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) 30 October 2022 [1].

Aliens (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1986 science fiction action film Aliens directed by James Cameron and starring Sigourney Weaver, in what would be the first of the two trendsetting sequels he made. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lankyant[edit]

That's it for now, will go through the rest of the article when I get chance :) Lankyant (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lankyant, all changed Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comments from ErnestKrause[edit]

Some comments about this well-written article which I've just noticed to get things started.

(1) There is an odd redirect to this film page from "M56 Smart Gun" even though there is no article for "M56 Smart Gun"; it just seems to redirect to the top of the Aliens film article with no explanation.

(2) In the lead section, you do mention this is the second film in the franchise, which is accurate. Given the strength of your Sequels section at the end of this article, it seems like it would be useful to state how large the franchise is in the lead section. For example, 'it is the second film in the 12 films in the Alien franchise', or, 'it is the second film in the two dozen films in the Alien franchise.' I'm not sure of the exact number but you might know it from memory.

(3) In the Plot summary, my memory is that the weapons and guns in this film received a good deal of screen time when I watched it. There are the scenes where the Marines are drilling with their M56A2 Smart Guns as if preparing for battle, and doing prepatory weapons drills, etc. Also there is the prominent scene of some extended length featuring the UA 571-C Sentry Guns which takes on the swarm of attacking Aliens. Can these be mentioned or added in some way into the Plot section since they were prominently featured in the film? (One link for the M56 is here [2], and one link for the Sentry Gun in here [3].)

(4) You did give some information about the German origin of the Smart Gun in the next sections, though you do not cover the Sentry Gun. Could this be added? My thoughts are that once you add some of the details about the Smart Gun and the Sentry Gun used in the film, that this would be the better place to link the re-direct of the M56 I mentioned above in my note #1 with an indexed link to this new section, rather than an unindexed link to the article as a whole.

(5) My recollection is that there was a novelization made for this film, separately from the graphic novels which you already mention in this article. Possibly you can find this on one of the book seller websites on the internet with its author and publisher.

Its a short list for now to get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the redirect
  • The rest of the franchise is discussed in the last paragraph of the lead since it comes after the film's release,production, etc
  • It looks like just under a dozen films in the franchise; can you state that in the first paragraph. For example, in the Bond franchise it is typical to include the number in the series in the 1st paragraph of the lead section, such as the GA for Diamonds are Forever which was the 'seventh' (and final Eon Productions film) in the franchise. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I read in the franchise article on Wikipedia is that there were 4 films in the original series: I, II, III and Resurrection. Could you change the wording in the lead paragraph of the lead section to state: "...the second of four films in the original Alien franchise." Or, something like that.
  • Hi Ernest, this is covered in the last paragraph of the lead that covers other films, it mentions the number of sequels, plus prequels, plus the standalone film I added info about yesterday. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't really be appropriate to specifically mention the weapons in the plot as there is a strict limit on how long plot sections can be, and mentioning the guns by name would not add to the understanding of the plot.
  • May include a mention of the one or the other. The scene with the Sentry gun lasted about 6-7 minutes in the film. It seems like it was more than just a cameo. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentry guns aren't in the theatrical cut, they're only in the extended versions and the plot covers the theatrical cut. I've researched some behind the scenes info about the guns and put it in the special effects section. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice addition by you about the sentry guns from yesterday." ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked the M56 to that section discussing the smart gun. There is no info about the sentry guns but that's because they were just kind of basic creations and there isn't much information about them. Because of the existing length of the article they're currently beyond its scope, but if I am ever able to obtain some of the more detailed design background literature, I might be able to split the special effects section off and make it larger.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does have an article for Sentry gun which could be used for adding some details for this history of where this type of gun came from, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added info about the novel

Adding 6 & 7 below:

(6) The 4th paragraph of the lead section uses the phrase: "and both one of the best science fiction and action films and..". The conjunctions in one sentence does not look encyclopedia in presentation, can the sentence be tweaked.

(7) The next film in the franchise currently under way is to be directed by Fede Álvarez and to be produced by Ridley Scott, is this worth a mention in your Sequels section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty good writing in the article as a whole, let me know about the opening sentences in the lead section about it being the second of four films. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support this well-written article about this film. I've also recently listed a FAC nomination for the popular culture figure Yuzuru Hanyu on the FAC page in case you might have any time for support/oppose comments. (From your other edits elsewhere, I've read the BFI book on Seven and you could ping me if you'd like a co-editor or co-nominator to improve that article.) ErnestKrause (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ErnestKrause, I forgot to reply to this, I will take a look at your FA nomination if its still up and I might take you up on the BFI Seven book offer. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still keeping this as an offer to refine and expand on edits as needed. The Richard Dyer book on Seven from BFI is short and well-written [4]; if you have a copy available in your local library then it could likely be read over a single week-end. If you create a things-to-do list for editing the Seven article, I'll try to response with positive edits or comments; just ping me when you are ready to move forward with it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Support and Comment from Lankyant 2[edit]

I will take another look through this article but I am happy to support. Brilliant work and a very good and informative read. Lankyant (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lankyant, all doneDarkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I did use the sources that contained relevant information, some might just mention Aliens by name in comparison to something else but the ones with analysis are in the analysis section. Removed the dupelink Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To take bias out of it I just went off the cast credited in the film's opening. Based on the casting section regarding Ross, I get the impression he may have originally had a larger role given he chose this over Full Metal Jacket, and so he got a bigger credit that carried over. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's credit as alien warrior but he portrays all the alien warriors or at least the more prominent on-screen ones Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The conversion figures are just done automatically with the Wikipedia template Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I've researched both these things and I gotta be honest, I don't think they belong in the article. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Alien 2: On EArth was released 6 years before Aliens and seems more relevant to the article on Alien. The sources I can find for Galaxy of Terror suggest it shares some visual similarties to Aliens but there is no information saying Cameron took any particular influence from it more than it just being his design style for science fiction settings. Maybe I am missing something. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this a bit and removed Caucasian, I just thought that was the proper term from watching the COPS tv show. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your solution works, could also have been swapped with "white". FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the info Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find further info that could describe the particular alien sting in more detail, it is at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Koxkg7C216c about 1 minute here NSFW obviously), but I've added a link to the article about what a sting is. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the three above, because there is a main article for the alien creatures and their lifecycle, I've covered the basics but tried not to go into too much detail because of this as it helped keep the word count down. Let me know what you think Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As hinted below, I think something like this is much more relevant and interesting here (can be kept short) than tangential info about the entire franchise. Particularly the info about the change of the "drones" is a must, even if you don't add anything else. Because the way it is written now ("but was not as concerned with the warrior aliens because they were onscreen only briefly") indicates they were kept as they were in the first film, when they were actually changed on his request. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done though I didn't find any reference to queen termites. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence was fine, it was just oddly worded. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I included these here because they exist because of Aliens and the expansion of the universe in this film Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps condense it to a shorter sentence (all we need to know is there were more spinoffs in various media, not that there was specifically a crossover of aliens and Superman etc.)? Especially since you already say all you need to say with "It also expanded the Alien series into a franchise, spanning video games, comic books, and toys". It seems like way too much detail in a very tangential area, especially since you express a desire to keep the article slimmed down. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now this sentence hangs alone, could be part of the same paragraph as before: "A novelization by Alan Dean Foster was released alongside the film.[163][164]" FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I will have separated it out while I worked and forgot to put it back! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DOne Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I'd not noticed tbh. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, this is ignorance on my part, even reading up on it I'm not 100% the difference between Latin and Hispanic, but I've changed it. It's confusing because the casting part says she was attempting to draw oin Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These terms are a minefield, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In Aliens (1986), for example, Berg points out that the viewer is confronted with opposing images of motherhood: the restricted brood—one adopted child—of Caucasian Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the indiscriminate procreation of the dark Alien Queen Mother."Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to this? Just an interview saying he liked the film. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find it anymore anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Funk! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

Starting to look, but seeing "The series also has prequels to Alien, Prometheus (2012) and Alien: Covenant (2017), as well as a standalone film is in development as of 2022." in the lead paragraph is not filling me with hope. If it's full of sentences like this it won't be suitable. John (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the whole article, I don't think I can yet support. Purely based on the standard of prose, it is not there yet. Some sample issues:

I stress that these are sample sentences; I think the entire article would need to be copyedited before I could support. John (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes. I will have a re-read through it, it has been copyedited in December 2020 though by Miniapolis. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Darkwarriorblake. I consider myself a halfway-decent copyeditor, but I took a look at the history and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in almost two years. That was a demanding copyedit, and I'll leave it to another set of eyes. All the best, Miniapolis 18:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through it and tidied it up some more John Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, did you want to revisit? If you don't have time I might recuse and run through myself but you get first refusal... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ian Rose, I took an initial hack at it. I think it needs quite a bit more; probably nothing that can't be fixed, but I am getting bonked for tonight, and you are welcome to take a shot if you're in a hurry. John (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I wrote this all initially but I think I wanted to emphasize this guy was a truck driver like only two films ago and had churned out The Terminator and Aliens at the start of his career. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Tetrachloride is a disambiguation page. Which meaning is intended? John (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John, I've also trimmed the larger quotes on the reception section. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheJoebro64[edit]

Marking my spot. Always loved this film (and its predecessor). JOEBRO64 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should start my review later today, sorry for the wait JOEBRO64 12:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Loved the article. Nice to see this '80s classic get the Wikipedia treatment it deserves. Good work. JOEBRO64 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and copy editing Joe. Is benchmark better than touchstone or is that still considered an Idiom? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: I actually did some looking and it doesn't look like dictionaries consider "touchstone" idiomatic (they usually specify if you do) so I guess it's fine to stay; I just wasn't sure. I guess you can consider this my declaration of support. JOEBRO64 00:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro[edit]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

At first glance the prose looks pretty good and I'm hoping this will be a quick review with not too many comments as I work through a more thorough read here.

Hi Moisejp, I've tried addressing the first two concerns. The third, unfortunately there isn't much more information about it, it seems to be taken from a long lost MovieFone interview and when other publications discuss it, they do so in a context that seems to imply we're meant to understand she gave him dead flowers because Burke is the villain, but none I've found mention the context behind it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was me I would consider taking out the flowers information altogether, as it seems to possibly raise more questions than the information it adds. But if you disagree, I won't insist. :-)
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To do Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started my second read-through. I hope to finish within the next couple of days and will check your above changes during this read-through, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I really enjoyed this article. Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Moisejp, sorry I didn't see you had replied after saying you were starting your second read-through. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Christie, I think that's everything? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like two nitpicks left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties mainly to copyedit, I think following everyone's efforts so far the article is in pretty good shape. Going to pause before hitting Analysis and beyond... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed hte title case. I've googled improvisation vs improvization and noone really seems to endorse improvization? It's an alternative spelling but improvisation seems to be the accepted US spelling as well according to sites such as The Free Dictionary Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:13, 30 October 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) 29 October 2022 [7].

Duckport Canal[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take two on this one. Last time couldn't attract many reviews; maybe it'll be of more interest this time around. Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Please, please write an article in the style of how you talked on the farm.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been open 48 hours yet. Absolutely no rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I haven't addressed clearly enough in the article that chunks of the path of these canals were going through existing swamps/bayous that of course had obnoxious vegetation in them. I'll get that cleared up when I get back into the sources in a couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Bearss arrived and I've added some material from his work; hopefully things are a little clearer now. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I forgot that. Good. I think that will bring the canal into context. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention of both Vicksburg being the last point for awhile in 1862 and the later fortification of Port Hudson. I also took the time to recite the last bit of American Battlefield Trust referencing, as I felt that was an example of lazy referencing. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges[edit]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Comments from Harry[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support The only thing I see to quibble about is the three events that took place on April 18, the dates seem to be a bit awkward. Can they be consolidated a bit?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm smoothed the phrasing out here. Hog Farm Talk 13:13, 28 October 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) 29 October 2022 [8].

HMS Aigle (1801)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fifth-rate sailing frigate that served in the Royal Navy at the tail end of the French Revolutionary wars and throughout the Napoleonic war. She took part in some notable actions and campaigns, including the controversial Battle of Basque Roads and the disastrous Walcheren campaign. As can be seen from the edit history, I have done a not inconsiderable amount of work to the article since it became a Good Article in 2016. I have looked at the criteria for featured article and humbly believe it meets them. I am sure, however, that it can be improved and look forward to suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Ping me if I haven't started by Thursday. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the action off Groix; will get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. I am away this weekend and may not be able to attend to this promptly but will as soon as I return. Thanks for taking the trouble to review.--Ykraps (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Lead

"and the other a land campaign" ?
I've used the term amphibious to indicate this was both a land and sea operation (the bombardment of Flushing for example). --Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But in this case it refers to a land force.
I think this has been settled by my answer above but let me know if you disagree. --Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That reads "where she was converted to a coal hulk and receiving ship". Ie simultaneously, not sequentially. I admit that the former seems a bit improbable, but I am AGF that it reflects the source.
Ah, I see. She was dual purpose. I've clarified in the main body and altered the lead to agree. --Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thus far. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Are you still intending to add to this? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have responded to all of my comments I will go through your responses, which may or may not lead to further comments from me. Once we have settled those I will do another read through which again may or may not lead to further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body

In Battle of Lagos I describe them as "smaller and faster than ships of the line and primarily intended for raiding, reconnaissance and messaging"; would something similar be possible?
Added. --Ykraps (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
Neat.
I usually footnote this as "A ship's "colours", a national flag or battle ensign, are hauled down from her mast, or "struck", to indicate that the ship has surrendered. (Wilhelm, 1881, p. 148)"
Okay, I've stolen your footnote but used my own reference to save adding more sources. --Ykraps (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to repeat "prize", but up to you.
Okay, changed. --Ykraps (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the footnote, is "after" a typo for 'either'? And link en flûte.
Ah, gotcha. No, after in this case refers to post engagement. I've rewritten to incorporate 'either' so as to reinforce that this was an either/or thing and not that they were one and the same. --Ykraps (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it for a first pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good. A few further comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe support[edit]

You've done what I was hoping for. I would, by the way, consider the NC a book. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back later to add more. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just copy and paste that in as it is. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfe's biography here. The description is similar but worded differently; I'll leave it up to you what sources you choose to use. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the correct form. In a nutshell, Clarence is the younger son of a marquess. His older brother, the heir, gets a subsidiary title and in this case was Lord Paget and then Lord Uxbridge. Clarence, and his other lesser siblings, have the honorary title Lord/Lady before their names, but have no title to hand down to their children. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Believe that it's a summary of a sailing report written up in Gardiner's own words. You don't have to discuss it all, some might work better in a class article, but at least a mention of her characteristics/speed would be good. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have one eye toward an Aigle-class article but have added a bit. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first run through complete. Might have more once you've finished with these. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Just a few points I need clarifying before I can proceed. Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: Have replied above, nudge me if I've missed any queries. Re the confusing Winfield dates/numbers, it might be worth asking him on his talk page. I agree that it might be unwise to include them while there's some uncertainty. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have provided the answers I needed and I've added to the article accordingly. I have sent Rif Winfield an email. Hopefully he can shed some light on those figures and I can add those bits too. --Ykraps (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have spoken to Rif and he is certain that Aigle paid off in 1813. He isn't sure of when exactly but, in light of the info in the Gazette, thinks it must have been in the latter half of the year. The figure of 990 is also correct. Aigle was not cut down, only her quarter deck and fo'c'sle were removed so would not affect the measurements used to calculate her tonnage. The slight increase in size, he thinks, is due to her sides bulging through settlement. I have added these bits of information to the article. Rif also gave some extra information which because of referencing issues, can't currently be used. If we can find a way to source it correctly, it can be added at a later date but unfortuneatly that can't be done in time for this review. --Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Alright. Some final quibbles from me:
  • Link Cochrane's rank in the lede
  • Remove the trailing zero in the depth of hold figures
  • Okay, done (as you're the second person to ask) --Ykraps (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upper gun deck" - this suggests Aigle had more than one gun deck, which she didn't
  • No. Another copy and paste error. Removed. --Ykraps (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gundeck or dun deck? Differs between text and infobox
  • Gone with the WP article on this one; gun deck. --Ykraps (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bow draught doesn't need an inches figure
  • at the stern
  • Remove italics from quotation
  • Done. Thought that was the MOS for some reason. --Ykraps (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Franchise in main text, and can note as a 40-gun frigate
  • Still some issues with ship descriptions, e.g. Magnificent doesn't get anything, Gertrude gets "12-gun HM hired armed schooner", and Naiad just gets "36-gun"
  • Okay, I've made a few fixes including Magnificent and Naiad, although I would humbly suggest the latter's RN status could be inferred and therefore, the prefix isn't necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you sometimes drop the "HMS" when listing RN ships?
  • The guidelines say that the prefix should be used on the first use only and omitted thereafter. However, "The prefix need not be given if it is obvious from context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS")". In addition, an HMS at the front of a list could stand for His Majesty's ships (plural). I also try to avoid using HMS when the vessel in question isn't a fully-rigged-ship as that would technically be incorrect usage. I do, of course, make mistakes so if I've missed anything else, please let me know. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capturing one gun boat" one non-hyphened gun-boat has slipped through
  • Got them all now, I think. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main text doesn't have anything for 1806, suggest adding the detention of Jonge Brouwer
  • I'm not sure what I could write other than she was detained. It appears that Aigle's crew got some prize money so perhaps some contraband was confiscated but this isn't obvious from the source. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the 28 June"
  • "74-gun HMS Pembroke and the 44-gun Alcmene,"
  • You use both Ville de Varsovie and Varsovie, better to stick to one or the other
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes and replies all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Hi although I know the interests of the three MilHist reviewers are pretty diverse, I'd feel more comfortable if someone outside the MilHist fraternity could give this the once-over to help ensure accessibility to the wider audience. Mike or Tim, would either of you have a bit of time for this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't get to it for at least three or four days, so I'll defer to Tim if he's available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I write in the MilHist community, you are the only editor here that I know. I have the standard American ignorance of European history; I do not recognize a single one of the campaigns noted. My knowledge of sailing vessels is pretty much limited to info gained from the Hornblower novels. So, do I satisfy your want ad for a "naive" volunteer reviewer?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George, pls go for it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SUPPORT from Georgejdorner[edit]

At times, I may comment on an item not realizing it is acceptable British usage. A reply of "British English" will suffice for me to strike the comment.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and armament

No infelicities found.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service

Para 3 - What type of ships were Charente and Joie?
Charente was a fully-rigged-ship and joie, a brig. Added. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you mean, were they warxhips or merchant ships? --Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are obviously warships. Additions appreciated.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action off Groix

Para 2 - Mentioning the French frigates' names will enhance the readability of the para. The reader also needs the nationality or identity of the grounding frigate to clarify the action.
The names, Italienne and Sirene, and nationality are given in the opening sentence. Was that missed or do you want them repeated somewhere? The identity of the grounded frigate isn't known and this is explained in a footnote but I could weave that into the text if necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The names are indeed mentioned in the opening sentence of para 1. However, I find para 2 vague and ambiguous.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Basque Roads

Para 2, 2nd sentence - It is my understanding that a ship would be anchored on springs to allow it a greater field of fire. Did that advantage come into play in this battle? Is that why the British ships anchored in a crescent?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that the French ships grounded side on, hence the need for springs. Without them, the tide would have held the British ships bow on to their targets, unable to present their broadside. Unfortunately the sources go into such detail and the precise reason isn't given. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in sources, then that's the end of it.
However, common sense dictates the ability to shift the direction of gunnery fire as an obvious advantage.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walcheren Campaign

Para 2, 4th sentence - Something's missing here. What is the significance of the 5,700 French troops?Georgejdorner (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was under French control. Now added. --Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, reinforcements. I see now.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Wikipedia's Napoleonic wars article lists Nederlands as a British ally, which may have been true of the government in exile but not the Dutch people, who, in the main, were on the side of the French. --Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which facts were previously known to me, ignorant Yankee that I am.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para - Is the Phoenix a privateer then? Or is she a seaborne mercenary?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a mercenary is paid irrespective whereas a privateer takes a share of the spoils if there are any. Is she described as a mercenary? --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading, I came upon mention of the letter of marque, which means she was a privateer. Comment struck.

Mediterranean Service

First para - Are the types known for the scuttled ships?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Again, sources don't say. --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war and fate
Postwar fate?

The hyphen is an Engvar thing. I like the post-war fate suggestion but the style seems to be to have a section about the ship's fate. I've changed to post-war service and ... --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Engvar is obviously correct here. However, it's the 'and' that I was questioning as superfluous. Your change makes this moot.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1, sentences 3 & 4 - Is there any connection behind this shipyard renovation and the frigate's earlier battle damage in the same location?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more likely to be wear and tear caused by the length of time at sea but sources don't say. --Ykraps (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no source, no fact(s).Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para - How can a sunken ship be sold off and scrapped?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She would have been recovered first. I believe the waters to have been shallow enough to make this worthwhile. Added as much as I can without straying into OR territory. --Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, she had to be salvaged. I just thought that might be more info lurking in your sources.Georgejdorner (talk)

Prizes

Is it possible to differentiate between full or partial prizes?
Table is very nicely done.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because sources aren't always terribly clear on that point, there is a danger of accidentally entering into OR. --Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can only go as far as your sources take you.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Para 2, sentence 2 - Should more accurately read, "...Aigle went on to help force the surrender of the stranded ships-of-the-line..." if the description in the main text is to be believed.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: A very informative article, one containing a great depth of fact without becoming overwhelming. I found little to comment upon, and to even pick those nits I really had to chase the dog.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: Thanks for doing this. I have answered your queries but there are a couple of points you may want to discuss further. --Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was quite satisfied by your answers. I'm voting Support.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:46, 29 October 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) 28 October 2022 [19].

Galton Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As my long-suffering wife would say, "it's a bridge". It is, indeed, a bridge. Not an ancient bridge like my previous bridge FA but still nearly 200 years old. An elegant single span in cast iron (then still a novel material) and built by one of the most famous engineers of the 19th century. Both the road it carries and the canal it crosses are vestiges of a transport network that was once Britain's lifeblood.

