "before the developments" - I suggest "before development" (singular).
  • "The work was intended to be in shades of white but was changed to grey as the original colour was associated with death" - I'd rephrase this too, e.g. "The work was intended to be in shades of white, but this colour was associated with death, so it was changed to grey."
  • "work would make reference to the tragic Nicoll Highway collapse" - This can be condensed too, such as "work would reference the Nicoll Highway collapse". User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing is a good page to consult if you want to remove such redundancies. "Tragic" could be seen as opinionated per MOS:WTW.
  • "During the artwork's production, one problem, which was later resolved, was the uneven backing of the material, which caused the colour shading to not "come out right" " - I would also rephrase this, since it is overly passive. For instance "During the artwork's production, there were concerns over the uneven backing of the material, which caused the colour shading to not "come out right", though this problem was later resolved." While this too is passive, it requires less punctuation.
  • "Hence, the work was limited to only four spaces" - The word "only" is redundant too. Also, should this be "four locations" instead of "four spaces"?
  • "Khiew hoped that commuters will" - This should be consistent in tense, i.e. "Khiew hoped that commuters would"
This is a decent article, and I didn't find too many problems with it. I understand it may be difficult to find sources about the post-collapse construction and station design, and this looks good otherwise. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All my concerns have been addressed. Though relatively short, this seems like a comprehensive article to me, considering the available coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for over three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it receives further in depth attention by the four week mark I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KN2731[edit]

I'll take a look at this as requested. I've previously reviewed the article for GA status last August. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things at first glance:

I'll look more closely once you've responded to the other 3 reviewers so I don't end up flagging an issue that's already been raised. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reviews so far. Addressed them. Well, the LTA in the source never specified which future line, though it's likely the Bukit Timah Line (now DTL2), or actually the Kallang line (the early Marina line plans suggested a branch to Kallang). This will probably remain lost among the discarded LTA archives... ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support at this stage. Great work. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Another nice article from you, and I see you've implemented some of my comments from Chinatown! :) I'll also do a source review too. Gerald WL 11:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 04:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "The station was first announced in November 1999 as part of the Marina MRT line (MRL). The MRL consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station." --> "Nicoll Highway station was first announced in November 1999 as part of the Mass Rapid Transit's Marina line (MRL), which consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station."
  • "In 2001, the station became part of CCL Stage 1" --> "In 2001, the station became part of Circle Line (CCL) Stage 1"
  • For the collapse subsection, add ((Main|Nicoll Highway collapse))
  • And link Nicoll Highway collapse to "caved in" on the first sentence.
  • "Through an investigation by a Committee of Inquiry (COI), the COI report concluded"-- this is pretty repetitive when read aloud. Suggest change to "An investigation report by a Committee of Inquiry (COI) concluded".
  • "and Boulevard (now Stadium) stations"-- remove Stadium duplicate link
  • Swapping "Name and location" and "Services" makes more sense to me, since usually on Wikipedia the site is discussed first then the services and design of the building.
  • Suggest giving the Exit A image an upright of 1.2 for image clarity
  • "On 26 January 2010, then Minister for Transport"-- link Ministry of Transport (Singapore)
  • "Nicoll Highway station serves the Circle line (CCL)" --> "Nicoll Highway station serves the CCL"
  • "The name of the station was its working name." Add "also" between "was" and "its" for clarity
  • Linking colour scheme looks like overlink to me
    • ZKang123, can you resolve this last point so I can give this FAC a support? GeraldWL 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I didnt really link colour scheme at all, so I didn't really say much about this. @Gerald Waldo Luis ZKang123 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there is, "Designed by ONG & ONG, the station has a colour scheme of black, grey and white." GeraldWL 04:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh I didn't notice that. Alright fixed. Thanks a lot. ZKang123 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]

The sources are similar to those of Chinatown so I pass this article for its source choices. However, ref 32 seems to have a formatting problem with the website parameter. Remove the urls in website parameter-- "journey.smrt.com.sg", "lta.gov.sg", "mot.gov.sg"-- as they're redundant duplicates of the publisher. Link Singapore Land Authority.

Coord note

I'll look through this FAC tomorrow to see if it's ready to promote. (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 2 February 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.
More