Until recently, this article was a stub, containing just six sentences (one of them about a different bridge!). It's still not a long article (just under 1500 words), but I think the bibliography shows that I've searched far and wide for information. As always, I'm eager to hear any feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The benefit of a fresh pair of eyes, and a local at that! All addressed I believe. Thank you very much for having a look, Chris. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Both done. Thank you, Szmenderowiecki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Almost in my back yard.

It doesn't seem tangential to me; it's the base reason for the bridge's existence. If it is that off the point, why is it currently mentioned?
It just seemed a step too remote to me. The bridge exists because the cutting exists, the cutting exists to carry the canal, and it's the canal that experienced the increase in traffic, which ideally should be covered in the article on the canal (the two main lines should probably have separate article and Smethwick Cutting might be worthy of its own). But I can track down some stats.
Ok, I now see where you are coming from, but I disagree. The reason why the bridge was necessary at all seems crucial to me. If you could add a stat based couple of sentences, that would be good.
Perhaps something like 'and a now partially infilled cutting originally built for a ...'?
I reworded it slightly. See what you think.
Looks fine.

And that trivia is all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the stats bit left from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I'm having more trouble with this than I anticipated. There are a lot of stats in the books but mostly about shareholder dividends and amalgamations of various canal companies rather than traffic volumes. They talk at some length about the queues that formed at the locks but there's no statistic for how much traffic had grown, even less so on this one canal as the owning company was constantly building and acquiring new bits of canal. It turns out, though, that the immediate impetus for the development was the imminent threat of railway competition, which I've added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

A pleasing article. A few minor drafting points:

That's my lot. Nothing to frighten the horses (if, that is, horses are allowed over the bridge nowadays). – Tim riley talk 14:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I pride myself on writing to a high standard but I learn something new about the English language every time every time you review one of my FACs! Though I'm surprised to see you popping up in the Black Country! Fear not, my likely next FAC is inside the M25! ;) I think I've addressed all but the last of your comments. Would you believe that none of the sources deem it important to mention what colour the bridge was painted? It looks largely black to me, but with redish-brown highlights, but that's veering dangerously close to original research. Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How nice! Thank you, Harry. (My mother taught English and some of it rubbed off on me.) I am perfectly prepared to venture outside the M25 – armed with a stout stick, of course – but I look forward to your next FAC nearer home. As to this one, it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: comprehensive, as far as I can see, well and widely sourced, nicely illustrated and an excellent read. Keep 'em coming, I say. – Tim riley talk 12:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Thanks for enhancing this article on a bridge that is both pretty and handsome. I only have a few questions and suggestions...

Consistencies

Refs

Possible categories

Clarification?

That's all from me. JennyOz (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennyOz, a few replies above but otherwise all addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2022 [20].

Eunice Newton Foote[edit]

Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first known scientist to link warming CO2 with climate change. She was also one of the signers of the Declaration of Sentiments at the first conference ever held (1848) to solely focus on women's rights. Her story was lost until uncovered by women academics who initiated women's studies programs and then ignored again until a retired geologist rediscovered her scientific contributions in 2011 in the digital age. Much controversy surrounded substantiating her contributions to science because scientific historians believed that John Tyndall had been the first to note the phenomena of global warming. Her 200th birthday in 2019 sparked massive media coverage about her and last week the BBC did a feature podcast about her.

Notes on sourcing: Primary does not equate to bad or unreliable. Because it was impossible to know if the information contained in modern sources was repeating mistakes of other press, I verified in primary records contemporaneous to her life, all details regarding her biography given in sourcing. The links that appear as red highlights (if you have that gadget installed) with one exception meet our criteria for limited use of primary sourcing, i.e. anyone can verify without original research or conclusion that they state simple facts and were created by government entities who were not likely to be promoting or misstating information. The one exception is an article written by Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and posted on Facebook. It meets our criteria (WP:selfpub) for inclusion because she has published elsewhere and is a noted expert on climate. For the science, because it is outside my area of expertise, and because it wasn't well understood in her day, I used modern analysis to confirm her contributions and sought assistance from @XOR'easter and Ipigott: to confirm that it was represented correctly. Further improvements were made through the suggestions of Gog the Mild during the GA review. SusunW (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • linked.
  • changed to attendance.
  • Not physics, but natural philosophy.
  • added his dates
  • done
  • done
  • Yes, I get that but the bit between the two dashes are explanatory and though they give important information are not digress from the subject of the sentence. I totally get that our MOS says citations after punctuation, but in this case, it would be silly, as none of the information between the two dashes is verified in 4 and 72. IMO, placing the citations after the first dash would indicate that it is part of the digression, which it is not, but I'm happy to follow your direction on it.
I would have expected both sets to be before the dash, in a similar way to cites and parentheses. But I wasn't so concerned as to which way you handled it as with the apparent inconsistency.
I still find it totally bizarre to cite a reference before the text in which it is verifying. I have moved the initial cites to follow the punctuation after unclear, as the citations after the dash verify that she didn't read her own paper. Does that work?
  • No clue. She could have been studying it for years. But, since she published it in 1857, I changed it to read "By 1857, she was conducting..."
  • done
  • I believe similarly is correct. It's the adverb which is modifying the verb made, not an adjective modifying a noun. My test is always to write it as a comparison, i.e. Similar vessels were similarly made.
  • no she used a pair of vessels and then repeated testing them in paired situations sunlight/shadow, etc. I added "for each vessel" to the end. Better?
  • done

Bravo! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, mi amigo. I am very appreciative of your constant help and encouragement to improve articles. SusunW (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. Well done on another excellent and much needed article. Just the dash and cite issue left, but no reason for that to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought

Thanks Gog. Good observation. She doesn't say in the US, but her analysis "colonial" and "the South" make it obvious that is what she meant. I've changed per your suggestion, but tweaked it a bit with "published in the United States".

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Lovely to see this at FAC, I've been looking forward to reviewing this. I'll make some copy-edits as I go, please feel free to revert/discuss any of my changes. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So happy to work with you again. Happy to discuss anything that will improve the article and happy to have you make edits directly. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. I've tweaked it. Better?
  • Inconsistency resolved, but it still feels like a tad too much detail for me in the lead. There's three different, rather complex "firsts" there. To me, "It was the first known publication in physics by a woman in a scientific journal" is far and away the most important of those claims. I would drop the sentence about publication in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science from the lead. I'd also suggest some reordering, which I did and then self-reverted to show you what I mean; I think that flows more easily. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. I've accepted your version.
  • sister. Changed wording to "died at two years old".
  • Perhaps it is a common boarding/private school experience? Certainly not part of my schooling experience. If you broke the rules in my day, your parents were called to take you home. Morality was taught at home and no student would ever have been allowed to challenge authority, much less their grades. But I've struck the information.
I am sorry to see it go. I think that it would be interesting scene-setting information for many, possibly most, readers. Please consider reinstating it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to this. If we think of it in terms of women's history, not general history that omitted women, do we really think that since this was one of the handful of institutions that allowed women to even attend, that allowing women/girls to challenge their marks (or anything else) was common? I am leaning to putting it back, but will await Vanamonde's reply. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw these replies yesterday, but wanted to think on it for a bit...so forgive the lengthy response. There's things about the circumstances Foote grew up in that likely had an impact on her adult life. Some of those things are likely typical for someone in her position; others, less so. Looking at the stuff that was cut, I can see an argument to restore some of it, but I'm reluctant to suggest restoring it all. The sentence about students being able to challenge their marks is actually quite unusual. But students receiving merits and demerits is what I would have expected of any school modelled even remotely on a British public school, and if it must be in there, I suggest placing it in a footnote. Similarly: I think "modeled the school's curricula on his methodology and wrote textbooks encouraging students to study nature" is worth reinstating, but I'm not sure about the list of subjects taught at the school, unless there's information about which ones Foote herself studied, or the suggestion in any of the sources that the opportunity to study any of the unusual ones influenced her in any way. Hope that makes sense, happy to discuss further. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my harping on women's history, but without putting her life in a woman's sphere, one misses how remarkable it was. The point of context is not general education or general history, it's women's education and history, as historically women's experiences were far different and certainly not documented or studied. As for the subjects taught, if girls were permitted to go to school at all they got a finishing school education. Standard curricula was etiquette, French, poetry, music, needlework, and painting. The fact that real educational courses were even offered to women at Troy is astounding. Okay, I found a source and will modify the text for context.[21] (As for what she actually studied, no clue, but having educational choices in and of itself would have been influential to my mind. I wrote to numerous libraries as well as Perlin trying to find out more specific information about her schooling and life. No one provided any information, but as far as I can tell my research uncovered all the points except how Eunice and Elisha met, that he covered in the recent BBC podcast.)
Perhaps then the issue isn't the detail, but that its significance isn't quite communicated. As someone who doesn't really know the history of women's education, it wasn't obvious at all that this was pathbreaking. Unusual, sure, but I didn't consider it may be unusual even for well-to-do progressive women. It still also begs the question if the material isn't better covered at the article about the seminary...I'll look in once you've revised. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, globally, educational curricula fail to give context and general knowledge about women's experiences. It is both frustrating and exhilarating to write about them because context is often missing and must be unburied. It is hard to identify what information I know from years of study, but others do not know for unintentional gaps in their own education. Obviously, it is why collaboration is beneficial.
This looks good to me now. If you wanted to reinstate the sentence about Phelps modelling teaching methods after Eaton's, that would be fine with me also. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's gone with the modification.
  • I've taken a stab at it. If you want to make other changes please feel free, or explain to me in more detail.
  • See comment above.
  • Hmmm. From a US women's history standpoint, Stanton is a major figure. While her father may be notable in his own right, he is primarily known now for being Stanton's father. Omitting their relationship to explain who he was makes him just a judge, who happened to train Elisha. I'm happy to discuss, but removing it to me alters critical context for the article.
  • So, I think I agree with you on the principle. Which is why, to me, it sounds odd the way she's introduced; as if someone were name-dropping. Stanton is important; but as far as I can see, the connection to Elisha is incidental. Which is why I'd suggested leaving her out of the introduction to Elisha...but I see it doesn't work with the information about Stanton house. I've adjusted to fix the run-on sentence, take a look. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Eunice and Elizabeth met during schooling, whether as actual classmates or because Eunice attended with Elizabeth's siblings. Had any definitive information linked the two during schooling, and I would introduced Elizabeth earlier. But, lacking documentation of an earlier relationship, I opted to put that information in a note. I can think of no easy way to introduce the relationship. The entwining of these families is pretty clear from the records, but not specifically stated anywhere, so we are limited in what we can and cannot say. Your version is fine.
  • Similarly, the Stanton House, is part of the Women's Rights National Historical Park, thus his involvement in its acquisition is significant, but it seems abrupt to just say he bought it without context that he was speculating in land. IMO, removing the discussion about the property removes an important part of women's history and its context. See below.
  • I think what you have in this version is fine, and adding that Foote was a speculator is okay; it was the detail about when he was a speculator, and also the multiple purchases and sales, that were bothering me.
  • I tried this, but don't like the flow so I've reorganized the entire section. Better?
Much better, thank you!
  • done
  • I'm confused? The photograph of the publishing in the article shows her name Eunice Foote, but then again, perhaps not everyone can see the photo. (And you are correct, as a married woman, using her own given name would have been highly unusual.) I've modified it and linked given name.
  • I missed the picture, but the modification is still worthwhile, IMO. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Praise. Tweaked.
  • No idea. If, as seems likely, it was the one Elisha patented, it was an ice skate.
  • I'm confused. I already explained that it was typical for him and other husbands to patent her/their wife's inventions, because legally she had no separate identity. If he did patent her invention, it would have been perfectly normal (and certainly not scandalous in any way), but I did not draw that conclusion (no OR), merely stated facts as given in the sources. (For the record, I did a thorough search of patent records and there is nothing that indicates any other patent for a skate filed by either of them.) How is the Emporia News written by a "Washington correspondent of the Missouri Democrat" primary? It isn't an interview and is independent of Foote.
  • Perhaps I phrased it badly...The sentence cited to Emporia is fine. It's about Eunice, it's a secondary source, etc. The sentence cited to the patent is, in isolation, fine, and is supported by its source. But given the earlier context, its inclusion and placement does imply to the reader that the patent was for Eunice's invention. Which seems probable, but I don't think we can imply it. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that I am implying anything. I am stating two facts without analyzing the statements in any way. It could be that they are the same skate, or it could be that they are not. IMO, you are drawing a conclusion based on those two facts. (Obviously I cannot document in independent sources that there is no other filing on a skate by either Foote, nor that I researched patents. There is no source analyzing the fact as they are known, so I don't think we can go beyond stating them, but it is a question that perhaps future researchers can unravel.) It can be moved to a note, if you think that is necessary.
  • I don't think you intend to imply anything, but I think that's the effect...I would prefer it be moved, yes. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved to a note
  • She was a woman, of course she fell into obscurity. But for a handful of women, they all did until women's studies programs emerged around 1970. But your point is taken. I'll revisit when I revisit the following bullet point.
  • done
  • I need to give this some thought.
  • I've given it a go. Better?
  • Structurally far better, IMO. You could merge death as a subsection into Marriage and Family Life, to avoid a single-sentence section: or alternatively title the next one "death and rediscovery", and place the death and first paragraph about obscurity at the top...but those are just stylistic preferences, and suggestions only. I've made and self-reverted some edits to show an example of how it could be done. The proseline and topical back-and-forth is fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like moving her death before the discussion of her work and don't really like it in the recovery section either, so I've left it as it is, but made it 2 sentences.
  • Leonard is not Eunice's sister (see below). Eunice's sibling were Amanda, Cynthia, Morris, Seymour, Amanda II, Althea, Darius, Silas, Mary, Adeline, (Eunice), and John.
  • See next response.
  • I'm not sure how you are making this connection between Ermina Leonard and Eunice Newton. They were extremely distant cousins and it seems highly doubtful that they would have ever even met, since Leonard says she knows nothing of that line of the family beyond what she found doing research on Eunice's grandfather, Isaac Newton Sr.(p 717) Leonard was born in 1846 and grew up in Wisconsin. (p 381) She was possibly a 4th cousin of Eunice?, which to my mind isn't primary. Thirza is a pretty obscure name and the fact that there are records listing a Thirza, much less a Thirza Newton in Seneca Falls seems significant to me. I've tweaked the note and will remove it if you think I must.
  • It was the commas in the footnote..."According to Leonard, Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea..." even in the new version, it's possible to read that as Leonard being Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister. So that's no longer an issue. As to the rest of it, though, I really think it's tangential. It's interesting, but Eunice is playing no part it in. Perhaps move it to Elisha's article? It concerns his land speculation, it's fair game there. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked it to read "Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea, married a doctor Williams and they lived in Seneca Falls, according to Leonard." Better? (As for leaving it in, writing about women is not straight forward. One cannot as a general rule search for her and find much information. How one uncovers her history is to back in by researching her husband, her children, her siblings and the various associations with which she might have been involved. Thus, to my eye and experience, knowing that her family was likely also in Seneca Falls opens avenues of discovery. If it is my preference, I'd leave it in, in hopes that it is helpful to someone in recovering more of her life story.)
  • That's a lot clearer, thanks. I'm still inclined to believe it's unnecessary, but in a footnote, not the biggest deal. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they appear also for census records to confirm where they lived, death records to confirm where she died, and for the passport, which gives the only physical description we have for her. I also don't know how we can omit the sources to show he was speculating in land, without losing context for the purchase/sale of Stanton's house. But, regardless, they all meet our guidelines for limited use of primary for simple facts (not notability) and as I pointed out, they are not likely to be unreliable.
  • Well, let's see what the source review has to say. I suspect it's likely to be the only sticking point, but I don't want you to have to remove information you believe is crucial. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comment above on women's research. The land records don't just identify that Elisha sold property. The jointly are mentioned in some deeds, which in context show that that whole "one flesh" idea was changing.
  • Thanks for that comment, it's a wee light at the end of a tunnel. Article review isn't always a pretty process, but in the end, I think the results are usually improvement. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so wee as all that, I don't think you're far off...Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • done.

That's it from me. There's two minor prose issues in the restructured section for you to look at, and a suggestion about the restructuring, but this are almost trivial. This is incredible work on a topic that can't have been easy to research. Support. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review and help in improving the article. I cannot even begin to say how hard working on it was. I am still frustrated that we have no sense of who she actually was, but perhaps some day one of the people who claim to be "writing a book about her" will publish and we can learn about her and not just her scientific work. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

Planning to review the rest of the article soon. Just found one thing that doesn't seem quite right: the Jahresbericht (1856) links to the German Mathematical Society which was founded in 1890, and so did not publish a journal in 1856. Could this be a different Jahresbericht (annual report)? (Happy to help hunting for German sources or even the original if you can give me a little further context). —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, I will admit I do not have any idea and to be honest, those links were there when I began working on the article and I apparently missed that. Jackson says, "the summaries on heat were made by either Friedrich Zamminer or Hermann Kopp" and the footnote (27) says the full title was "Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der reinen, pharmaceutischen und technischen Chemie, Physik, Mineralogie und Geologie" (pp 112-113) No en.wp article on de:Friedrich Zamminer, a physicist, and our piece on Hermann Franz Moritz Kopp, a chemist, merely says he edited Jahresbericht. I've removed the link and added the longer title. SusunW (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is correct and now the original text is reasonably easy to find thanks to the full title. Here it is on p. 63 of this 1856 Jahresbericht (edited by Justus von Liebig and Hermann Kopp). This page verifies that the chapter in question was written by Zamminer and Kopp. Don't worry about not noticing this wrong link -- it was just easy for me to see because I both read German and am a member of the German Mathematical Society :) I will try to read more of this interesting article later and comment on what I find. —Kusma (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate your correction. As I said above, the science is the hard part for me, so I will appreciate any guidance and/or corrections. Women's history I know, physics, not so much, so I relied heavily on those who have a better grasp on it than I do. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments. Nothing major, on the whole this is an excellent article.

  • Changed it to attorney. Yes, I always leave out names of other notables from the lede unless absolutely necessary (you'll note only Tyndall is mentioned here and only because of the controversy). It is deliberate omission to avoid inherited notability and reinforce that she is notable in her own right. It can be added if you think it necessary.
  • No, that's fine. He doesn't seem particularly relevant to her notability other than perhaps as funder for her experiments.
  • (wink) He may have controlled the money legally, but she earned it. It was her invention of that stove and it's patent infringement lawsuit that earned them "a small fortune" according to Hecht, just saying.
  • I misread the timeline... for some reason I thought the inventions came after the science, possibly because they are ordered that way in the article. In any case, all we need to know is probably that he contributed to her being in a rather privileged position.
  • "Forgotten", to me, implies that it was somewhat unintentional, i.e. something slipped from memory because the people who knew about it died. With regard to women's history their lives were more truly deliberately omitted, ignored, not studied,[22],[23],[24], etc. primarily because they were not seen as public figures. Pick a field, any at all and sources will exist to show that erasure, but they will also show that social norms, not evil intent drove that situation. Thus, the most neutral word, IMO would be lost. Happy to discuss.
  • I'm not fully convinced that her work was specifically targeted by erasure (none of your examples seems related to her) and more lost/forgotten than that of male American amateur scientists would have been, but we can't test this experimentally. "Lost" would imply to me that the work became mostly inaccessible, but that doesn't seem to be the case as it was published/mentioned in several high quality journals that were present in any good scientific library.
  • I didn't cite sources specifically related to her because they are cited in the article. The sources above were used to illustrate how widespread the problem for women was in every field. Brockell says specifically in her article on Foote, "… the scientific community also has a long history of not crediting the work of women". Brazil says "Eunice Foote, who seems to have suffered the fate of being ignored by her contemporaries". Darby says, "Katharine Hayhoe found Foote's contribution after a colleague asked why there were no women in the history of the discipline". Garrett says "Foote's work clearly preceded Tyndall's, but her contribution to climate science is buried in obscurity"…and illustrative of "…barriers experienced by women at the top of scientific and medical achievement". McNeill "Eunice Foote's career highlights the subtle forms of discrimination that have kept women on the sidelines of science". Plenty more, but thread is obvious. I'm happy to use obscured, to avoid the point you make on "lost", (and have changed the text to that) but the sources clearly indicate lack of knowledge about her/her work had to do with her gender and the way society viewed contributions of women.
  • Fine.
  • I've given a template a go, admittedly I am terrible with them. Is it right or should I take out the words and just leave the numbers?
  • Probably best to go all words or all numbers + abbreviations in both systems instead of the duplication you have right now.
  • Okay, just used the template.
  • Again, I am not very technical, so I have tried to do this, but if I didn't do it correctly, please feel free to change it.
  • I think it is ok, although to clarify what the "two European" journals are a few sentences later, you could mention that this one was one of the European ones. For example, you could turn the 1856 into "Giessen, 1856". (Although more precisely it is the annual report for the year 1856, published in 1857, as the title page states).
  • Okay, I think I have fixed it. Included 1856 in the title and the (Giessen, 1857)
  • Good.
  • Gog the Mild will be shocked, but I think I managed to input this correctly. I routinely have trouble with this specific template, but think I did it this time.
  • Didn't check the wikitext, but looks fine.
  • Background: The point is virtually none of the early feminists or any other pioneering women in any field were remembered or studied until women's studies programs were founded. Many liberationists papers that I have read said they were convinced that they were the first women to protest their lack of rights, as they knew nothing about the prior feminist movement. They might have vaguely known of Susan B. Anthony or Emmaline Pankhurst, but not that there was an international movement of women pressing for rights. In the 1970s, activist scholars began recovering historic women, not just in their own limited historical spheres, but within the shared history of society. They started with visible women, i.e. those depicted in museum paintings and manuscripts, and activists involved in the suffrage movement, before moving on to study women more generally.[25]
  • Specifically regarding Foote, information on her is extremely hard to come by. No photos, very few personal records, particularly digitized ones. It probably would take someone on the ground in the places she lived, to actually uncover her story, if the records exist. Newspapers, feminist journals, school records, etc. are the likely places to find out about her life, and those who have written about her thus far have not been able to uncover those. (Anecdotally my answer to the first part is yes. I was a women's studies major, and never heard of her, probably because no one was able to find details of her life, until Women in Red chose climate for an year-long initiative.) As for your second question, she obviously rejected the notion that she was confined to a private role in the home and was subsumed into the identity of her husband. In other words, had she not been a feminist, she would likely not have been a scientist. Is there a way I could make this clearer?
  • I think what gives me pause is that you're starting with the 1902 Suzan B. Anthony speech that specifically mentions Foote among others, and immediately after, you single out Foote as falling into obscurity, which seems to imply that the other feminists did not fall into obscurity. You then explain why her scientific contributions were overlooked for a long time. My (perhaps incorrect) impression is that Anthony was interested in Foote as an advocate for women's rights, not as a scientist, so that aspect of her life was already obscure even in 1902. Modern interest in her seems to be very much focused on her discovery of the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide, and this rightly takes up the majority of the article. (Her non-climate related research and inventions seem to be of very little interest also today. For instance, she isn't mentioned in any of the paper-making books I can access).
  • Okay, my bad. I assumed that the plight of women's obscurity was "general knowledge", but clearly from this FA review, that isn't as well known as I had thought. Vanamonde said that I had omitted saying she fell into obscurity before addressing the why, so I added "but Foote fell into obscurity", which is now causing concern. I've moved the first sentence in "Background" to the next paragraph, added a summary of the above cites on Foote/women scientists and added a source which confirms neglect of scholars for women's history and lack of publishing about the first feminists until the mid-1970s. Is that better/clearer?
  • Much better.
  • Generally, I would actually say we seem to know a reasonable amount about her life; as a 19th century upper class woman she appears to be fairly well documented (I've written about an 18th century inventor and I don't even know when he lived...)
  • Methinks Irving's issue probably has more to do with the fact that his name is fairly common and easily misspelled than a reflection of gender or scientific bias. (Having written about tons of activists, I can only say that what we know about her is appallingly little. I get that scientists are interested in her scientific contributions, but I am far more interested in her social works, and there is surprisingly little known about that considering where she lived. Had she lived in a rural area, on the frontier, or been a woman of color, the lack of info would not be surprising, but for her class, education, and connections, it is very, very sparse.)
  • I see.
  • Yes, but I think it is better placed in recovery, because it was a process. Modern scientists had to verify that she did indeed draw the conclusion about climate before it became her actual legacy for which she could be recognized. I am happy to consider reconfiguring it if you have a suggestion.
  • Don't have a smart suggestion, sorry. So it can probably stay as is.

Thank you so much for reviewing the article. As I said above, to Vanamonde, it is hard for me to know what is general knowledge about women's history and what I know because I have studied it for many decades. Sorry for the lengthy answers. SusunW (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about long replies, I'm guilty of the same :) Just a few more tiny things to do, and perhaps to fully convince me that you don't need to do anything in some other places. Thanks again for the article, which serves as a reminder that we still need to do quite some work on our coverage of women scientists. Maybe I'll get to work on Anna Blackburne some day. —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackburn looks interesting, although I admit I have trouble finding UK sources from Mexico, because websites routinely block IP access from here. I think I've addressed your concerns now, but if not, just advise. SusunW (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have, and I am happy to support promotion of this excellent article. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN[edit]

  • fixed
  • To be honest, I am not sure where exactly to introduce Stanton, but it seems likely they encountered each other at the school. I've reworded the first sentence to reflect ties to the school. Is that better?
  • Nope, just a typo. Thanks for catching that
  • done
  • Good points and yes, that's the issue. I've tweaked it. Is it better?
  • The latter. I cannot find any record of them anywhere between 1856 and 1860. I've tweaked it. Better?
  • removed
  • I find the MOS instructions on titles of works very confusing. Obviously these were her major works, but as papers are listed in the guideline as minor works I guess the should be in quotation marks. I've made all of them quotes, or at least I think I did.
  • fixed
  • deleted
  • deleted
  • fixed
PresN Thank you very much for your review. You have noted some of the things that are definitely difficult to address and I have tried to make it clearer. If I have failed to do so, please advise and I will revisit. SusunW (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support. --PresN 20:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Hey Nikkimaria, nice to see you here. I checked newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, Old Fulton, New York State Historic Newspapers, archive.org, and Hathitrust but found nothing in the usual places I look. There was a photograph in the lede when I started working on it, but I proved that was not her, rather her daughter. Sources, such as Brazil say no definitive photograph or drawing of her has been found. Jacobs says there is no known photograph, as does Schwartz who reports that relatives were contacted in an attempt to find one. I also found a web page posted when the 2018 symposium was held asking for people to try to find one. I also looked for, the original of the Declaration of Sentiments but it is also lost.
  • Sorry, I thought I checked all of these when I added alt text, but I missed that signature. It was published on a patent application in 1860, so have updated the license to show ((PD-1923)). It's a wee bit confusing to me because it is a federal document, but as it was an application I assume she filled it out and signed it and they merely published it, so I didn't tag it as created by government employee. I hope I did that correctly. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

  • "rising CO2 levels [first para] … carbon dioxide (CO2) [second para]" – better to have the fuller form at first mention, I think.
  • Good catch. Thanks and fixed.
  • "amassing wealth and losing money through speculation" – slightly odd phrasing. It's wealth when you amass it but money when you lose it?
  • changed to Amassing wealth and losing it.
  • "the vice principal of the Seminary" – I don't know about AmE, but to an English eye "vice-principal" needs a hyphen, unless it's the principal in charge of vice. And "the Seminary" surely doesn't want capitalising here?
  • I have never seen the term with a hyphen. Googling it, the references turn up with a hyphen in BE. Searching for a grammatical reference, I find none on vice principal, but grammarist.com says "Outside the U.S., vice-president is usually hyphenated in all its uses. In U.S. publications, it usually lacks the hyphen." But, to avoid confusion, I've changed to assistant principal.
  • "Foote did not read her paper to those present — women were in principle allowed to speak" – careful with your dashes. The Manual of Style requires either unspaced en-dashes – like this, or unspaced em-dashes—like this.
  • Went with spaced en-dashes, which is what I think you meant.
  • "vulcanised rubber" – wouldn't "vulcanized" be the usual AmE form?
  • Good catch. Missed that.
  • "John Perlin, author of two definitive histories on solar energy" – definitive? Who says so?
  • Added Nick Welsh
  • Careful with your inverted commas: "Sun’s rays?; and Can the effect of different gases on the warming response of the Sun’s rays be ranked?" – the MoS requires straight, not curly, inverted commas.
  • Fixed. (Did you know that you can search curly commas or quote marks and the search doesn't differentiate between straight and curly. I did try to do all of these, but it's a manual process and I appreciate your extra eyes finding this.)

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 17:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your comments were spot on and very useful. I appreciate your help in improving the article Tim riley. SusunW (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that was quick! I was surprised, informed, and delighted by this article, and I take my hat off to Foote (and to SusunW). Very happy to support FA status: in my view it meets all the criteria. Tim riley talk 19:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

That's it for formatting. Will take a look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability:

That's it for the sources. I'll check links next, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike. It got crazy here. The construction workers next door pushed a 2nd story wall down and it fell on our house. o.0 No significant damage, no one was hurt, but lots of Spanish flying and we had to notify the landlady, etc. I'll get back as soon as I can. Sorry. SusunW (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad no one was hurt! No hurry; whenever you’re ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again. It was pretty scary and crazy. Lots of officials here for most of the day, but it's sorted.

One link is broken: Wilson (1857). Everything else looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added wayback link.

I think I have now answered everything, but if not, let me know. Happy to discuss anything, as obviously the goal is to improve the article to a high standard. SusunW (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your patience with me and your taking time to thoughtfully reply. I think I have cleared the last few items. SusunW (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all looks good. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 28 October 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) 27 October 2022 [30].

Farseer trilogy[edit]

Nominator(s): Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93, 21:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well-known fantasy series from the 1990s: to place in context, it was published a year before A Game of Thrones. Robin Hobb's style is quite different from GRRM's, and we hope readers find this article interesting. It went through a GAN earlier this year, and after an expansion, a recent PR. We think we've covered the scholarly sources and look forward to feedback. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for initiating this. Courtesy pings to @Mike Christe and SandyGeorgia:, who left valuable comments at PR. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) repinging Mike Christie, because of the typo. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am ridiculously swamped so may not be able to participate in the FAC, but I reviewed the article at PR as a person with no prior knowledge of the topic, and am quite satisfied (that is, I count as independent review, and would be a likely support after others have gone through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that others have also been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I participated at the PR and have just read through again, finding only two more minor things to comment on:

— Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review[edit]

Pass. Sources are reliable, and I can see no formatting issues. Links all work. Parameters in cite templates are used consistently. You might consider adding either archive links or access dates or both for the purely web sources such as FNs 1, 90-91, and perhaps the Tor.com citations, but that's not a requirement for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

From the MoS: "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

My typo. To clarify: 1. Does a clear consensus of the high-quality reliable sources use an upper case T for "trilogy"? 2. I don't see that the arguments presented so far override MOS:THETITLE.
Yes, I believe there is. I have seen The Farseer Trilogy often, and just Farseer occasionally, but rarely if ever Farseer trilogy. When the former is used, the "the" is always present. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it would be. As no one would refer to, say "The anniversary of Battle of Calais". Yet Battle of Calais is the name of the article, per MOS:THETITLE.
Re T/trilogy, any chance of an actual numerical summary of (just) the high-quality reliable sources? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should have been clearer; I mean I saw it as "The Farseer Trilogy", not "the Farseer trilogy. As to a summary: I have for just Farseer 2 (Teitelbaum, Mendlesohn), The Farseer Trilogy 2 (Elliot, Prater), the Farseer trilogy 1 (Melville), The Farseer 3 (Clute, Holliday & Morgan, Young), ambiguous/dodging the matter altogether (Harris-Fain, Flood, Moran, Larsson, Senior). Senior actually uses both Farseer Trilogy and Farseer trilogy. So I guess it's messier than I remembered, but the numerically most common "The Farseer" is only used when the individual works are subsequently listed (as in Clute), I'm not actually sure what to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I added a table on article talk. Perhaps we can continue the discussion there? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, tht does it. (Clever.)
Honestly, as presented, yes. Maybe something like 'worldwide the Elderlings sold more than a million copies by 2003, and UK sales alone had exceeded 1.25 million copies by 2017' would at least hand wave over the antiquity of the data?
I like that construction, I've used it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Et fin. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some bits and pieces above.

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
Could we link it at first mention; could it be linked in the lead; if it is decided not to link it to the author's article, could it be red linked. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good questions; I don't love the optics of a red link in the lead (if nothing else, it means every other editor who's just reading will remove it), so omitted link for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly useful with respect to reviewing for sports, but I'll have a look, I'm trying to do four reviews per nomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I was wondering if you had any responses or further comments, and if not if you can see your way to making a declaration? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'll support. If you have any time, I have some items at my nominations list, otherwise, good job! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor MOS nitpick
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) 27 October 2022 [33].

Al-Muti[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 23rd Abbasid caliph, who ruled as a puppet of the Buyids. His tenure is generally held to represent the nadir of the caliphate's prestige and power, but the very powerlessness of the office allowed it to regain some stability and end the constant infighting of the Abbasid princes for supremacy. I rewrote the article effectively from scratch during 2021, and it passed GA in May 2021. Al-Muti and his time are not well covered in literature, but I am confident the article is the most complete English-language treatment of the subject in existence, and worthy of FA status. I am looking forward for any and all suggestions for further improvement. Constantine ✍ 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX[edit]

I will review this soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I will finish my review by Sunday hopefully. Apologies for the delay. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak[edit]

I have next to no knowledge of this subject or the context in which he ruled, so I'll only be able to provide prose/formatting input. I'll do my best to follow the article though and if there's anything that I feel is overly unclear I'll make a mention of it.

That's all I have. Truly stellar prose, particularly in the lede - I had to check a couple links for definitions to understand the context of everything, but the article itself is excellent. Really well done. AviationFreak💬 21:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time, and for your corrections, AviationFreak. I am glad that despite your unfamiliarity with the topic, you could follow the article. Anything else that might be improved in that area, above and beyond FA criteria? Constantine ✍ 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sure! The only other thing I worry a little bit about is readability to a "general public" reader - Evaluating one's own abilities is always difficult, but I feel I have at least an average and likely above-average command of English as native speakers go. Despite this, there were a few terms that I had to Google to be sure of their definitions (e.g., "profligate"). As far as I know there isn't a guideline in the MOS against overly erudite prose and this article is by no means egregious in that respect, but I worry a little that it might be a bit difficult to read comfortably for many English speakers. In any case, this is at most a minor concern that is very much subjective so I am happy to support. AviationFreak💬 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Hi Constantine, Nikkimaria, was this last point resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from A. Parrot[edit]

Ten citations spot-checked; no verification faults found.

Citations 18 and 19 look like they could be consolidated.

Most sources look unimpeachable—academic presses, et cetera. A couple (Bowen and Le Strange) are very old, but they're used in contexts that don't seem controversial or where the scholarship is likely to change. The one I'm not entirely sure about is Güner 2006, simply because I don't know what the Diyanet's reputation as a historical source is like. I'd be interested to know.

The ISBNs are inconsistent. Some have hyphens and some don't, some have ten digits and some have thirteen. Fortunately, you can convert them all to your preferred format using a page like this one.

This isn't citation-related, but articles shouldn't give instructions to the reader such as "(see below)". A. Parrot (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and the suggestions, A. Parrot. Consolidated refs #18 and #19 as suggested, the '(see below)' has been removed.
On the sources, Bowen and (more so) Le Strange continue to be very good resources and are still cited by modern authors; they summarize the information provided by the medieval sources quite well, and nothing much has been added to that since except through ancillary studies (numismarics, archaeology, etc).
The Diyanet is, especially under Erdogan, a highly political organization and not in what I'd call a positive way, but the Islam Ansiklopedisi is an academic work, and the people contributing articles there are academics. The IA is often cited by English-language works as well, and should definitely considered a solid tertiary source.
On the ISBNs, I always use the ISBN type (10 or 13-digit) the work itself provides. Retroactive standardization is rather pointless. I have however edited the IA template to add dashes to the ISBNs produced by it.
Thanks again :) Constantine ✍ 19:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing. A. Parrot (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

There is no need for two links to the same article in so quick succession in the infobox, which is its own separate part of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Captions should establish context on their own, so that you understand then without necessarily having read the adjacent main text. But yeah, looking good now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk, and thanks for taking the time and your suggestions. I have dealt with most of them, and have left remarks elsewhere. Please have another look. Constantine ✍ 14:40, 22 October 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) 27 October 2022 [35].

2021 British Open[edit]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the return of the British Open snooker tournament. This is the second nomination, as the first died due to lack of comments. Let me know what you think, as I look forward to any concerns you may have. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

More comments[edit]

Image review

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same as usual. I'll get on the blower and see what I can get going Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Can't promise that it'll be before Tuesday though. Hog Farm Talk 21:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look okay enough from a reliability standpoint, and the content seems fine. My only cue sports familiarity is a little cutthroat pool in college, but I found it to be comprehensible. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look at these. I've never actually played Cutthroat (pool), but I'll add it to my list to try. Snooker is a much more comprehensive and complicated game played on giant tables with tiny pockets. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

It seems like the article has improved since I previously supported it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 British Open/archive1, but I'll have another look through. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 27 October 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) 27 October 2022 [36].

Prince Octavius of Great Britain[edit]

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Prince Octavius of Great Britain, the thirteenth child of George III. His death deeply affected the King and Queen, and the former even had hallucinations of the prince in his later years. Despite the article's short length, I believe the prose and citations are good enough to constitute a featured article. Past examples of featured articles about a royal prince who died young are Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil and Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Done: now reads: "His godparents were the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (husband of his first cousin twice-removed), for whom the Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain, stood proxy; the Duke of Mecklenburg (his first cousin once-removed), for whom the Earl of Ashburnham, Groom of the Stole, stood proxy; and the Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (wife of his sixth cousin), for whom Alicia Wyndham, Countess of Egremont and Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Charlotte, was proxy." Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I tag an image? Do I just go over to the Commons page to do so? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just edit the image description page at Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have just done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that the first of those two has been tagged? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the second image was tagged; I just tagged the lead image. Thank you for the feedback. Do you have anything other suggestions for this nomination? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I would suggest Janice Hadlow's book: A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III as containing useful information about the death of the prince, that I don't see here. Since the article is (necessarily, perhaps) short, could more be said about the childrearing techniques of George and Charlotte, to the extent that the prince would have experienced them?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your source recommendation. It was flooded with useful tidbits on Octavius's life and the royal court during that time period. I have gone ahead and included such references. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, were you interested in performing a more extensive review? We seem to be on the home stretch with this one so thought I'd check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few minor things:
  • " nineteen-months-old" I don't see the reason for the hyphens. Similarly "four-years-old".
  • "had their remains transferred to St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 11 February 1820, at around three.[4][35]" Does this mean three in the afternoon? If so, that might be a little bit over specific.
  • "Shortly afterward, King George said "There will be no Heaven for me if Octavius is not there."[11][16][43] " Why does a short quote require three footnotes?
That's it. I'll Support since these are relatively minor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

Source review[edit]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Thank you. I have gone ahead and addressed all your comments. Would the article be up to FA standard now, or is there something else I can do for you? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I have taken care of all your comments. I will say though, inoculation was an early form of vaccination and the majority of sources describe people as being inoculated with rather than against a disease. Also, I believe the "Titles and styles" section makes more sense as its own thing, seeing as it does not really flow well in the prose. If you still feel strongly about that, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inoculation: what does a consensus of the modern HQ RSs use? Hadlow for example has "Octavius was inoculated against smallpox".
  • A separate "Titles and styles" section is fine by me. But its contents should be written in prose, not as a bullet-pointed one-item list. Eg start it something like 'Octavius's style was His Royal Highness ... and his title was ...' Link style and title. Why is "His Royal Highness" in italics?
  • You missed two comments above, the ones in green.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Whoops. Sorry for the misunderstandings on my part. Could you please take another look? I am fairly certain that all issues have been addressed this time. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

An interesting article but the prose needs work:

I hope these points are helpful in getting the article nearer to FA standard. Tim riley talk 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Thank you for your comments. Here are my responses to each of them:
  • Done.
  • I'm not exactly sure where you would want me to link that too.
  • I think the sentence is alright the way it is; none of the other FA reviewers said anything about this.
  • Someone went in and made "archbishop" lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • I'm not sure that writing about Octavius's brothers' sexual and financial misconduct is particularly relevant in this article; once again, none of the other FA reviewers said anything about this.
  • Done
  • I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
  • I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
  • I'm actually not too sure about the capitalization of "prince" in this situation. Because no one else pointed that out, I'm inclined to say that it's alright. It says "would write" because by this time, Octavius had been dead for quite some time.
  • I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
  • The Wikipedia article Royal Archives is in capital letters, and other sources capitalize it, too.
  • I don't think stating the time is that big of an issue.
  • Other articles, including featured ones, list His/Her Royal Highness and His/Her Majesty in italics. I'm just following precedent here.
Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I hoped my comments might be of some use, but I see not. If my colleagues, above, think the article as it stands is of FA quality I shall not oppose, but I don't support it as it stands. Tim riley talk 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Tim riley! @Ian Rose has just brought me up to speed on the FA review process. I deeply apologize if the tone of my reply came across as dismissive or disregarding. I have taken a look at your feedback and revised the article accordingly. If you could spare some time, would you mind taking another look and giving me your thoughts? Once again, I am so sorry about our previous interaction, and thank you so much for helping me navigate my first FA nomination! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- When an editor as experienced as Tim Riley won't actually oppose but cannot in conscience support the nom, it gives me pause. Unlimitedlead, the FAC instructions state that resolution of critical comments outweighs simple declarations of support, and I'd suggest reconsidering how you might resolve some of these comments. I realise that it can be a challenge when one reviewer advises one thing and another advises something else, but this will happen when we have a system utilising several reviewers. Furthermore, just because earlier reviewers don't pick up an issue, it doesn't follow that someone picking it later should be ignored; again, this is why we expect several reviews of an article before we consider promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out about that. I will try to incorporate some of Tim Riley's feedback, but due to the conflicting nature of some of the comments I've received, I an unable to guarantee that all of them will be honored. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to leave it to my fellow editors to decide if the article is of FA quality. Tim riley talk 17:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, I had forgotten that this was a first-time nom for which we like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing. I've since performed this myself, checking citations 10, 23a/b/c, 26a/b/c, 30 and 42. My only concern was with 10, in that the referenced page does not mention the king's devotion to Octavius, only the troubles with the other children. Unlimitedlead, although the king's fondness for Octavius is evident and cited elsewhere, this statement should also include a cited source to that effect (perhaps pp. 265-266 from Brooke but up to you) if it's to remain as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from DecafPotato[edit]

Hey! I feel like the "Titles and styles" section could be incorporated into another; it's currently only one sentence long, so I think it would make the article flow better if that information were to be moved somewhere else. DecafPotato (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @DecafPotato! Thank you for your suggestion. I have actually received the same comment from other users, but I'm still undecisive. On one hand, your argument makes total sense, but on the other hand, many other articles on British royalty have this "Titles and styles" section, so I'd hate to be inconsistent. Do you feel strongly about this? If so, I am willing to make the change, but please do let me know where you think I would place this sentence. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi all, jumping in here, a separate titles and styles section is the practice in royalty articles but, sure, it might also be reasonable to incorporate the single sentence into the main body. That said, this nom has remained open a while and consensus has formed to promote, and I don't think this needs to affect that. By all means discuss on the article talk page after promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 27 October 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) 26 October 2022 [37].

2022 Masters (snooker)[edit]

Nominator(s): User:HurricaneHiggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2022 edition of the Masters (snooker). A fantastic event, looking forward to your feedback! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Henni147[edit]

Followed this tournament closely myself on TV, so I'm familiar with the topic and would like to contribute to this FAC review.

Linking:

Content and wording: In general, the prose part is nicely written. Especially the summary section is very informative, rich in variety, and phrased as reader-friendly as a tournament summary can be. Very well done.

That's it from me so far. I will continue with the QF section, when the article has been updated. The article looks very promising overall, and with the few issues being fixed, I will give my support. Good job. Henni147 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fair. I'll make necessary changes today. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked my way through the above Henni147 - fantastic work, some great suggestions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Great. I agree with your comments above, so feel free to keep those parts as they are. I can take a look at the remaining prose sections now and give some comments about content and linking as above. Henni147 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Henni147:

Yeah, that's actually it. I really liked to read the second part of the prose. The direct quotes were nicely selected and the "Final" section was very informative. Didn't realize that Hawkins had lost all his Triple Crown finals until now. I give my support for FAC now. Great job! Henni147 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - over three weeks in with only a single support. This one's liabile to be archived in a couple days without substantial movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Olivaw-Daneel[edit]

Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All seems very fair. I'll take a better look later. Thanks for the review. I will say I usually try and stay away from talking about things that happen at the event (in terms of victories and such) unless they are particularly notable. I get we can state who the winner defeated to reach the final, but when I've done that it always feels like puff. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes above Olivaw-Daneel - did you have any more thoughts for me? :) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's all I had (+ a note above). And I guess if there's nothing else notable to say about the event, the lead is ok. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Image review[edit]

File:2022 Cazoo Masters Snooker Tournament Logo.jpg: I have my doubts that a logo this simple would be considered copyrightable in the US, but it's a borderline case. The licence, source and rationale are fine for a non-free logo, though, so it's no big deal. Everything else seems OK. ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thanks for taking a look Nikkimaria, I've taken a look through all of the above and made the changes. Hopefully I didn't miss any of the authors. Let me know if you have any more items for me to look at on this nomination. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered the bits I missed the first time, let me know if there is anything further, Nikkimaria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 24 October 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) 26 October 2022 [38].

Katana Zero[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second time's the charm, I guess. Since the last FAC unfortunately got virtually no input, I'll repeat what I said last time: One of my favorite video games of the last few years has been this 2019 indie platformer, which blends the tone and themes of neo-noir cinema with fast-paced, insanely difficult side-scrolling gameplay and a killer synthwave soundtrack. Katana Zero was an intense labor of love for its creator Justin Stander, who developed the game almost entirely by himself over the course of six years. It was delayed repeatedly and switched publishers at one point, but was finally released in April 2019 to strong sales and rave reviews.

I've spent a substantial amount of time since last year building this up from a mere stub to a fully comprehensive good article and I believe that it meets the criteria to earn a bronze star. Hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

I hope this image review is helpful. Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review, but I thought I should at least help a little. My only concern is the size of the Dialogue Tree screenshot, but everything else checks out to me. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thanks for the review. I've archived all three images. As for the third's size, its primary purpose is to illustrate the dialogue tree system and use of color, rather than the text. I personally think both the dialogue tree and use of color are clear within the image and reading the text itself is not necessary. JOEBRO64 18:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I am still uncertain, but I do appreciate and understand your rationale. This passes my image review. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB[edit]

First off, it seems to be a thorough and well researched article which is what I like to see. Now for all the complaints I have!

Good job JoeBro, good luck with the rest of your nomination. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blue Pumpkin Pie[edit]

The summarization in the Lead suggests Zero is a Katana-wielding Assassin. But in the Plot, the description is different.

Neither contradicts one another. The fact he's a katana-wielding assassin is established in the Gameplay, the Plot doesn't contradict this—it just adds that he's a war veteran. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The psychiatrist supplies him with a drug as treatment, but their relationship becomes strained as Zero deviates from assigned objectives and learns the psychiatrist is lying about the reasoning behind the assassinations." Is this sentence necessary so early in the plot? It seems to make the Plot more awkward because, in the following paragraph, it suggests that the Psychiatrist is still an ally to Zero.
  • Zero continuing to work for the psychiatrist doesn't contradict the fact their relationship is strained. I personally think it's important to establish that the psychiatrist and Zero's relationship becomes strained early—it happens regardless, but when it happens depends on the player's choices. I worded it in a way to make it clear that it doesn't happen immediately. If there's any other problems, just let me know. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At his apartment, the girl gives Zero a videotape that contains a recording of V, a Russian mobster, torturing and killing Zero's neighbors." Is this detail relevant to the Plot?
  • Yeah—it's the story's main introduction to V, the moment he becomes relevant. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next morning, V picks up Zero in his limousine. V seeks to recreate Chronos, a drug the New Mecca government gave to soldiers during the Cromag War, and offers to partner with Zero, who refuses. Zero tracks V to an abandoned film studio but is interrupted by the swordswoman Snow, who threatens Zero and leaves with V." Why does Zero need to track down V if he was just in his limousine? is it even necessary to point out that he's being picked up in a limousine? When Snow leaves with V, was it an escape? Or did they leave peacefully with Zero heeding the warning?
  • I've condensed this and made it clearer. If it needs any more work let me know. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zero hallucinates Comedy and Tragedy, two men wearing theater masks who taunt him about impending disaster in his future." The placement of this plot point is awkward. Was it at that point that he started to hallucinate about two individuals known as Tragedy and Comedy? Or is this something that is happening throughout the story? '
  • This is the first time he hallucinates them. I've made the transition smoother. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zero acquires a tape cassette but is cornered by the police. Comedy and Tragedy ask whether Zero wants to embody life or death. If he chooses life, the police kill Zero; if he chooses death, the police die, and Zero escapes, but Comedy and Tragedy warn that his actions will have consequences for others." Is this relevant to the main story? The current Plot doesn't make any note of it.
  • No, it was added by someone else. I've removed it. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A caller directs Zero to a training facility for NULLs, New Mecca's Chronos-enhanced soldiers." Another distractingly vague sentence. Is this caller anonymous? if they are not anonymous, who are they?
  • The caller is anonymous. It's implied to be the Dragon but it isn't explicitly stated. I've made it slightly clearer. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zero discovers his psychiatrist preparing to flee the city and kills him." Is there a reason why he killed him?
  • Yeah, Zero's fed up with the psychiatrist's lies and takes out his rage on the psychiatrist. I've made this clear. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The development has a lot of quotes that I don't think are necessary to explain the development process of the game. I say it borders on failing criteria FAC 1f (compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy). I would reduce the number of quotes to only keeping the most necessary ones. A lot of the quoting structure is odd, I have never seen it the way it's done here, and MOS:QUOTE doesn't make much mention of the quoting style.
  • I've gone through and paraphrased all the quotes that aren't necessary. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He worked on multiple projects alongside it to "hedge my bets... [so] I didn't spend the last five years of my life only working on one game that flopped." This reads very awkwardly in my opinion. The sentence mixes first and third-person perspectives with awkward quoting. I'm not sure it's necessary to do a full word-for-word quote.
  • Stander "wanted to make something more narratively-driven, that paid homage to all my favorite storytelling tropes and expanded on them in my own way... That was definitely a big part of [Katana Zero]: I had a story I wanted to tell." Same issue, an awkward mix of perspective writing. And once again, not sure if it's necessary to fully quote him in the prose to understand what he's saying.
  • "Stander focused on attention to detail and said that adding a single mechanic, such as a gun turret, "would mean tinkering with 20 different systems, like lighting and replay, to make it all cohesive". The quote isn't bad, but I would recommend sticking with summarizing the details or quoting Stander properly.
  • I've paraphrased it. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it odd that the Review prioritizes the order of visuals, audio, writing, and gameplay last. Considering it's a video "game", the gameplay should be highlighted much closer to the top.
  • I personally don't see a problem with it—it's a structure I've used in most of my FAs, including the recently-promoted Donkey Kong Country. I tend to structure reception sections as presentation → gameplay. Presentation is usually the first things reviews focus on, before getting into how the game plays. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the Sales information belongs in the "Reception" section. Release information seems to be only about recording the different platforms and the timeline of the releases.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to group sales with release as it's more relevant in the context of its release than whether critics liked it or not. It's similar to how film articles categorize the box office performance in the Release section rather than Reception. Again, I did this at Donkey Kong Country, which was recently promoted to FA. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: thank you for the thorough review! I've responded to all points above. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: So I watched some cutscenes of the story to get a better idea of the pacing of the Plot and made edits to help it flow better. I classified it as bold edits, so it is no problem if they all get reverted. I do have one question about the plot. "Zero is assigned to kill Al-Qasim, a wealthy industrialist, but is captured when he encounters V and his men storming Al-Qasim's mansion." The opening sentence for the third paragraph has no transition or connection from the previous paragraph. Was this the very next assignment Zero has following his hallucinations? Or were there other assignments in between?

I won't push for sales to be in Reception, nor the organization of the Reception having gameplay last.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Yeah, it's the very next assignment, the day after Zero hallucinates. JOEBRO64 15:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: is there anything else? JOEBRO64 16:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: I made some adjustments to make the Plot easier to understand with some word reorganization. It's still seems like some points aren't as necessary to understand the general plot. I asked for a second opinion but I haven't heard back.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well i mulled it over, and after analyzing the plot, it's at least cohesive to read. So I'm going to put my support now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CR4ZE (Support)[edit]

Hi Joe—sorry to hear the previous candidacy was unsuccessful due to a lack of interest; I've come close to that before. As such, I'd be glad to offer some commentary here and hope to get something to you over the weekend. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are mainly prose-focused. I normally copy-edit the minutiae as I read through and review, but I didn't do that at all here. Take that as a compliment :) There are queries nonetheless.

Lead
Gameplay
Plot
Conception
Design
Music
Release
Reception
Accolades
Other considerations

That's it from me for now. Pushbacks and difference of opinion are welcomed. This is a really cool sounding game and the article is overall written to an exceptional standard. — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments CR4ZE; I should finish responding within the next day or two. It's midterms week so my time on Wikipedia has been somewhat limited but things should peter out and I'll get these finished shortly. JOEBRO64 02:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. Take your time. — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE: thank you for the thorough review! I've responded to every point above. If there's anything that still needs work, just let me know. JOEBRO64 12:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tending to my remarks. I've spot-checked your changes and am pleased; note there's a couple of very minute follow-ups noted above. None important enough to delay my full support for this candidacy. Great work putting together a brilliant article! — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my comment about Nintendo Life? — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: perhaps not, so I'll ping you instead ;) — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE: ah crap I did in fact not see it, how's it looking now? JOEBRO64 01:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but maybe a touch too "quotey"? You could paraphrase the "show-stealing" bit, and/or combine and summarise with IGN or Destructoid: "There's also a fitting and fantastic retro-electro soundtrack to go along with the action"/ "the audial delight that is Ludowic and Bill Kiley’s soundtrack". — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've paraphrased the "show-stealing" bit and combined it with the Destructoid quote. JOEBRO64 02:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, looking good. Thanks again Joe. Look forward to seeing this well-deserved promotion. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Night Watch[edit]

I have taken a general look at the article, and it appears to be good. I spot checked a few refs here and there (1-11) and they appear to be fine. Prose is good. I was a little concerned at the long plot section, but it seems understandable enough. I'm happy to support this nomination. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Czar[edit]

Nicely done! Source review passed. czar 16:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No strong feelings from me. Looks good. — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! czar 03:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I initially supported FA when it was a dedicated Plot section. I'm not against the premise summary style, but there are way too many refs in between sentences that affect readability. And I'm normally not against sentences using em dashes, but they're being used a little too frequently and it definitely affects the flow. In my opinion, em dashes should be used at a minimum if possible and whatever the side-thought the em dashes are being used for, they must be short enough to resume proper flow. Otherwise, they might as well be their own sentence.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie, the mid-sentence refs are needed for WP:TSI. If you're referring to that that second sentence in the first paragraph, it has much less to gain from grouping all the refs at the end of the sentence and making the reader guess which portion came from where. The current sentence is MOS-compliant.
As for the em dashes parentheticals, I don't think they necessarily impede the text but I've recasted them. czar 12:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: MOS-compliant isn't the only thing we look for in an FA. I don't think it meets criteria 1a. The flow of the sentence is broken up too many times by refs and the some sentences are long-winded. Combine the two problems and it's not even readable.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It meets criteria 1a. Every sentence is grammatically correct, there are no run-ons, and the refs are at the end of punctuation to back up the claims, which is how refs work. I really have no idea what the issue is here. JOEBRO64 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was at best a minor gain by recasting the emdashes, but I agree there's no issues otherwise. I tweaked the "child in the hut" bit; perhaps you can all agree it's clearer. Refine as you see fit if not. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) These are my concerns:
^^This sentence looks like a run-on to me. This looks like it can be more than one sentence. Considering that the premise/plot section is now integrated back into gameplay, would it be better to describe the story in a more descriptive way rather than a narrative-style? Such as "The story follows Subject Zero, an amnesiac war veteran with the ability to predict the future.[14][15] He assassinates drug dealers for his psychiatrist who acts as his handler.[16]
^^This group of sentences don't all flow together. Just facts that seem randomly put side by side. There seems to be a lack of weight to some of these pieces of information. Based on looking into the plot, it would make sense to incorporate some of this information in the following paragraph where it goes into detail on what kind of events happen between episodes/gameplay. But also, I also believe that the plot section before wasn't a bad idea, just needed to be summarized.
^^is it important to note that V dismembers and abducts V in this point? Or is it the fact that he encounters the real Dragon for the first time?
^^One too many ands.

If it were upto me I would've kept the plot section and just summarized it to three paragraphs. First paragraph the initial exposition provided at the start. The middle paragraph summarizing the recurring events, such as zero finding his marks dead before he has a chance to do it himself, recurring nightmares, Interacting with the girl. V interfering. Then the last paragraph summarizes closing events.

At this moment, I'm not able to really give as much detail that I want due to work and only responding during lunch. But I'll give more detailed responses after.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some alterations to the first sentence, but I really don't see the issue with the others. The second set of sentences isn't disjointed. We say Zero kills people, we say who news media ascribes said killings to, and then we note the other key points. The Dragon abducting V bit serves to establish the real Dragon and V's fate. And after thinking, I think merging the plot with the dialogue tree gameplay information was a good call; the two are intrinsically linked, as plot beats differ depending on player choices. I don't see much left to discuss. Three editors have disagreed with you and I feel like this is needlessly protracting a process that's coming to an end. JOEBRO64 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well i wouldn't say its complete disagree. It's been an open dialogue of Cr4ze, Czar, and yourself not seeing the flaws initially, And I bring up more detailed concerns. Which does result enough to make modifications.
I thought the story was merged with the gameplay because the level of detail in the story wasnt given too much weight more than it being intrinsically linked to the gameplay. There are other articles that offer dialogue trees that offer more significance to the plot but still have their respected sections.
it's upto you to decide what you want to do. And I don't mind either way if it's merged with the gameplay section or not. I just think merging it created more problems than solving it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think these are minor points. If you think these sentence are better when split, it would have taken a fraction of the effort to just make the edit. I've done so now and you should feel free to edit further. Usually that is a better method than holding up an entire nomination unless there's something about this section that warrants this level of discussion. czar 03:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Czar. As I said at the start of my review above, in almost every PR/GA/FA review I've ever conducted, I copy-edit the minutiae myself so the nominator can focus on the larger points. They'll compare diffs and either tweak to their preference or query if needed on the review page. That should've been the approach here. Not to press the coords, but unless there's more reviewers forthcoming, this one is more than good to go. — CR4ZE (T • C) 05:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue as small as you. I do see more and more improvements. But I still think it has the granular detail. And this is a bigger change that is merged back into gameplay. It's not like we can edit it like a normal plot either.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to mention that I do want to make the plot section easier to understand but time has not been on my side. Mobile edits are as much as I can do and with the full Citation in the middle of the the sentences, it can be very easy to make mistakes (or not see the problem). Which is why I normally love them into the reflist.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:52, 21 October 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) 24 October 2022 [42].

1973–74 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the successful promotion of 1963–64, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, here's yet another season from the annals of Gillingham F.C. history. With this one we step back to the sensational seventies and only the second time in club history that Gillingham got promoted from one division of the Football League to another. All feedback, as ever, most gratefully received..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

File:Gresty Road - geograph.org.uk - 1493956.jpg and File:Priestfield1.jpg are appropriately licensed and have appropriate ALT text. I recommend archiving the source and author links for the first image to avoid any potential future headaches with link rot and death, but that is not a requirement for a FAC/FA. I will assume good faith that the second image was taken by the uploader. Aoba47 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: it absolutely was. I took that picture with the first camera I ever owned! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

Not much to say, the article seems in decent shape. Strange they had own goals two weeks in a row!

Comments Support from Yolo4A4Lo[edit]

This look good already.

If you like my comments, could you please take a look at FAC of Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons. You reviewed the sister article List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu last year. I would really appreciate it if you do. Good luck for your FAC! - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 26 September 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. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:, just wondering if you had had a chance to look at this FAC yet? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I've had a lot on. I'll do some notes now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: - all done apart from the one re: "The management team retained a largely unchanged squad....." - it might be me being thick but I don't follow what you are saying there. Oh, and yes it was still goal average in 1973-74 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I read it as "The management team was largely unchanged". I'm a dumbo. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - 1 and 3 addressed. For 2, all the newspapers.com links are to digitised versions of old newspapers, so I have entered the paper as the "work" and I don't believe there is a need for a separate "publisher" parameter, as it would most likely just duplicate the "work". Hope that makes sense.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the first two. For FN 52, the URL still doesn't display -- I think you need to set url-status to whatever is correct in this situation. I'd fix it myself but since you're using sfn I can't edit it with VE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: sorted now, I think......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: may I open a new FAC now? I have a doozy ready to go next :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 12 October 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) 23 October 2022 [43].

The Random Years[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about a short-lived UPN sitcom that follows three childhood friends as they attempt to navigate life after graduating college and each fall for an attractive, new neighbor. Aired as a mid-season replacement, this show aired for only three weeks in March 2002 before being canceled likely due to its abysmal ratings.

Unsurprisingly, The Random Years has fallen into complete obscurity, but for whatever reason, I do enjoy work on articles about more obscure media and I find UPN's attempts to establish a brand and maintain an audience to be fascinating. This is my ninth nomination for a UPN series and my first since 2019.

I have received a very helpful GAN review from @MaranoFan: and some very helpful comments in the peer review from @SatDis: and @Pseud 14:. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to further improve the article. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Thank you for the review. I have updated the purpose of use field with an explanation used in a recent television show FA, but please let me know if further revisions would be beneficial. As for the source link, would it be better to cite the series directly as the source? I am somewhat uncertain of that option as episodes of the series are not available online although the opening credits are accessible on YouTube (here). What would you suggest as the best course of action? Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update, I have removed the source link and linked the image through the series itself. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis[edit]

  • Thank you for the support. I was going to make a pun in the FAC, but I decided against it lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • I have revised this part. According to the sources, Alex already runs his own music website and has dreams of being a music critic. If I had to guess, his dreams are becoming an established music critic through an established publication rather than through his own site. It is also important to remember this all took place in the early 2000s well before music critics were establishing themselves on YouTube and other platforms outside of established publications. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for addressing everything. You have been a huge help. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further improve the article and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud 14[edit]

I PR'd this article and had my comments/points addressed during the process. Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ[edit]

  • Thank you for the support and I greatly appreciate your kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid[edit]

Before I give it a through read, just asking. Is it common practice mentioning the running time of the episodes? For some reason, to me it sounds very essential information, at least the mean average for the entire season if not for each episode separately. Sitcoms generally run for a half hour (if not less) but who knows. Shahid • Talk2me 00:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shshshsh: That is a fair question. From my experience, television articles do not include running times for each individual episode. Sitcoms traditionally air in 30-minute time slots, which account for commercials, and the episode itself typically lasts 22 minutes. I used the 30-minute option in the infobox as this is the information that I can find supported in a citation and this is the kind of thing that would need to be cited. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shshshsh, just checking if there will be more to come from you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47@Gog the Mild: Just read the entire thing. I support the nomination. Shahid • Talk2me 10:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Czar[edit]

Where does Levesque criticize the show's lack of diversity? I only see an aside that a different show, As If, gets "bonus points" for including a Black cast member. I'd also clarify in the lede what kind of diversity dearth is being criticized, i.e., lack of ethnic diversity. Altogether, in both sources, it does not present as a prominent criticism, so curious why it warrants mention in the lede? czar 22:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Czar: Thank you for the comment. Levesque starts his review by saying the following: "the search to find the next witty exploration of chumhood in an urban setting where people of color are hard to find". I had interpreted this statement as applicable to The Random Years and As If, but upon further review, it is far too vague. I agree the criticism of racial and ethnic diversity is not prominent enough to warrant a separate paragraph or a mention in the lead. The only critic to explicitly focus on this is Deggans. This paragraph was likely a holdover from my draft when I thought there would be more to this type of criticism after reading Deggans. I ended up removing it from the article entirely. I hope that clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense—thanks! czar 00:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anytime. I appreciate your comment and apologies for misreading that source. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar, just checking if there will be more to come from you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just passing through. Happy to help if spot checks are needed. czar 04:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • @FrB.TG: They are used to distinguish citations from authors with the same last name that were published in the same year. An example of this is Johnson (with Allan Johnson being referenced by 2002a and Steve Johnson by 2002b). This is done to insure that the citations link down to the correct source and it is the method encouraged by the template. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, that was my only concern. Pass source review. FrB.TG (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I appreciate the source review and the question. I can understand how the Harvard citation style can be confusing (particularly in cases like this one) and why some editors dislike it but I personally enjoy it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for pinging you. I was just curious of the status of the nomination. Is it being kept active until the standard three-week time period? I was wondering because activity on this nomination has dropped off for some time and the nomination is continually moving down the list. I just wanted to make sure there was not something I was missing or could do to help with the nomination. Thank you in advance. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look through this tonight (or more likely, tomorrow afternoon). I've been very busy lately and haven't been able to keep as close an eye on the FAC list as I'd like. Hog Farm Talk 01:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Apologies for being a pest. Take as much time as you need and best of luck with everything that is keeping you busy. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 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) 21 October 2022 [44].

Ceres (dwarf planet)[edit]

Nominator(s): Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article nearly won its previous FAC, but ran aground on the writing and style. Since then I and a fresh pair of eyes have given it a copyedit, and I think it's ready for another FAC. Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to Coords: former featured article; if re-promoted, please adjust the placement and tally at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artem[edit]

Article is good, sources seems to be ok, will try to read thoroughly and comment later. At a first glance, 'Proposed exploration' seems odd, as it describes missions proposals for Vesta or just some asteroids, but not specifically a Ceres mission. More comments later. Artem.G (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some source checks:
Ref 7 should be moved to notes; ref 14 - do you think it's reliable source? Looks self-published. Artem.G (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17 can be cited properly, with authors (and maybe it can be swapped with some real paper, not with a conference summary?)
Refs 30 and 31 should be formatted, can they be found online? Ref 35 needs ISBN. Ref 100 - can it be found online?
Fixed. (except for some reason the format isn't recognising "et al.") Serendipodous 11:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has the numbering of these references changed? I think I'm pretty close to supporting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One of the references was moved to notes. Serendipodous 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking rather nice, now. XOR'easter (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from XOR'easter[edit]

I am very close to supporting this for promotion. I'm not convinced that all the images are necessary; the portrait of Piazzi falls awkwardly before the end of the infobox, squeezing the text between them, and it doesn't add much. The first map in the row of three is both incomplete and drab. Other than image issues, I think it's a go. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Serendipodous 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild just a note about what is going on in astronomy articles. Unfortunately, some months back, different editors nominated five astronomy articles at once at FAR, which has placed an enormous burden on the few editors who work in this area. I'm wondering if you might consider giving this one a little extra time, depending on what those editors say ? They are quite taxed, and it's demoralizing and demotivating ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then they need to come here for some R&R positivity. Happy to give it, or any other article, a little extra time - so long as there are clear indications that this will result in some further reviewing attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serendipodous and Gog the Mild ... as the other side of the same same coin, 90377 Sedna was originally a FAC nomination of Serendipodous. Serendipodous, if you were to help out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/90377 Sedna/archive1, the few reviewers at FAR who are stretched so thin might have more time to devote to this FAC nomination. It doesn't seem quite right for the very few editors we have working in astronomy to be struggling to clean up five, now reduced to three FARs at once, while a new nomination appears at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:: They could close the Sedna FAR, which was pointless to start with. Serendipodous 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • How about "Ceres is not part of an asteroid family, probably due to its large proportion of ice, as smaller bodies with the same composition would have sublimated to nothing over the age of the Solar System."
OK. Moved to the topic sentence. Serendipodous 15:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Serendipodous 14:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see where you have dealt with this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources call it a mantle because it is still uncertain whether Ceres has a core or not. Serendipodous 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you need to clarify, not use a different definition from the dictionary one without explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can really do is put the word "mantle" in quotes. Since the sources use it and don't explain it, and other sources I've looked at don't explain it. Serendipodous 10:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself, I found the meaning of "mantle" clear enough in context. I was going to suggest putting it in quotes, as you've now done. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mars does have water, but Ceres is made partly of water. Even given their differences in size, Ceres still has more water than Mars. Serendipodous 22:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think you are right. There is speculation that very large amounts may be present on Mars deep below the surface, but the known water is only a fraction of the amount on Ceres. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else addressed. Serendipodous 12:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The mantle issue is unsatisfactory but there is nothing you can do about it if no source explains. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

More later. A. Parrot (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Serendipodous 20:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A. Parrot, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to spot-check the sources, but I'm having difficulty finding the time. I hope to do it over the weekend, but unless I've done it, I won't be supporting or opposing. A. Parrot (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
added. Serendipodous 08:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]

I have no concerns with source quality. Though I'm not an expert in this field, the citations seem to meet the high standard set by WP's other solar system FAs. (I was rather amused to see A Companion to Roman Religion, a book in my wheelhouse and indeed my source library, listed here.) I spot-checked 20 citations and found only three faults. (Citation numbers according to the latest revision of the article.)

I'll take your word for it. I don't have access to the entire book. Serendipodous 09:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The line cited by cite 65 isn't about tholins. It's citation 66 that mentions tholins. Serendipodous 09:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was Citation 65 when I wrote my comment. In any case, it's this source: [48]. A. Parrot (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I'm a moron. Anyway, changed to what the source actually says. Serendipodous 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Serendipodous 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All concerns resolved. A. Parrot (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. Parrot, just checking if this is a source review pass and a general review support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is both. A. Parrot (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

I came looking to review it favourably, but I was dismayed to see it has been changed over from one spelling system to another since its last FA version. This isn't permitted by MoS. I've raised this at Talk:Ceres (dwarf_planet)#ENGVAR. Once this issue has been resolved, I will have a proper look at the article. John (talk)22:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to oppose per the lack of agreement in talk about what spelling the article should have. Happy to come back after this is resolved. John (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it. Serendipodous 09:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. John (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see we are having an RfC on spelling now. Let my oppose stand until this matter is resolved.John (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. The issue of which variety of English to use would seem to be settled. I was wondering if you had any further thoughts on the article or the nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I'll post some comments here tonight. Thanks for notifying me. John (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Now that the thorny issue of which variant of English to use has been settled, the spelling needs to be standardised throughout. I think this one is done, but please check my work. John (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is first mentioned in the section's second paragraph. Serendipodous 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it is, my apologies. If I missed it, in admittedly quite a quick read through, so may others. I wonder how to do this so it's more obvious. John (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Serendipodous 09:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work. John (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are features, then what are cryovocanoes? Serendipodous 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean. It's the very short "Boulders" section that bothers me. John (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inferred yes. Brine canot exist on Ceres's surface and Dawn only saw Ceres's surface. Serendipodous 09:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. John (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kwami[edit]

I haven't reviewed the whole article recently, but had a couple changes in wording reverted because they were rejected here. Though I can't see where they were ever mentioned here.

Ceres's composition is not consistent is rather awkward to say aloud. The Cererean composition works better IMO.
internal processes ... unlike on Vesta is semantically odd. In contrast to Vesta avoids that, though maybe there's a better way to put it.

— kwami (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ce'd it. Serendipodous 21:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your ce Serendipodous, and I am ok with "Ceres's", although it is a little awkward, "Cererean" is even more so. We can agree to disagree, Kwami. They were discussed just above as one of a batch of copyedits. John (talk) 21:59, 16 October 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) 18 October 2022 [49].

Securitas depot robbery[edit]

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

During the COVID lockdown, I pursued an interest in the history of heists which resulted in a featured list amongst other things. A loose end was always the page for the Securitas depot robbery since I wanted to improve this account of one of the world's largest cash robberies: of the almost £53 million stolen banknotes, around £32 million has never been recovered. The history of the gang which did the heist is unique, taking in crashed sports cars, mixed martial arts and various locations in Kent, UK. I took it to Good article in June 2022 and I then put it to peer review where unfortunately it did not receive comments. This is my second FA nomination (after Olive Morris) and I hope the discussion will be as fruitful as first time round. Thanks for all constructive comments. Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Nikkimaria! Mujinga (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is well-written, seems comprehensive and well sourced. John (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Your interest in heists overlaps with my interest in policing and police use of firearms!

I made a few tweaks as I went through but it looks in good shape. Can't see anything that would rule out promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian[edit]

I know nothing of this incident but the nom seems to be languishing a bit and after all who doesn't like a good heist story, so recusing coord duties to review...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: the article has three supports, an image review pass and a source review pass, so is it now at the point where it can be approved? Thanks Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look once I get off work, unless one of the other coordinators beats me to it. Hog Farm Talk 13:15, 17 October 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) 12 October 2022 [50].

Fort Southerland[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the Duckport Canal FAC was archived due to inactivity, I was given a waiver of the normal two-week waiting period. So now follows a hopefully more interesting subject - a minor Confederate fortification in southwestern Arkansas. It's short, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be, although there is some confusion about the original name (spoiler: it's fairly likely that it's on the NRHP under the wrong name). Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, were you still planning to return here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look at the remainder of the article, and can't see any further issues. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (MSG17)[edit]

Only two pieces of media in the article: a freely-licensed relevant image of the site as it currently (in relative terms) stands and a location map. Passed. MSG17 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

LOL! Yes!
Bleh! Ok.

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Can see no reliability or formatting issues in this short and sweet collection of references -- GTG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, given the innocuous nature of my source review I don't consider it necessary to recuse coord duties so will shortly be promoting this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:18, 12 October 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) 12 October 2022 [51].

Osbert Parsley[edit]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English composer, organist and 'singing man' Osbert Parsley, whose 50-year-long musical career at Norwich Cathedral spanned the reigns of four Tudor monarchs—Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. The article has received a peer review—and all comments on how to promote another of my Norfolk heroes to FA would be very welcome. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Wikimedia Commons amended to reflect the fact that I made the file myself using Musescore. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then this too is missing a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been added for the intermediate work (IMSLP); I'm looking for a tag for the original work (the original composition). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: - Have you been able to get this licensing bit worked out? Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - Yes, I think it's now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Observations by WereSpielChequers[edit]

The prose is fine and thanks for indulging my queries, though some sort of link for the first occurrence of the word motet would help those like me who are unfamiliar with it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, I believe. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look to see if any of the sources provide this information. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morehen came up with some relevant information regarding your point, and I've amended the Compositions text accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Boston (1963) p32-33 speculates about Parsley's possible monastic life before the Dissolution. He notes that Parsley becomes a singing man in 1535, three years before the Dissolution. he then goes on to suggest that Parsley was:
  • either a layman who assisted the monks, saying there is nothing to suggest this could be wrong;
  • or he was a novice. In Boston's view there is no evidence he was a priest, so he wasn't, but he could possibly have been a novice who may have been prevented from taking holy orders, and so became a singing man.
This is imo all speculation by someone writing nearly 60 years ago, so I didn't include it in the article. Do you suggest any of this could be included? No other sources come close to speculating that Parsley might have been a monk. or why he married in 1558. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is speculation centuries after the event, and we only know the year of the marriage, not whether it took place under Mary or Elizabeth. Marriage involving those previously in holy orders was a way to clearly take a side in the reformation and counter reformation. If Boston is still seen as an authority on the subject then I think it would be reasonable to say that "Boston has conjectured that .......". ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Some minor points on the prose:

  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth are unknown" – "x or y" needs a singular verb, rather than the plural one here. Alternatively, "or" should be "and".
  • "He was appointed a 'singing man'" – unclear why single, rather than the normal double, quotes are used here.
  • "conjectured that Parsley was either hired by the cathedral monks to assist them as a layman chorister, or he was possibly a novice monk" – the prose might flow better without the superfluous "he".
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ‘gifts’ from the cathedral" – more single quotes, and curly ones to boot.
  • "Te Deum" – unclear why there are quotation marks (here and later in the text). We usually give generic titles like this without quotes (or italicisation).
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during an Evensong service" – the OED doesn't capitalise "evensong" and nor does Chambers.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parsley's instrumental music, nearly all for viols, survives" – Does this mean some of his instrumental music or all of it? (It would be a bold claim four hundred years later that everything OP wrote in that line remains intact.)
  • "Peter Phillips … noted that "Parsley can be remembered as one of those men who just once conjured up a masterpiece, as it seems to us now, from nowhere". A nice phrase, but it isn't clear which one of Parsley's works Phillips is talking about.
All done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few comments. I hope they are of use. Tim riley talk 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, per the coordinator comment below, perhaps you have a support or oppose for this nomination? Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to have overlooked this. My few quibbles have been properly attended to and I'm happy to support. An intriguing article that seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. Tim riley talk 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24[edit]

Comments[edit]

Thanks, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done (also, see comment from Tim riley above). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: - Text amended, please let me know if anything needs to be clarified any further. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Interested! As usual I'll skip the lead, and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Life ...

Later life

Composing career

Agreed, now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music for voices

Recordings

I'll look to see what there is. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a good look, and found nothing notable, mainly because Parsley's music appears in compilations that include other, often more famous composers, and the performance of his works is gets noticed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving lead for after sleep. Thank you for the article, - I had no idea of the man and his music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After more sleep than I thought: the lead. Some things are the same as in the prose, such as please link Morning Service, for readers around the globe who are unfamiliar with Anglican church music. As for the order: I could imagine 1) chorister service, 2) rulers, 3) style, 4) Memorial plaque. I wonder if we could have a bit about today's performances of his music, but this is for lead and prose. Are his church works regularly part of services, or sometimes, or rarely? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, apart from the query about modern performances of his music, which needs researching. I'll see what I can find. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I found in a quick search was this, - please sift if anything is useful:

Still lead, having looked again:

Changed singer to 'chorister', which is what he was. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion about removing the note on alternative surnames for Parsley. There are now redirect pages for all his alternative names (these are rarely encountered, so I don't want to clutter the lead section with them). I have followed the procedure I have found used at other FA people with difficult names to transcribe). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After more sleep: how about an infobox? Other cathedral organists have one, see Stephen Cleobury, for example. Yes, he was a composer, but he was also a singer, and a person ;) (I never understood anyway why composers are somewhat special in that respect.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider your suggestion, but I'm not an infobox fan, and none of the other reviewers have ever brought the matter up. As far as I am aware, they are not compulsory at FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not compulsory, but we could still offer some easy access for readers from all the languages where Parsley is not covered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion Gerda, but I would rather an infobox was not included. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes above. I'd still support, even without infobox, once the other points are done, but feel that you speak about your personal preference, not how it would be detrimental for a reader. Just for information, I'd like you to take a look at the last composer FA, and at the close of a discussion that I felt was sensible. As a doctor once told me: it never hurts to get information (which I then got, but it didn't change my mind). - For the other points: I'm busy but will check them out soonish, probably not today though, with a bio and a RD article waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Your comments—many thanks for them all—have been addressed to the best of my ability. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, pleased! - Nitpicking:
  • "was a unique honour for the cathedral's choristers" - may be my lack of English but it reads like a contradiction, - I'd expect "was a unique honour for a chorister"
  • In the compositions' table, Evening comes before Morning, yes by alphabet, but then I'd drop the link to Morning, - was linked before.
  • In the table of the instrumental ones, viol is linked at the bottom, - I suggest no link, as linked before, but if a link then for the first.
You decide. None of this is in the way of a support, with thanks for diligent work around a man known too little. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review

Text and citation in the main body of the article accidently removed but now restored. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
url issue sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refs replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted - the letters were given as a website in the source. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My error, text and source now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brennecke yet to be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm unclear here, as Shakespeare's "Singing Man of Windsor", Brennecke's article, includes a quote, i.e. not a song title. Surely the way I have put it is correct? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. The relevant guideline is WP:QWQ - we're trying to avoid the "" formulation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This still seems to be inconsistent: for example Musical Times has a publisher and location but Music and Letters has neither. These aren't required parameters for periodicals so it's okay to either include or exclude, it just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite done - compare for example Phillips and Waters, which are to the same publication but have different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, point above sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not conduct extensive spotchecks, but I noticed some verifiability issues around the Recordings section. For example, the article states a 2005 recording was released under the DHM label; the provided source was for a 2005 release by Sony BMG, although it notes there was a previous version in 1974 by BASF HM. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the sources. This section was added after the peer review by another editor, apologies not not taking a look at it before. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above comments Nikkimaria​, now hopefully all addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, just checking if the SR is GTG... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last point is pending, otherwise good with the proviso that a full spotcheck was not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 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) 11 October 2022 [52].

Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC), Henni147 (talk), and Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the mens ice skating champion Yuzuru Hanyu's Olympic seasons. He has recently retired from competition and completed his career of competing at the Olympics; this article covers his medal winning three appearances at the Olympics. The article is a co-nomination with Henni who has also done the FL for Yuzuru Hanyu's career, and Ernest who was the co-nominator for the successful GAN nomination of the Yuzuru Hanyu biography article at Wikipedia with User:Yolo. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thank you very much for setting up the FAC nomination. Here are some additional notes that might be useful for the review process:
  • The result table got extracted from Hanyu's career achievements sub-page, which has reached FL status already. So it should satisfy the FAC criteria.
  • This Olympic seasons article emerged from a page split of Hanyu's bios page, and has no equivalent among figure skating articles yet. This is especially true for the sub-sections about Hanyu's six Olympic programs. Their background and creation process has received an unprecedentedly broad and thorough coverage by newspapers, magazines, and television broadcasts, both in Japan and overseas, and we believe that a summary of these insights is very valuable for the global coverage of figure skating on Wikipedia. Henni147 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add more below, but I wanted to chime in here to attest to this statement, that Henni is correct about no equivalent/similar article in any bio about a figure skater. I'm proud that I was able to help facilitate its split from Hanyu's main bio and that it's come far enough to be submitted to FAC. Henni, Ernest, and Yolo have worked really hard on this article, so they should also be proud of this accomplishment, made possible by their dedication and the fact that, unlike most skaters, so much has been written about Hanyu. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone familiar with the article since its conception, it wouldn't be objective for me to give a support/comment (it's obvious I support it). But I'll help responding to the reviews when it's needed. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add, since this type of article within Figure Skating project is unprecedented, it has gone through a peer-review before the 2022 Winter Olympics which can be viewed here. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Removed fixed px unless it's needed. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please inform me if I did it incorrectly. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: We uploaded two more images to Commons, and included them in the 2018 after season honors-section. On Commons, the two files are currently listed in multiple categories with "missing SDC copyright license". What influence does that have on the FAC nomination? Shall we remove the images, until the licensing issue is fixed, or is there nothing to be done? I am not familiar with the licensing procedure on Commons. Henni147 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Issue seems to be solved. The categories have already been removed from one of the two images. However, another look at the copyright and licensing status might be good. Just in case. Henni147 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Japan's freedom of panorama rules are non-free for Wikipedia purposes, so both of these will need tags for the original works pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147@Nikkimaria: I have added the tag to both pictures. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the correct tag - neither of these appear to be architectural works. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Could you suggest which tag is appropriate for these? Since we are not familiar with Commomns. The monuments may be not architectural, but they function like other architectural monuments or memorials. They're not promoting something and people don't need to pay to see or photograph them. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Japan distinguishes between architectural works (buildings) and artistic works like these. Do you know when and by whom these were erected? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Update: I just got this source link from the website of Sendai City. According to the city's sports promotion division, the designer of the monuments has never been announced, and it's not planned to reveal any illustrations for the designs in the future (see Q&A #6). Henni147 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria This hasn't been pointed out, but the images have been removed from Commons and the article. So, unless there's another problem, we could get a pass? - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to verify, were there any images other than those added since the initial review? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It's two: Ballade No. 1 in 2015 and People's Honour Award. I replaced the previous images with these two, so that they face towards the prose text. They were uploaded by the same users under the same license and show nearly the same image content as the ones originally used. Henni147 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Looks like quite a comprehensive overview. Not sure whether I'll get around to a fuller review, but I do have a couple of comments/questions at the moment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that sfn, only initials of institution are used, which in this case is Kiss & Cry, based on this. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you very much for pointing out the error! Yes, I used the wrong author abbreviation in the sfn template. It has to be "Kiss & Cry" instead of "K&C". Thank you very much! Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sfn with quotes, translation of the quotes is already included in the article as a direct quote. Added trans-title for the Vogue China. I believe other refs with titles in foreign languages have been translated. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checked reference section for missing script- or trans-titles, but it looks complete now.
Note: For direct quotes in Japanese language the following system is consistently used on the page: The English translation is embedded as a direct quote in the prose part, while the original Japanese wording is either included in the sfn template (print sources) or in the r-template (websites and AV media sources). The latter can be viewed via mouseover, but currently it's only accessible in the desktop version. Alternative would be to place the original Japanese quote in the citation template, but that would further blow up the reference section. I am open for good solutions here. Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed results

Added. I used the latter. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the policies yet either, but as Henni said that table is taken from List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu, and the issue wasn't raised during the FL peer-review. It's also now part of figure skating manual of style. But please inform us if there's a policy prohibiting this. I'll keep looking. Thank you for your comments.
Update: Just found this: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." In this case, it will fall into the "amount of detail" reason because the info needed by the articles (placements, total scores, score and placement from each segment) have to be taken from three pages from one link. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in case of statistics tables it seems to be allowed (even encouraged) to place the references with their archived source directly as an external link in the stats table. Otherwise the reference section would blow up exponentially. These "Details" links in our table navigate to eight ISU stats pages for the men's singles discipline, of which we need at least three to cover all listed data. Citing these sources individually would lead to ca. 40 additional inline citations. Now we have 13 compact links, which is far more economic. Since this solution has passed the FL class review last year, I expect it to be fine for FA class as well.
However, what we can do is to use the big result table from the new "Spin the Dream" source by Asahi Shimbun as a global inline-citation, and place it above the tables (if needed). Then we'd have both, a cited source plus links to competition details on the official ISU website. Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Figureskatingfan[edit]

I don't think it's necessary to update the TP handbook since it's the handbook that applied when the event happened. Unless, if ISU happen to change the definition of under-rotation in the future which would make the attempt not categorized as UR anymore, we may need to cite the updated TP handbook as well, but the 2021-2022 season handbook would still need to stay. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all thanks to Henni and the support from fan-photographers who have been willing to provide the needed images :) - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments! I've sent a request for images of Hanyu's Rondo Capriccioso and Heaven and Earth from the Beijing Olympics if possible, so that we can add a small gallery in that section too, which is uniform with the other two Olympics sections. Usually, my fellows Phantom Kabocha and David Carmichael travelled to all big competitions to take pictures, but due to the restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic and exclusion of audience from most sports events, they had no opportunity to contribute anything themselves since 2020.
Anyways, I'm very grateful to both for all the great pictures, and also to fellow users from twitter and PH who helped searching, accessing, and translating Japanese sources. It would have been impossible for Yolo4A4Lo and me to compile this large amount of information alone. Henni147 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here. I've looked over most of the article and can now give my enthusiastic support. This is an complete and exhaustive article about an important figure skater, one worthy to receive the bronze star. It's also a great example of an aspect about a figure skater bio, one that we can all learn from. (For example, including outside links of the specific short programs and free skating programs discussed. I will use that.) Best to all the team going forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Coming up to three weeks and this nomination has yet to pick up a support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Support from Christine and DarkWarrior, along with an image pass from NikkiMaria. Several other editors have added placeholders and added further comments for further review during the upcoming week. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updating since the 25th. There appear to be two further supports from User:3a4t and Aqaria. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski and Epicgenius: Any further comments from you guys? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 7 October 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
Update: I decided to remove the anchor links, since the article has its own table of contents that readers can use for navigation. Now the formatting of the inline citations should no longer be an issue. Henni147 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
Thank you very much for all your comments so far. I will try my best to figure out smart solutions for the key event sections to be as compact in wording as possible. I hope that, apart from the key events, the article has the potential for a promotion to FAC. Henni147 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will look at this article very soon. I'll review the prose as well, although this article is extremely long, so it may take a while for me to sort through these issues. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With his win at the subsequent World Championships, he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines after Russian Alexei Yagudin (in 2001–02) to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season" - Would it be better to say: "...he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season, after Russian Alexei Yagudin in 2001–02"? I feel that the phrase "after Russian Alexei Yagudin (in 2001–02)" interrupts the flow of this sentence.
  • "In 2017, he reset the world record" - I understand what this sentence fragment is trying to say, but generally, "reset" isn't the correct word to use in this context. I'd suggest something like "he again set the world record"
  • "On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced to "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional" - The phrase "announced to" isn't quite correct. How about "On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced that he would "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional"?
More tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Fixed all. I decided to use "improved his world record", but if "again set the world record" is preferred, I can change it. Thank you very much for your suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More later. This is a long article, so it's taking me a while, but I should be able to get through the rest of the page over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Excellent, thank you very much. Now that you have read the first section, do you agree with Lee Vilenski that the key event sections should be condensed (with more focus on the Olympics) or would you say that they are fine like this? Before we revamp all three sections, we would like to hear more comments. It's quite a lot of work that should not be in vain. Thanks in advance. Henni147 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147, personally, I thought all the details in the first section made sense. However, now you mention it, I agree with Vilenski that it may be helpful if you do condense the "key events" sections, since all three of the "key events" sections are quite long.
There are a few quotes, as well as other details, that may have to be trimmed so that the article is more concise. For instance, these three sentences ("After the 2013 Four Continents Championships, where he had finished second, Hanyu suffered a knee injury and resumed training two weeks prior to the World Championships. An additional ankle sprain in the official practice forced him to compete while taking painkillers. Placing ninth after the short program, he fought back to fourth place overall, which earned the Japanese national team the third spot at the 2014 Winter Olympics") could probably be summarized as one sentence. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius I've gone ahead and shorterned those 3 sentence into one which looks a bit better. Hopefully that puts it closer to an enhanced version. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: To be honest, I am not happy with the new wording. If we remove Hanyu's placement at 4CC, we can skip that event altogether. It has no meaning without mentioning Hanyu's final result there. Also, it is true that the injuries contributed to Hanyu's 9th place in the SP at Worlds, but the new wording makes it sound like it was the main course of the low placement, which is not true. Hanyu could have messed up his jumps without the injuries as well. So I would be careful with this kind of causal phrasing. I hope you don't mind that I reverted your last edit.
My suggestion is the following: I will compile alternative key event sections in my sandbox over the next days (taking care of accuracy in content), and then we can discuss if we use them or just keep the sections as they are now. These sections need to be adjusted globally with a proper concept. Henni147 (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a better version of the edit then you can add it into the article. Until then, you might consider restoring it in case Epicgenius has a comment to make about it. Otherwise you should go ahead with improvements to the prose. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo: I decided to put two information back:
  1. The direct quote of Hanyu's career goals is the most crucial direct quote of the entire article. It shows his clear visions and aspirations from a very young age and how he stuck to his declared goals from beginning to end. It is like a "red thread" throughout his skating career. That's why it should even be highlighted as a blockquote in my opinion, and not be rephrased or disappear between the lines.
  2. I also put the info about Hanyu's fall on the quad loop at 2018 Rostelecom back, because we refer explicitely to that event, when we later talk about his 5-quad program at the 2019 GPF. It would no longer make sense to the reader, why the quad loop was a jump that had caused him an injury if we don't mention it previously. Henni147 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, Epicgenius, and Lee Vilenski: I have created a draft for an alternative 2021-22 key event section in my sandbox. If we only consider the text in black, it's about 12% less prose than before. I tried to move away from a chronological career summary, and focus on Hanyu's global situation heading into his final Olympic season. The additional paragraph in gray is based on a recent interview with Hanyu on Japanese television. If we want to include it, I'd suggest to place it at the end of the second paragraph. This is not a must, but it would give a deeper understanding of his focus on the quad Axel instead of a third Olympic gold, and also his motivation to move from competitive to professional skating, explaining why he no longer wants to be evaluated with scores.
If desired, I could create similar summaries for the other two seasons. However, I would also agree with keeping the key event sections as they are now. I am open for suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me. My opinion is that the text in gray might detract from the article and, if included, should be condensed to one sentence at the end of the second paragraph. Also, I get the impression that, in the proposed rewrite, the first paragraph is actually more detailed than in the current article. I'm not against adding these details, but you may be better off placing some of these details (such as the description of the new point-scoring system) into an explanatory footnote. Otherwise, the rewrite looks good, and I think you should summarize the other two seasons as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you very much for your quick reply. I condensed the first paragraph and limited the infos about the new judging system to the footnote. Update: I also shortened the additional paragraph in gray to one sentence and merged it into the section to see how it fits. It can be removed at any time, but I think it fits well in context. Henni147 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. The rewrite looks good. But I personally think if we want to use the rewrite version for the 2021–22 season, it would look better if the other two Key Events are made into a non-chronological summary as well to make them uniform. It's just my opinion. I won't mind if the rewritten is used, while the others stay the same. I'll go with the consensus. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo: Yes, I was thinking about re-arranging the other two sections as well, but I did not have the time yet. I will try to create them this weekend, and then include them all three in the main article with the correct references. Henni147 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I revamped the pre-17/18 key event section. I try my best to do the same for the first key event section as well. (Sorry for the delay, but I was too busy with other work the last days). Henni147 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I will take a look at this by tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice comments from Epicgenius. Henni has tried to make that edit which you requested. Are there more edits which could be added to the article to try to gain your support? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sorry, I forgot about this. I did look through the article again yesterday, but I only found minor grammatical nitpicks, which in my view shouldn't prevent this article from becoming an FA. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB[edit]

Disclosure, I offered to do a review in exchange for Ernest reviewing Aliens. Figure skating or any other form of skating or Olympic sport is not my jam, but I have persevered.

"Various news outlets and magazines such as Nikkei Asia or International Figure Skating noted that Hanyu's exit from the competitive circuit marks the "end of an era".[206][210] Juliet Macur of The New York Times remarked that "we may never see another skater like Yuzuru Hanyu".[211] Numerous sports figures from and outside figure skating reacted to Hanyu's announcement with gratitude and praise, including Japanese gymnast Kōhei Uchimura,[212] baseballer Shohei Ohtani, and tennis player Naomi Osaka.[207][213] Thomas Bach, president of the International Olympic Committee, sent a personal message to Hanyu through the IOC's official media account on Twitter:[214]
Congratulations on an outstanding Olympic career. You are a true Olympic champion. Good luck for the next steps in your skating career. We will keep following you and look forward to seeing you again.
— Thomas Bach, IOC president (July 20, 2022)"

Support by 3a4t[edit]

I'm unable to write a full review at the moment, but I believe the article is well sourced, well written and meets the NPOV criteria. It is an exhaustive description of Hanyu's achievements in his Olympic seasons and one could argue that this article makes for a better read than Hanyu's main article. The unique nature of the subject (such as the unprecedented amount of media coverage about Hanyu's Olympic programs), as well as recent events (Hanyu's retirement from competitive skating) make it a particularly good candidate for a Featured article.3a4t (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear about your support. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Apqaria[edit]

First, thank you for all the effort spent to produce such an informative article that adds so much depth for readers about Yuzuru's journey. I have followed the updates on the article since the start but I have finally given it a more overall detailed read to contribute to the FAC review after an invitation from Henni147. This is my first time contributing to a FAC review so please pardon me if I am doing anything wrong here. I have focused my review on the content and I have a couple of comments so please check below

Thanks for the fast update. I am glad to support the article and hopefully with it as an example and a featured article, we can see more detailed articles like it for other skaters/athletes. Apqaria (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

Addressed comments

It looks like this has had more than sufficient amount of prose commentary so I'll instead conduct a source review. Version reviewed; spot-checks not included.

  • I suggest adding |access-date= for the sources with external hyperlinks.
@FrB.TG: Do you know any bots that can do it fast? - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG and Yolo4A4Lo: I have a general question here: what is the purpose of adding an access-date to archived sources? The required information was available at the date of archiving and the url-status parameter shows whether the website is still live and showing the piece of info or not. In both cases, adding an access-date would be redundant information and just further blow up the citation section in my opinion. But if it's required by Wiki MOS, I can add them manually. Henni147 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's not a MoS requirement, but it makes sense in case of links that are not archived. Your reasoning of the archived dates being enough makes sense. I guess what's important is that it is done consistently (either everywhere or nowhere) and that seems to be the case here so all okay. FrB.TG (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 1 needs a page number and |format=pdf.
Done. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 2 is not in Japanese as our article suggests.
Corrected. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes nonno.hpplus.jp a high-quality reliable source?
Nonno is a lifestyle magazine from Shueisa that also owns Sportiva. They also do reporting on figure skating to wider audience. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 16 needs a |lang= parameter.
Added. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes sportiva.shueisha.co.jp a high-quality reliable source?
Sportiva is the only sport magazine by Shueisha, one of major Japanese publication. They provide a lot of live and immediate reporting and are one of the major figure skating news source in Japan. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes victorysportsnews.com a high-quality reliable source?
    • Ito Yamane, the author of the cited online article from victorysportsnews.com, is known as a reliable sports journalist for the Number magazine among others, and has published a book about figure skating programs, which I also added as a source. I am not sure about the reliability of victorysportsnews.com in general, but given the fact that Ito is among the writers, it should definitely count as a reliable source in this case. Henni147 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major cities should be de-linked in |location= parameter in references (like Tokyo in #19, Ottawa in #21, New York City in #51, #55 and #59, and Beijing in #143).
De-linked all major cities. I didn't de-linked Lausanne because I think it's not a familiar city, but please inform me if I missed something. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in ref. 27 should be translated.
The translation is fully quoted in the article. Does it need to be re-written? - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes mp.weixin.qq.com a high-quality reliable source?
weixin.qq is a blog platform by Tencent QQ, but the source cited is officially written by Vogue China editorial team. It can be accessed through the magazine's official Weibo account. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 40 title needs a translation.
Done. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done on other instance as well. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 56 should have |url-access=limited.
Added. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes walkerplus.com a high-quality reliable source?
Cited article is a web version of article from Tokyo Walker, a nationwide travel magazine from Kadokawa Corporation and a part of their Walker Press network. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes goldenskate.com a high-quality reliable source?
Golden Skate is probably the oldest and most known news source in figure skating. They conduct direct interviews and reporting to all figure skating competitions. Most of figure skating articles on Wikipedia use Golden Skate to cite details that are not picked up by huge news outlets who usually only focus on the sport during Olympic seasons. GS is alsu suggested by WP:FS STYLE. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does only source 77 have a |url-access=subscription and not for other ones by The Japan Times?
Added to articles with live links. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes rockerskating.com a high-quality reliable source?
Replaced the source with one from Nikkan Sports. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location for ref. 123 is GANGNEUNG, South Korea, not McLean, Virginia.
Corrected. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 129 should use a ((cite tweet)) to show the tweeter.
The source is not a Tweet, but a report/blog post made by Twitter editorial team. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of abbreviating International Figure Skating in sources if we write the full form (and the abbreviation) every time?
Removed abbreviation from |magazine= - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in ref. 162 should be translated.
Done. Please check if the format is right or not. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in ref. 167 should be translated.
I think @Henni147: has the full and proper English translation. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the English translation. Also shortened the original Japanese quote and removed the second sentence, which was redundant in content with the first. I hope, that is fine. Henni147 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is ref. 191 title in italics? FrB.TG (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's automatically generated by Template:Cite AV media, and it's the title of the video, not the web page. I'll answer other points later. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 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) 11 October 2022 [54].

Village Green (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by the English rock band the Kinks. Ray Davies, the band's principal songwriter, wrote it in August 1966 after feeling disappointed that beer was being served in metal kegs instead of wooden barrels. After the Kinks recorded it, he hoarded the song while figuring out what to do with it. It wasn't until November 1968 that it saw release on The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, an album which spawned from the song's central themes. Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Support from me on prose and content, following the in-depth FAC-style GAN review I just completed. Since I'm here, I may as well pitch in an image review and get that over with.

  • Well that's too bad. I scoured the Commons and found a couple candidates. I've switched it to this image from the Met which is definitely PD. Tkbrett (✉) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support! Tkbrett (✉) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to support since I suggested it in the first place! For the purposes of the image review, the replacement image checks out as validly free. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sammi Brie[edit]

This is my first-ever FAC content review (two image reviews precede this), and I do intend on claiming it for WikiCup points. Other editors are invited to critique the review. Ping to Tkbrett.

I have no further concerns, and when the copy changes are made and remaining alt text integrated, I will support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, out of curiosity, did you have a concern with my image review not being sufficient? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, nope - just missed it since it wasn't bolded. Oops. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something for it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Comments Support on prose from Ippantekina[edit]

Support from zmbro[edit]

Source review[edit]

Sources are all reliable, links all work.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie. I fixed the fn 63 and converted everything to ISBN 13. Regarding MacDonald 2007, I omitted the location due to advice I received in the past to not include it when it's obvious – in this case, the Chicago Review Press being in Chicago. Is there any guidance regarding this in the MOS? Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 11:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is just consistency, so since you're consistently applying a rule that's fine. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 11 October 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) 11 October 2022 [55].

Low Memorial Library[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the original library building constructed on Columbia University's Morningside Heights campus from 1895 to 1897. Great care was taken in designing this building, which was literally the centerpiece of the campus. Named after the father of Columbia president Seth Low (and ironically the highest point of the original campus), the structure is shaped like a Greek cross, with a limestone-and-granite facade and an ornate domed rotunda. The Low Memorial Library had space for 500,000 volumes but was inadequate as a library. It was converted into offices in 1934 but remains a prominent fixture on the Columbia campus.

This page was promoted as a Good Article ten months ago after a GA review by GhostRiver, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Baffle gab1978, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

Fairly nicely written and organized article about this well-known tourist visiting spot in NYC. Would it be of any interest to possibly consider adding a section dealing with the artistic renderings of the building as it has been visited by artists and moviemakers over the past several decades, such as here: [56]. It seems like I've seen in several NYC movies such as the ones by Woody Allen and other directors. Also architects have made artistic renderings of high quality, etc. Could you consider such a section for this article. As a separate point, the lead section should say more about the centrality of the building to the campus, it needs more emphasis as the cornerstone for the entire campus, rather than just simple focal point; you already have some of this in the section on this topic which you could move up into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments ErnestKrause. I've edited the lead to emphasize the fact that Low is actually at the center of Columbia's Morningside Heights campus (the university has since expanded to another campus in nearby Manhattanville, hence the clarification). I'm working on adding some information about media appearances, including film and artwork. Unfortunately, so far, I haven't been able to find many reliable secondary sources, although the university's own website has a couple of pages describing film appearances. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the Wikipedia article Columbia University in popular culture. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. After I saw your initial comment, I actually looked at that article to determine whether any of the content there could be used on the Low Memorial Library page with a reliable source. There do seem to be a few details that can be used, e.g. the bit about the song Nappy Heads (although the source itself does not mention the library). – Epicgenius (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I haven't had any luck finding reliable sources for these works of popular culture (the only results mentioning "Nappy Heads" and Low Library, for example, are Wikipedia mirrors). There are quite a few mentions in less reliable sources, though: 1, 2, 3, 4. I did find some stuff related to live events, such as Masterpieces of 20th Century Electronic Music, but these are things that may fit better in the "History" section. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here might be a better link with about a dozen images here [57]. It seems to be RS. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have now placed that source in the article, although the reference mentions Low Library in connection with only two films. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joining for support of this candidate. In case you might have an interest in other nominations on this page, I've recently listed the popular culture personality Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons as a candidate here if you might have time to leave some support/oppose comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ErnestKrause, I appreciate it. I may take a look at that later. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This nomination has been open for a month and there is little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless it attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been on my to-do-list for about that long, - I hope to get to it next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

Support after I read the article and found nothing to question. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet[edit]

No, I'm not dead.

Claiming this to comment and ultimately hopefully support. If I haven't written anything in three days, leave a note on my talk. Vaticidalprophet 18:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will do this one. Hog Farm Talk 20:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checked about 5 or so references, no issues noted with that. Hog Farm Talk 20:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I've replaced the Joy of Museums source, and I've formatted the 1901 Columbia reference and the Event Management reference. I will fix the 2007 NRIS citation tomorrow, since I think there may be a better source available. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now replaced the NRIS citation with a PDF detailing when the building was added to the NRHP. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 4 October 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. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried pretty hard to nitpick, but I couldn't find much more than the above, happy to support Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 October 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 October 2022 [58].

Electric eel[edit]

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC) and LittleJerry[reply]

This article is about the electric eel, recently found to be a genus with three species, but long studied by science as a unique and remarkable species; its study advanced understanding of electricity as well as of physiology. We've tried to present the subject at once plainly, historically, and scientifically, and we hope you like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

I think some sections are too short and lacking important details. The Anatomy section, for example, just describes the external appearance of the creature, but in the "Gas exchange" section below, the reader is told about the buccal cavity and the operculum. Further on, we are told about the lateral line and electrocytes. The location of these should have been described under Anatomy. The Gas exchange section does not seem to contain any respiratory physiology, such as the mechanisms of oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange. Do eels have hemoglobin? "Growth and reproduction" doesn't say anything about mating. Does it involve discharging eggs for males to fertilise? The anatomy drawing looks terribly amateurish. Do we have anything better? Graham Beards (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Electric eels are in the great majority of ways typical teleost fish, with haemoglobin in their blood, oxygen taken up and carbon dioxide given out, eggs laid and fertilised externally, and so on, just like almost any ordinary teleost. The drawing is not of the general anatomy but of the layout of the electric organs, certainly the most aberrant feature of this genus. We'll address the positioning of the anatomical features shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should say this? I still think the drawing is poor. Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) Yes, will do. b) Maybe the drawing was too large for and not precise enough about what it was conveying, which is just the location and shape of the electric organs. I've resized and relabelled it. Replaced image with a diagram showing successive levels of structure of body, electric organs, electrocytes, ion channels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "guess" cited to the 2005 Scientific American article is not convincing. Horses are much bigger, but still get shocked. Graham Beards (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its the best we got. We are limited by the information available. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere they have an insulating layer of non-conducting fat which protects them. This is far more convincing. Graham Beards (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - At the moment I am not fully confident that the article is comprehensive or accurate. Graham Beards (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards I just purchased this This book which should arrive in a few days. So lets put it on hold. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to revisit. I'll keep this FAC on my Watchist. Graham Beards (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards I did some expansions. I added more on reproduction/lifecycle, plus information on eyesight, hearing, gills, locomotion, nocturnality and origin of lineage. The electric stuff is more Chap's territory and he's away now but should be back soon. I did contact some experts on how the electric eels avoid being electrocuted themselves and if there's papers on it. It seems to not be discussed specifically (yet) in the scientific literature. You mentioned reading about fat insulation, but I can only find that mentioned in the popular literature. The Scientific American article seems to be the best resource on that subject at this point. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific American is popular literature. If you going to use the guess as an explanation, you should ensure that it is made clear that it is a guess. And, it goes against the point about wading horses, in the preceding paragraph, which are also bigger than a human arm. I think the guess regarding insulating fat tissue is far more credible. Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed SA article and added new information on the vital organs being packed in front and separated from the electric organs. The electric charge goes into the water and away from the body. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. These eels act more like capacitors than batteries. See: Sun, H., Fu, X., Xie, S., Jiang, Y. and Peng, H. (2016), Electrochemical Capacitors with High Output Voltages that Mimic Electric Eels. Adv. Mater., 28: 2070-2076. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201505742

Graham Beards, anything more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-read the article later today. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two more comments:
  • I think mitochondrial DNA is better than "mitochondrial genome" because more readers will know what DNA. (Not a big deal)

Support I am satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. (I don't think there will be any issues with the quality of the sources). The nominators have done a splendid job. Graham Beards (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I also think the article looks surprisingly short for such a well-studied animal, so I will also wait with reviewing until the expansion hinted above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, ready? LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of archaic "ſ" This version of the letter S has fallen out of use in the English language (a long time ago) and its use in the long quote under Notes will confuse many readers. They will not know that "dorſal" is just "dorsal", "obtuſe" is "obtuse", "ſo ſevere" is "so severe" and so on. Why is it being used here? It is not an archaic spelling and is not affected by WP:PMC but come under MOS:CONFORM. Graham Beards (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

I think these three images[61][62][63] should definitely be used in a multiple image template on a top to bottom row so the readers can see the differences, or by using the compilation image you mention, which I fear is in even lower resolution, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments above and below, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added one. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see it, but we can be on the look out for better photos. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tree is from Elbassiouny et al 2019, as stated and cited in the Phylogeny paragraph. Clarified the wording to this effect. The data on electrolocation are from Bullock and Lavoué, also cited in that paragraph; these do not affect the tree's structure (i.e. there is no synthesis of phylogeny). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed book image, added skeleton image, and reworked caption into text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can only follow the literature. Added a fact about the indigenous folk of Venezuela. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added one. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk; all finished. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. The cleithrum is pointed to in the picture below. LittleJerry (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology = "the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings." That includes habitat, feeding and nocturnalty. I've written many FAs with habitat and feeding under "ecology". LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems weird that the info about feeding and how it attacks its prey should be so far apart, but if no one else complains... FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It says that electric eel are the only memebers of their group with eight radials. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so what is the regular number of radials in the rest of its group? FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They differ. Changed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used "electric eel" throughout except in the couple of places where the name of the genus is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk Replied to all. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, in fact Santana says explicitly that the body shape and coloration are not distinguishable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could be stated explicitly in the article for clarity, then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, all finished. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • Evidently someone brought one from Latin America to Sweden, possibly at Linnaeus's request. None of the sources records who shipped it. From the sources summarized in "Early research", we know that European naturalists were experimenting with electric eels in Latin America in the 1760s, and that specimens were shipped alive back to London at that time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could that make it into the section? That European research was already underway by the time Linnaeus got one shipped to Sweden Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cover it in the 'Early research' section, where it seems like a good fit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way it reads, it looks like Linnaeus was the first European to lay eyes on it. Chapter 8 of The Shocking History of Electric Fishes has a lot of good info on this if you can access it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added a bit in the section to indicate that research was already under way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But do try to include that book if you can access it, it looks like it has lots of great detail about early research beyond just electric studies Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in my local library, and it's printed only as a very expensive hardback. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the research sources actually give this, other than to say that it is low, and that as the article says, it's in very brief but repeated pulses. This suggests 1 Ampere, but since it also says 500 Volt is the max, and it's from 2010, it's not obviously terribly reliable; and giving a single figure ignores the fact that it's A/C (i.e. varying continuously) and in pulses, so quoting it would basically be misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Around one amp is accurate and Zurich Zoo says "0.83 ampere with the power output of 415 watts occasionally up to 1 ampere and 600 watts". [74] Graham Beards (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, adding it with what I hope is sufficient caution. The power of 600 watts supposed by the Zurich Zoo is however definitely wrong, as it assumes 600 volts x 1 ampere continuously = 600 watts. The pulsing, intermittent, varying current is however very far from continuous, so the average (it would have to be root-mean-square) power is much less. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, trying that now. The two (Electroreception, Electrogenesis) are actually quite closely related as they are used together, so if the split doesn't work for you, we can just undo it, no worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it just means they've sometimes lived that long (perhaps the wording is a Brit thing). I've said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to continue this later today or by Friday Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems kinda trivial to me, like just listing random facts about random indigenous populations. To me, it'd be like listing movies or video games with electric eels at random if you were to put in a Pop culture section. Like, according to Claude d'Abbeville, it's called the "pouraké" in the Tupi language, why not add that too? And the list goes on and on Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "local culture" paragraph. The stuff about using horse is already mentioned later. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humboldt doesn't say. He just mentions "Indians" from Rastro village, which is in Venezuela in Guárico state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77? LittleJerry (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional sSupport from Sandbh[edit]

The lede doesn’t provide a sufficiently good summary of the main body of the article. The two paragraphs are too long. All I can learn from them is largely confined to eel genealogy and biology. The first paragraph goes into too much detail about the three species whereas all that needs to be said is that there are three species.

I've trimmed and copy edited the lede accordingly. Feel free to revert or edit etc. Sandbh (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, could you do a source review? LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has done one by the weekend I can take a look then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

A fascinating topic, that I've been meaning to read about for a while, so I'm going to seize the chance to review this. Thanks for bringing it to FAC. I haven't read through all the other changes made during the FAC, so if I'm repeating a resolved issue, feel free to say so. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC
  • It's just a brief mention here in the Phylogeny section; much more is said in the Electrophysiology section about these abilities, including the exceptional voltage which is indeed the greatest of any fishes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing important. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its already stated in the species section. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its talking about E. voltai. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are separating anatomy from behavior/ecology. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this sentence is referring to ecology....? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could move it to the Ecology section, but it'd be a bit orphaned there, and it seems to fit well with the oother electrical stuff where it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Not any sort of deal-breaker. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were originally together. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A whole paragraph; and the linked articles give more detail, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of material on electrophysiology and the production of an electric current, but that doesn't necessarily tell the reader what that has to do with sensation. Perhaps it's a matter of rewording, rather than adding...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Researchers have explored what the electrosensed world of weakly-electric fish might be like, as I've described at Electroreception and electrogenesis#Electrolocation. There is no reason to suppose the electric eel's world is much different, but there isn't the same body of detailed research on electrolocation in this genus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the other biology folks above were unbothered I might be the outlier. 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The paragraph starting "The maximum discharge from the main organ" includes the Kramer 2008 citation and gives more detail about marine and freshwater. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Humboldt and his story about horses, what's unclear? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your comment puzzled me as well. Humboldt's horse story was widely doubted by biologists but not any more. There's no doubt among biologists that electric eels defend themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that's worth mentioning then. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned it near the end of Electrophysiology (cited to Catania 2016; he discusses Humboldt in several of his papers). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have covered the key points in that paper with more recent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me for the moment. Nice work. It's a little concise in places, but I understand the literature is quite sparse, aside from volumes about the cell biology involved in electricity production. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Useful source. Cited and added details of vertebrae, we have covered the rest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was also something about the uniqueness of the breathing apparatus, I'll let you take care of that. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me, nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Thanks, but my issue is that Froese and Pauly, Fishbase, appears three times in the list of references, when surely they should be collated? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem to have reached a journal at the moment, and it fixes some definite errors in the conventionally-understood history. It also serves as a secondary source for the early (historic) primary material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, can you make the case that the author is enough of an expert for an SPS to be okay? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul J. Edwards is a Professor Emeritus of Electronic Engineering and Applied Physics at the University of Canberra's faculty of science and technology. He has more than 100 peer-reviewed publications. Since he retired he has continued to publish occasionally in the history of science. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not 100% sure, it's not his primary field of research...but okay. I'm going to leave this unstruck, as with the thesis below, but they won't preclude my support. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted, and fair enough. He has actually published several history papers in the 16 years since his retirement as a physicist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None given. LittleJerry (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo fixed. I don't see a new complete phylogeny for the group. Even if we had a new one it would be unlikely to affect the placing of Electrophorus within the Gymnotidae, which is the key takeaway here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alda et al 2019, Systematic Biology, appears to cover most of the group. The topology is identical, the node support higher. I'd suggest citing it, even if you're not revising anything. At the very least it's a far heftier journal. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look but have not seen it in his later papers. It looks as if the focus of his work shifted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. I think, like you, that they're fine for the history; discussion of how significant that early work was for the History of bioelectricity or such topics would be relevant to those articles, but historiography is off-topic for this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise things look good. I did only a handful of spotchecks, as that's what I had time for; if more are needed, please let me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some responses to consider; others I'm going to leave for other reviewers to look at, though I don't think they preclude my support. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the thorough review, and for your support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 10 October 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) 9 October 2022 [75].

John Raymond science fiction magazines[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about four science fiction magazines published in the early 1950s. The publisher, John Raymond, had no interest in sf, but was lucky enough to hire Lester del Rey, who acquired good material and made the magazines profitable. Raymond was difficult to work with and uninterested in improving the magazines, and del Rey soon left. The magazines lasted only a few months longer, which is a pity as they are better regarded than many of the other 1950s magazines that lasted for many more issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments (full review later)[edit]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720: Thanks for the review! Replies above; I've made nearly all the changes, and argued for keeping a couple of words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a comment about "in the event" above. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have just realised that I forgot to follow-up on this discussion. Sorry about that! All of my comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

Drive-by comments by Piotrus[edit]

Also, minor quibble 2: "John Raymond" is not linked (is he not notable)?

Not as far as I can see. I tried fairly hard to find out which men's magazines he published, but couldn't, and I can't find out anything else about him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MQ3: one reference is expanded in the footnotes, the others are abbreviated. Please standardize.

The expanded one is a website; the rest are books -- I think this is a fairly standard approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am not a nitpicker for the reference standards. It looks jarring to me, but if our MoS is OK with it (and I presume MOS experts are active at FAC), than I am not going to make trouble :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super MSQ4: please rm duplicate link to L. Sprague de Camp in the body.

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MSQ5: Please add disetabilishment category; based on the tables, 1954?

I didn't add this because it's not the same for all four magazines. Three were 1953, one was 1954. Would it be valid to add both, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the topic is magazines as a set, I'd think 1954 as the end data for the set would be ok. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also ping User:TompaDompa who may be interesting in providing feedback on this topic too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; and thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Drive-by comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I was pinged by Piotrus above. A couple of things that immediately stood out to me:

I may give the article a more thorough look later. TompaDompa (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

czar[edit]

Hiya, some comments on a read-through:

czar 19:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've made some changes in response to some points and have replied above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar, can you let us know how things are looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No active objections from me—just suggestions czar 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I can see nothing to fault formatting- or reliability-wise -- looks GTG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian[edit]

I didn't think I'd have time to do a full review but can now recuse coord duties to do so... It's always difficult to find serious fault with Mike's SF mag articles, and any heavy lifting in this case appears to have already taken place. Lightly copyedited as usual so happy with prose, structure and comprehensiveness up to usual standards, will take Buidhe's image review as read, and obviously I stand by the source review above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, and I appreciate the copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 9 October 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) 9 October 2022 [76].

Deja Vu (Olivia Rodrigo song)[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 11:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Deja Vu". Though her popularity exploded with the number-one hit "Drivers License", many critics thought her second single was even better than it. The song also performed strong commercially and debuted at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, making Rodrigo the first artist in history to debut their first two singles in the top 10. It interpolates a Taylor Swift fan-favorite called "Cruel Summer". I worked on this article a bit earlier in the year and I think it is in a good position with respect to the FA criteria. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 11:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

Unfortunately, I will be unable to do a full prose review, but I will still help out by looking through the images.

This FAC passes my image review. I do have a minor suggestion for one of the image captions but it is nothing that will hold back my review from passing. I also have a question about including an audio sample, but that is more outside of the realm of an image review. I hope this was helpful and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Regarding a sample, I considered it unnecessary for this article as I believe the song's composition is amply described by words. Hope you're having a great weekend.--NØ 04:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I respect your choice as usage of non-free media should be kept to minimum and you should not force something into an article if there is not a clear and defined need for it. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend as well! Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (passed)[edit]

All addressed. Regarding point 7, Billboard does not seem to maintain a chart history record for Rodrigo yet, which would probably be located here when it gets created.--NØ 02:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source review passes. Ippantekina (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Article is in great shape overall, a few comments:

  • Changed to "enmeshing". Apologies if this is still too complex and I'd be glad to open up to suggestions.

Great work, I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review, Pseud 14! Very helpful and there weren't any overlaps. These should be addressed now.--NØ 06:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Addressed commnets
  • This is likely a dumb question so apologies in advance. Could you clarify what you mean by "retroactive interpolation"? I read this as meaning this interpolation was put in later, but from my understanding, this was something identified in the song later. I'd just like some clarification about this part.
  • What I was trying to convey is the identification. So I've removed this word.
  • To continue with the interpolation bit, was there any commentary or criticism tying this in the larger issues in the music industry (specifically the seemingly rising case of lawsuits around plagiarism in songs like "Shake It Off" and "Dark Horse")? I vaguely remember the retroactive insert of writing credits being a rather big moment so I would think there is more on that. I was thinking of stuff like this source.
  • I don't think I can connect it to any official lawsuits without inserting original research, so I've now mentioned Swift's writing credits on another Sour track instead. The piece in the above link seems to be by a law school student so are you sure its reliable with regards to the FA standard?
  • You are correct. It would not be reliable enough by Wikipedia's standard let alone a FA standard, Apologies for that as I missed that. My primary question still stands. I remember there when the writing credits were added retroactively, there was a discussion about it connected with the state of music and creativity as a whole. Were any of these discussions picked up and addressed by third-party, reliable sources? It could just be a case where it was more so discussed in forums and the like. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure the comma is needed here, they did, in his new relationship, but I am uncertain so I wanted to ask you first.
  • For this part, which Rodrigo released as her debut single, I'd say "she released" as Rodrigo is repeated twice in the same sentence and this would be clear in context.
  • I'd link bridge in this part, The song's bridge was influenced, to help readers less familiar with music jargon. I would also link hook later in the article.
  • For Citation 6, the entire title should not be in italics, and I would include a time-stamp to where in the video this information is supported.
  • Since interpolation is linked in the article, it should be linked in the lead as well for consistency.
  • I'd clarify the attribution for these quotes, pretty chimes" and "blown-out electronics", as it is not immediately clear to me.
  • I believe these work best as part of the same sentence, and since these quotes are from different critics (The Independent and The Guardian), I am having a hard time working the critic names into it. Apologies for that.
  • My issue with these quotes is the attribution is not made immediately clear to readers which leaves room for misinterpretation on who is saying what. I have been told in the past to not use quotes without clear attribution in the prose (or they become "ghost quotes" for a lack of a better descriptor). I would be interested to see how other reviewers respond to this point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for beating a dead horse, but I have a question about this part, alleged similarity with "Cruel Summer". The earlier section clearly says the song was influenced by "Cruel Summer", but this section is more coy about it by saying "alleged".
  • Maura Johnston should be linked in the article and in the citation. I would double-check the music critics to make sure you did not miss anyone else.
  • I have a comment about this sentence, Chicago Tribune shared the latter's viewpoint. I'd avoid saying "shared" when it comes to reviews unless the Chicago Tribune critic explicitly tied his review to the Rolling Stone one. Plus, this sentence does not really add anything new for the reader. I'd recommend removing it.
  • The quotation marks in this part, described it as a "'don't know what you're missing' fantasy" that flourishes under thick drums and hurtingly relatable snark, do not cover the full quote.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I am guessing the music video did not receive a lot of coverage? I must admit that I am rather surprised since it is still one of her earlier singles, but music videos in general seem to be falling out of popularity.
  • I attribute this to Rodrigo releasing the song, music video, and the album preorder on the same day (April Fool's, no less!), which probably took critical attention away from the video.
  • Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am ecstatic you found the time to review this after all! Thanks and I await your reread.--NØ 04:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. Apologies for pressing the point, but I was curious about your response to my question about the larger (potential) commentary about the retroactive writing credits. It could have been a case it was more discussed in forums (and less in reliable publications) but I wanted to clarify that point before re-reading the article. I am not 100% sold on the quote issue as I believe attribution is important, but again, I'd be curious on how other reviewers respond to that point. I will re-read the article either tomorrow or on Tuesday at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article a few more times and I could not find anything to comment on further. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If successful, this would be the second song FA with this title (alongside the Beyoncé song), I believe that would be the first time that happened. It is super minor, but I think that kind of stuff is interesting lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

Sour is a fun album. I'll be happy to have a read over this shortly. Here are a couple of comments to start off:

Anarchyte (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time! I've accepted both of these suggestions and am excited for any other comments you may have.--NØ 18:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Triple J, it's probably more suited next to the rest of the Australian information: "... Australian Recording Industry Association certified it 3× Platinum. It appeared at number 33 on the 2021 Triple J Hottest 100, alongside four other songs from Sour" or something of the like. Anarchyte (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would make a great addition if there was a critical piece analyzing why this change occurred, but alas there does not seem to be one.
  • Now a quote directly attributed to the critic to make it clear this is not in Wikipedia voice.

Here are some more comments. Will continue later. Anarchyte (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you get through the rest of the article and complete your review before making further changes so it's not changing too much in between your reads. Regards.--NØ 11:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the three sentences immediately following this one are a testament to it, I believe we could get away with not putting them here altogether to avoid citation overkill.

That's all from me. Anarchyte (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review, Anarchyte! While I think the Ryder picture taking up two sections is a little too much, I've kept this for now as it complements the music video part quite well. Let me know what you think about how it looks.--NØ 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the picture is a good addition. All my concerns have been addressed. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 03:17, 28 September 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
  • Fixed NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • done NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not following exactly what you are referring to but added the word "concert" in case that fixes the problem . NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was just that we were saying "her Tour and Festival". Her festival isn't right. Concert works. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Shortened NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • paraphrased the two instances where they were unattributed NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • done NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the direct quote in this instance best expresses the degree to which the critic compared the songs NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • these are always preferred separate unless one of them is too short (not the case here) NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • not possible as most of them are auto-generated by the singlechart templates and that would be one abnormally long ref NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Lee Vilenski. Let me know if there's anything else.--NØ 13:15, 2 October 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) 8 October 2022 [77].

Shefali Shah[edit]

Nominator(s): Shahid • Talk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shefali Shah is an Indian actress who started on Indian television and for much of her career, acted sporadically in films, often playing character roles. Although consistently respected for her talent with awards and praise from critics, it was not until recent years that she gained wide recognition, starting with the internationally acclaimed series Delhi Crime on Netflix. Since then, her career has only been growing, courtesy digital streaming platforms, with substantial leading roles. Having liked her work myself, I thought taking this stub and turning it into something of worth would be a great idea. It was challenging and interesting to find out more about an actor I didn't know much about myself. I'd be grateful to get help from WP peers and promote this article. Shahid • Talk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

Addressed comments

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to conduct a full prose review of this article, but I wanted to try and help with an image review. Hopefully, this will take some of the pressure and work away from the reviewers who normally do this kind of work in the FAC space.

  • File:Shefali2022 (cropped).jpg: The image has WP:ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. I would encourage archiving the source and author links to prevent any future headaches with link rot and death, but this is not a requirement for a FAC. Would it be possible to expand the caption to include the location/event (i.e. a screening of Jalsa)? I believe further context would be beneficial for readers.
  • File:Shefali Shah 2022.jpg: The image needs WP:ALT text. As with the previous image, I'd suggest archiving the source and author links, but again, it is not required. Do we know in what capacity she is promoting the film (i.e. is this a screening, an interview, etc.)? I am only curious because the current wording seems rather vague.
  • I am guessing these are the only usable images for the article?

I hope these comments are helpful. For the infobox image, I only have a question about the caption, and for the second image, I recommend ALT text and I have a question about the caption there as well. I also just have a general question about the amount of images in the article. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this image review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Good to hear from you and thank you for stepping in. First image: From my experience with infobox images, mentioning the location is not recommended. I can add it anyway if you like. The second image has been replaced by a newer one - please have a look (alt and stuff has been added). Also, a new image with her huband. All images have informative captions, ALTs and proper info. Shahid • Talk2me 10:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it recommended to not include the location/event for the infobox image? It seems strange to not provide the full context of an image to a reader in a way that easily accessible. FAs such as Oscar Isaac, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift include this information. In my opinion, it boils down to helping the audience. I do not think a reader should look at an image and question where it was taken. As the infobox currently stands, this image could have been taken anywhere in 2022 and that's an issue in my opinion. That's the reason why I'd include the event for the infobox image and File:Shefali Vipul.jpg.
There is a Personality rights warning for the image of Shah and her husband. Could you explain this for me as I am not fully aware of what this means? File:Photos-Celebs-attend-the-premiere-of-Delhi-Crime-2-0086-1.jpg looks solid to me. It is a shame that there are not earlier pictures of her, but I can understand the difficulty of finding images in the first place and sometimes there is just a gap in what can find and use. Once the issue with the image captions and my question about the personality rights warning are answered, I would be more than happy to pass this image review.
I want to add that I greatly appreciate your work with biographies on Indian actors (such as Dimple Kapadia and Preity Zinta) and it is great to see FA content about subjects outside of the English-speaking world. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Well, as I said, it's from my experience in my previous FACs :) This was a clear request in my last FAC and I see that Kate Winslet, Michelle Williams, Brie Larson and the likes do not have information of the sort. Having said that, I don't have any problem at all and will be more than happy to provide more information. Please have a look.
The Personality warning has been removed as was the other tag because they're both irrelevant for this version.
Thank you for your kind words, as always. Shahid • Talk2me 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, I read WP:CAPLENGTH, and indeed, it is recommended to keep the infobox caption short and to the point, so, if you don't mind, I'll keep it as it suggests. If you insist, I'll restore the full caption. :) Shahid • Talk2me 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will pass this image review. It likely boils down to a matter of personal preference. I was honestly confused by where the infobox image was taken, especially since the background is not in focus, so I would have appreciated more context because it honestly just looks like a candid photo of her walking down a street. The WP:MOS is pretty clear about it though so it should be fine. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • From a glance, I'll say this: having otherwise empty sections that solely consist of referral links (what you've currently done with "Filmography" and "Accolades") is lazy and uninformative with no accompanying text, which renders them useless. Either add some text or move the links elsewhere and scrap those headings altogether. More comments to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SNUGGUMS: Totally. I'll follow the format of other FAs, where filmography and awards are part of the career section. Shahid • Talk2me 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now for other parts.....

  • Having "an Indian actress of film, television, and theatre who mostly appears in independent Hindi films" seems rather long for the opening sentence. Maybe cut "of film, television, and theatre"
  • The use of "several" from "several accolades, including a National Film Award, two Filmfare Awards, two Screen Awards, and an Asian Academy Creative Award" is an understatement that implies only 5-10 total, also having this list of awards is redundant when specific ones are mentioned later in the lead.
  • Are you sure husbands and kids are lead-worthy? Tacking that on as the very last sentence makes it come off as a shoe-horned addition. In either case, it reads awkwardly to start a sentence with "Divorced from".
  • The first and third paragraphs from "Early and personal life" are rather short and make the flow of text feel choppy. Either expand on these or merge them with other paragraphs.
  • Under "Early theatre and television work (1990–1996)", you should replace the hyphens in time ranges with dashes like the one used in this very heading per WP:DASH, and its second paragraph uses "she" too much in quick succession. Try to change up the pronouns to avoid monotony.
  • You're missing a citation for "At the 44th Filmfare Awards, she was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress and was awarded the Critics Award for Best Actress" from "Breakthrough with Hasratein and Satya (1997–1999)".
  • Within "Intermittent work on stage and screen (2008–2016)", the use of "illegitimate" from "adulterous husband's illegitimate child" gives off a "you're not actually my child" vibe and we'd be better off with something like "child from wedlock" or "child from an affair"
  • Contrary to what the use of "recognised" from "recognised by critics and the media as one of India's finest actresses" implies in the "Artistry and reception" section, being among the "finest" is a personal opinion and not a fact, so let's go with "described", "ranked", "deemed", "praised", or something similar.
  • Continuing from the same section, assuming "women much ahead of her years" is supposed to mean older than Shah, just say that instead. The use of "poor" from "left it due to poor content" also is blatantly subjective.

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks so much for taking the time to read the article. My changes can be found in this link. To address each point:
  • The opening sentence has been cut as requested.
  • The parts of the awards has been changed from "several" to "various". Since these are the general functions of the awards and not the categories, I believe it is possible to provide a summary of competitive awards and then give the specifics (like it's done on Kate Winslet, for one).
  • Removed part about the husband.
  • Merged paragraphs from Early life and rewrote parts of it. Now there's one section.
  • Changed pronouns as suggested
  • Dashes applied across the board - thank you for noticing this.
  • Citation added for the award.
  • Part rewritten as follows: "accepts the child her adulterous husband had out of wedlock"
  • Changed "recognised" to "described"
  • Changed to "women older than herself"; changed the other part to "she left it citing poor content", which takes out the implication that this is the writer's opinion and clarifies it's hers.
Shahid • Talk2me 10:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - award list in lead has been removed as suggested. Shahid • Talk2me 11:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there: the use of "citing poor content" reads awkwardly, maybe just write "dissatisfied with the content" or "not liking the content" or something similar. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Great idea! Thank you, done. Shahid • Talk2me 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support for the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

I will do a general review soon but a source review for now. Version reviewed; spot-checks not included.

Mostly formatting issues; sources are all reliable. FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much! Okay - all your comments have been addressed. Tool used as suggested for archives; only the first link of each publication is now linked across the board; MOS:QWQ point fixed; The Times Group removed; IndiaFM capital I applied; SHOUTING removed; redundancies in #76 title removed; CONFORMTITLE has been applied across the board (never heard of this guideline re italics in ref titles). The only one that hasn't been changed is the use of Screen in #45 - the link is actually to the magazine and not the newspaper - in the late 1990s, the link to the magazine was not screenindia.com (as it was later known when it got its own independent address) but indianexpress.com/screen. Thanks for this meticulous source review. Shahid • Talk2me 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

That's it. Admirable work on what would be the first FA on a non-leading Bollywood actress if it passes. This makes me want to watch more of Shah's films, especially her leading roles, as I have only seen her in supporting parts so far. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much for this review. All your points have been addressed with one exception. The use of "reveal" is, indeed, discouraged per MOS:SAY but I believe not in the current case because it speaks about her feelings and not something that could be contested so it's even better than "said".
The part where "three years later" is mentioned has been revised as follows (I want to highlight her absence from film work and not just jump to the next year): "After three years of absence from the screen, Shah returned as Jyoti, a brothel madam in Nagesh Kukunoor's 2014 social problem film Lakshmi, alongside Monali Thakur."
Among other points, "internal" was replaced with "understated" (I use "rave reviews" against positive reception to the film, because her performance was even better received than the film itself).
Everything else is done as suggested. Thank you so much for noticing such tiny nuances. By the way, loved your comment that "Even Ms Shah agrees with me in her explanation of her approach to acting." It put a smile on my face and showed how thoroughly you read the article. If you want to watch a film with Shah in the lead, I'd recommend starting with the short film Juice which is available on YouTube with subtitles. Thanks again, Shahid • Talk2me 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@WP:FAC coordinators: : Hi there, I wonder what is the current status of this FAC following three reviews, an image review, and a source review. Shahid • Talk2me 19:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been open for less than three weeks. Let's give it a little longer and see if it can attract further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for this reply. Makes sense. Shahid • Talk2me 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure I did not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks so much for stopping by. Resplies to your comments (one by one):
  • You are absolutely right per MOS:MINORWORK. Applied everywhere.
  • I'm aware of the recommendation to avoid such structures - that is why you'll find no other instances like this one on the article. The reason this one is used here is because it's a short sentence, with no and it makes it easier to read. I could rewrite it if you think it's crucial.
  • Specified country.
  • I think the problem is settled now when I use the link as follows: trials for new drugs.
  • That's right, but the second source says the following: "Darlings continues to be the highest viewed non-English Indian original film", which supports the text in the article.
Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your helpful comments. Shahid • Talk2me 23:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 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) 8 October 2022 [78].

Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun[edit]

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous discovery in the history of Egyptology. This is a story of how archaeology can shape and be shaped by nationalism, fads, and pop culture. The spectacular treasures and the purported curse on the tomb are well known to Western audiences. Recent scholarly sources tend to emphasize the political dispute surrounding the discovery and to treat the actions of the excavators as examples of colonialist attitudes in Egyptology. I hope I have treated all these topics in a neutral and proportional way. User:Ceoil has given this article a peer review and believes it is ready for FAC.

There are ambiguities in the copyright status of some of the images, which I detail on the talk page here. Several of the photos I'm uncertain about will definitely fall into the public domain in January, if they haven't already. I leave final verdicts up to the judgment of image reviewers.

Minor points: I've tried to write in British English, but some Americanisms have probably crept in. Also, in the reflist, the Duckworth reprints of Howard Carter's three-volume book about the tomb are not arranged by year of publication. For some reason Duckworth reprinted Volume III before Volume II, and Volume II before Volume I. I chose to put them in the most intuitive order, the one in which they were originally published. A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments by Johnbod[edit]

On a quick look, there are lots of big white gaps, and a monochrome look overall. We have hundreds of photos of the contents on Commons, many quite decent. The ones from the Paris exhibition of 2019 look especially good (the photos in the main article on the tomb could probably be perked up too). I'll take a proper look later, & if that's ok will deal with any minor engvar issues I spot. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, like many of us I suppose, I devoured this story when I was a kid and might recuse to review if I have time... No objections to colour images of the contents but as this is about the discovery of the tomb, I'd tend to keep the contemporary black-and-white pics and simply augment with modern colour shots where there's space -- this might be just what Johnbod's suggesting anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much - I don't like gaps when there is no shortage of good images. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some images in the gaps. A. Parrot (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better, for sure. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my idea was to focus on images of the process itself. Many more are available from the later phases of the clearance, and I hope to add some next year, once they have unambiguously fallen into the public domain. (The images that I used that fall into this category were already present on Commons; when uploading new images to illustrate the article, I only used those whose copyright status I could verify myself.) But I wouldn't object to adding some current images of objects that are mentioned in the text. A. Parrot (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

The article is very comprehensive and well written. It is well researched with appropriate sources. Thank you for your hard work, it really shows! Merytat3n (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.
Yes, it was the 23rd. This was an editing typo, now corrected. A. Parrot (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

As mentioned by the nominator, took a close look at this at PR, and my quibbles were met then. Another superbly researched and engagingly written article by A. Parrot. No hesitations from me here. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, subject to these few copyedits. An excellent article. John (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

This isn't an FA requirement, surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I have added some. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: The photo was transferred to Commons from Wikipedia in 2007, and at that time the source link pointed back to the Wikipedia copy (as seen here). Somebody apparently deleted the more specific link because it was recursive. The original link could be added back, but I don't know what to do to trace the image any further than that. Oddly enough, it seems to be one of the better copies of this photo circulating online, so finding a replacement from a different source may not be feasible. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. It should be fine as it currently stands though as the image has been up for several years without any issues. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to archived versions, though I don't know if there's some other way I'm supposed to format them. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. The current formatting looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this image review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This passes my image review. Best of luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

That's everything I can find. Source are reliable and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 8 October 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) 7 October 2022 [79].

Phosphatodraco[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about an azhdarchid, the pterosaur group which includes the largest flying creatures that ever lived. This genus was not particularly large, but is significant in being one of the only known members of the group with an almost completely preserved neck, which has helped inform interpretations about the lifestyle of its kind. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

Of course, done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever version I use,someone will always have issues with it, so I just do it at random and stick to it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, overlooked there was an article, linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked already at "left postexapophysial process (which connected with the preexapophys at the front of the preceding vertebra)" which explains both kinds. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, Z1720, addressed above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've just added an extra image at the end of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

Just confusion I guess, changed to present. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Combined. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer three paragraphs for shorter articles, and since the combination of the sentences suggested above made it shorter, I think it might be better now anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened further per comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, but I can't say I understand much about when to hyphenate or not... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specified as "very long, low skulls that were up to ten times longer than wide, and some that were much shorter than that, closer to those of other pterosaurs." FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, the source just says "The combined long legs and elongated wing metacarpal gives azhdarchids longer limbs and taller frames, relatively speaking, than other pterosaurs (fig. 25.10)", but the caption of that figure specifies they're depicted as standing, so I thought it was ok to add "when standing". FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually a bit unsure about this one. Witton and Naish show what they say is the "complete neck" here[80] based on Kellner, but it actually excludes the posteriormost preserved vertebra, which is the C9 of the original describers. So I don't know if this means they would actually consider it the first dorsal instead? Or maybe it's just because that vertebra isn't preserved in a way that they can include it, since it's only visible in front view in the fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went with the assumption that Kellner would consider it a cervical anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't given in the paper's caption:[81] FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "which were not thought to have survived until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids did". Then as the text is chronological, the Longrich study should show ideas have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a noun for the last two words, if that helps. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disagreement in the literature that is only now being published, so Witton refers to the earlier ideas proposed in his 2008 paper. Only in 2021 does there seem to have been refutation of this, and I'm sure there will be more to come. But for now, I just added "supposed" before "terrestrial bias" to show uncertainty. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything under locomotion is basically Witton, but made one more attribution in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everything should now be addressed, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Cut a bunch of sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or simply say the describers gave this etymology, but other sources specify something else. Got any sources for it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources from the Mauretania article and another book, now saying "The describers gave the etymology of Mauretania as Latin for North Africa, while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move the refs around, because right now it looks like the describers support the statement "while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco," but tomorrow or day after I'll try to find a better wording if I can Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that's the case, the refs are in the same order as the statements in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we're awaiting a source review. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake, please do, otherwise Funk, best add a request at the top of WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Yeah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made consistent, most of these were automatically generated. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these nitpicks, all formatting seems to be ok. All sources are of high quality, and all relevant sources have been cited as far as I can see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the above should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, all looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 4 October 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) 4 October 2022 [82].

4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Pennsylvania's first American Civil War units which received notoriety for insisting upon its discharge before the First Battle of Bull Run. Although the unit was mocked in the press for this action, its troops went on to serve in many of the major battles of the war in the east. This article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Corrected tag to PD US since the flag itself is public domain and the photograph falls under PD-art
  • Added desc

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Done
  • Done
  • Reworded
  • Split
  • Reworded. The militia regiment would have been much more understrength since relatively few men would have been willing to commit to military activities in peacetime.
  • Done
  • Rephrased
  • Resolved
  • Clarified
  • Done
  • Rephrased
  • Done
  • Done, details added.
  • Bates suggests that the pickets were stationed together or in close proximity with the statement that: On Sunday, June 30th, at two o'clock in the morning, the pickets of the reginent, stationed-on the old Fairfax road, under command of Lieutenant M. R. M'Clennan, were attacked by about thirty of the enemy. They were repulsed by our pickets, only three in number, who killed Sergeant Haines, previously a clerk in the Treasury Department, at Washington. Three other of our pickets on the outer post, intending to go to the rescue of their comrades, came in contact with the enemy's force, in which Thomas Murray was killed, and Llewelyn Rhumer was severely wounded. The third, dropping upon the ground, escaped without injury, the enemy, in the excitement and darkness, passing over him.
  • No, it's just how I instinctively write since I tend to be more wordy than necessary.
  • Reworded. This shifts the emphasis but demonstrates that there was split opinion.
  • Done
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, because there are sources that use military date format. However, this is also because I instinctively type in day-month format. If there is a date conversion bot the dates should probably be switched.
  • Done

Comments by PM[edit]

Interesting unit. Will be back to take closer look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will start now as Mike has finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to make this a source review given it has three content reviews and an image review. No need for overkill. Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

These are minor points; this is a clearly written and straightforward account. I particularly like the quote box giving Russell's newspaper account. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look at these comments above after work to help Kges out, since they haven't edited since 12 August. I reviewed at both GAN and ACR, so I don't intend to review here as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kges1901 - I hope I didn't step on any toes here, but I don't want to see this archived for stalling out. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Ian Rose Yes I have completed my review but I am not clear about the position on replies. Hog Farm has helpfully chipped in but the nominator has not replied. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, it doesn't look like Kges1901 has edited since 20 September -- Hog Farm, no problem with you assuming command here but if you don't feel you can then I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose and Dudley Miles: - Dudley, are you okay with my replies? If not, agree it may have to be archived if Kges isn't back soon. I recently acquired the Davis book cited, and can access the public domain sources, but won't be able to do anything that requires Bolton, Field, Longacre, or Sauers. Hog Farm Talk 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked over the review and addressed the points raised. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  • Yes, the regimental roster is an accurate transcription of the unit muster rolls and the compilation of newspaper clippings is an accurate transcription of the originals.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Kges1901, not sure if you've seen this source-related query. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that addresses what I'm trying to get at. Does anyone else provide a similar account of what the soldiers discussed, McDowell's intent and promises, the factor of lack of equipment in the decisions of soldiers, and their sense of entitlement to a rest? ie, does anyone corroborate Davis? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Longacre corroborates Davis and I have added the appropriate ref. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the citation added only covers the words “decided to send the entire regiment to be mustered out.”? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the location of the citation. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, all good. Passed source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 21 September 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) 3 October 2022 [83].

1899 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an election which lacked one of the usual things you find with elections, that is, a winner. Unimportant in itself, this election which elected no one set off a chain of events that helped make Theodore Roosevelt president.Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've given a more specific tag for the first one and swapped the two other images for (regrettably inferior) ones that are clearly PD. I'll keep looking, but this should do the trick for now. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see here.
Maybe, but it shows something about what the common people were doing, not just the legislators.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it! Great work on a very interesting election! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I'm interested in politics, and have written articles about this time period, but not American politics in Pennsylvania, so consider this a moderately-expert review?

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were antebellum disputes about which session of the legislature got to pick a senator. This was intended to settle that. The intent was to impose a duty to vote once that session of the legislature a) convened and b) organized itself by, for example, choosing a speaker or the equivalent. The intent was to avoid a situation in which houses of the legislature refused to vote on the senatorship, which had also happened before the Civil War. I've struggled to make the language clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is this the timeline of picking a senator according to this legislation: when a senator's term ends, the vote to fill that senator's seat must start on the first Tuesday of that state's legislature's session, which is the same day that the state would choose its officers. Is that correct? Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, when the state legislature is elected that will be in place when the term ends, that is, there will be no more general elections before the senator's term ends, that's gonna be in most states the November before the term ends (in states like Ohio or Louisiana, it was longer than that. Then the legislator's terms start in January, the houses meet and choose officers (speaker of the state house, president of the state senate), that is, they organize, and then it's the second Tuesday after that that each house votes on senator.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page has a good discussion of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the constant comments on this point, but I'm trying to figure out how to best phrase this sentence so I would understand it. What about, "Federal law prescribed that the state legislature formed from the general election preceding the senatorial term's expiration would vote for a candidate to become a senator for that state. The voting would begin on the second Tuesday of that legislature's first session." Thoughts? I think dividing the sentence in two helps with understanding. I'm not thrilled with the phrasing, but I think this is better. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to dividing it but your phrasing is not accurate for two reasons: most likely that would be true of the lower house, but might not of the state Senate (which might be formed two elections before). Second, if there was a deadlock, the legislature might not be able to organize itself immediately (look at what happened to the federal House of Representatives in 1839 and 1849, both times it took weeks to elect a Speaker).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to phrase this then. Any suggestions? Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of is to directly quote from the statute. Or accept as it stands, sometimes the need to be exact makes stirring prose difficult. I should note that I used an almost identical explanation at 1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio and the phrasing you mention passed without comment at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is improved and I cannot find a better way to phrase it. Thanks for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with a section link.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed possible idioms. But I prefer to say "people" because that is what the 17th Amendment prescribes, that senators from each state be "elected by the people thereof".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, addressed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on one bullet point above, but everything else is good. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. This is a clear and concise article, and my few suggestions about the prose are of precious little importance.

  • "his choice of nominee was generally ratified" – I briefly wondered if a general ratification might be a technical term, and perhaps "usually" rather than "generally" might be clearer here.
  • "brought the issue of bossism home" – a European reader (e.g. me) can more or less deduce what "bossism" means, but it's not a familiar term in these parts, and if you can link to a WP or Wiktionary page that would be good, but if not, no matter. (Afterthought: I see the word is in the OED: "U.S. The system in which political parties are controlled by 'bosses' or 'wire-pullers' You might put that in a footnote if you felt inclined to humo(u)r English readers, but I do not press the point.)
  • "to choose a candidate for Senate" – is the omission of the definite article the idiomatic AmE form? Fine if so, though it looks a little odd to an English eye.
  • "109 Republicans showed up, of which 98 voted for Quay" – "of whom", perhaps, rather than "of which"? Possibly an Engvar point.
  • "Wanamaker got former president Benjamin Harrison … to vote against seating Quay" – This is a 45-word sentence, and it might be a good thing to break it up. Perhaps something on the lines of Wanamaker got former president Benjamin Harrison, who had appointed him postmaster general, to use his influence to defeat Clay. Harrison convinced Republican senators from his home state, Indiana, as well as those former members of his administration who were in the Senate, to vote against seating Quay.

That's my lot. Tim riley talk 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I've resolved everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. Happy to support the elevation of the article to FA. − Tim riley talk 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, formatting looks okay, I just have a query re. the thesis by Elizabeth Ann Chapman. I believe doctoral theses, or theses by published authors, are considered fine, but as the type of thesis isn't mentioned and I couldn't find works under this name at WorldCat, I'm not certain if either of these criteria apply -- can you enlighten me? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. Upon looking at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't think I can show the thesis has had a considerable effect on scholarship so I've eliminated it as a source. Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt action Wehwalt, no further issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 3 October 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) 3 October 2022 [84].

Fallout (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm, I guess. The last candidacy only had one responder, and they voted "support", so I will be bringing this article back for a third candidacy before the two-week mark. I'm pretty sure everyone gets the gist by now: Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed by Interplay that helped revitalize the genre for PCs. Anyway, I'll soon be pinging a group of people who helped review this article for GAN, PR, and previous FACs to help. Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GAN reviewer @Haleth:; peer reviewers @RogueShanghai: (don't feel obligated) and @Shooterwalker: (who also participated in the first candidacy); first FAC reviewers @Buidhe:, @Spy-cicle:, @Ovinus:, @JimmyBlackwing:, and @Darkwarriorblake:; and second FAC reviewer @CactiStaccingCrane:. Lazman321 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, source-text integrity is FA-class, based of my reviews at the last candidacy and a quick source check now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Ovinus[edit]

Seeing as source-to-text integrity was previously an issue, I will provide a second opinion; I may also review the article in full.

Looks good from those 14 checks. Ovinus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your spot checks. I fixed the archive URL and tweaked the vision statement sentence according to your recommendation. If you want to check citation 5, you can find the intro on YouTube. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheJoebro64[edit]

Whole lotta comments

Should have my review in within the next few days. I'll likely do some minor copyediting while I review. JOEBRO64 23:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the writing needs some cleaning up before this article is ready for promotion. My more specific comments mainly pertain to the lede to give you a sense of what I'm talking about. In addition, I'll give some more general copyediting advice for the rest of the article.

  • As a general comment, hit Ctrl+F and look for every mention of "the game's", "of the game", "in the game", etc. In my experience, you'll find that in almost all cases, it's unnecessary. Some examples include "The game's combat is turn-based", "The game's quests were intentionally made morally ambiguous", "took up a huge chunk of the game memory", and "over 100,000 units of the game had been shipped by December 1997"
  • I think my main issue with the writing is that it seems to be overly verbose in places. Take, for example, "Fallout's main creator, Tim Cain, worked on it at Interplay as early as 1994." I think this can be revised to "Tim Cain began working on Fallout in 1994". "[A]s early as 1994" is not only wordy, but it casts doubt on whether development began in 1994, and referring to Cain as "[the] main creator" raises questions (what makes Cain the "main creator"?). Not to mention, neither aligns with the content in the article, which says that Cain created Fallout and development began in 1994. You also don't need "at Interplay" since the first sentence of the lede establishes that this is an Interplay game.
  • Other examples of how you can say the same thing using less words and have the lede better reflect the article's content:
    • "It began as a game engine framework, inspired by the tabletop role-playing game GURPS published by Steve Jackson Games. → It began as a game engine based on Steve Jackson Games' tabletop role-playing game GURPS. Adding "framework" after "game engine" is tautological (game engines are frameworks), and you can get rid of the passive voice by using Steve Jackson Games as a possessive. "inspired by" implies that GURPS only served as inspiration for Fallout, which makes the lede's next sentence confusing—it's unclear that Fallout actually started as a GURPS game.
    • "After a period of collaboration between the companies, the license was eventually dropped (Interplay citing creative differences—Steve Jackson objected to the game's excessive violence); Cain and designer Christopher Taylor then created a new character customization scheme, known as SPECIAL." → "After Steve Jackson revoked the GURPS license, objecting to the excessive violence, Cain and designer Christopher Taylor created a new character customization scheme, SPECIAL."
    • "Considered the spiritual successor to Interplay's 1988 role-playing video game Wasteland, Fallout drew artistic inspiration from 1950s literature and media emblematic of the Atomic Age." → "Interplay considered Fallout the spiritual successor to its 1988 role-playing game Wasteland and drew artistic inspiration from 1950s literature and media emblematic of the Atomic Age." Games can't "draw inspiration" since they're inanimate objects—developers are the ones who do the drawing.
  • I don't think you need to say the game was released "with modifications to comply with the European market" in the lede—it's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, and "modifications" creates more questions than answers. (What's being modified? Why?)
  • "Fallout received critical acclaim upon release"—"Upon release", "upon its release", etc. is almost never, never necessary. Readers understand that games aren't reviewed until they're finished—not to mention they're often reviewed shortly before they come out.
  • "Among other games"—like what? I think you can bin this entirely.

I'll come back and take another look once the article has undergone a copyedit. I guess you could construe this as a light oppose at present, but I think content-wise, this article is great. I think you just need to go back and search for redundancies, tautologies, run-ons, and the like. If copyediting isn't your forte, I recommend the essays WP:REDEX, User:Tony1/Spot the ambiguity, and WP:ELEVAR—they'll help you weed out the bigger issues. JOEBRO64 23:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I will be honest. Copyediting and writing prose that is "of a professional standard" as per WP:FACR has never been my forte. Nonetheless, I have tried my best and have copyedited Fallout. There might be some things I missed, but the writing should be substantially improved. One thing I will note is that Steve Jackson did not revoke the license. Interplay dropped the license in response to Jackson objecting to the violence contained in Fallout. Lazman321 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - thank you for correcting me on the Steve Jackson thing, I'd misread. I'll give the article a reread within a day or two and will probably do some additional copyediting where I see issues. I think you've done an excellent job researching. JOEBRO64 10:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the midst of doing a thorough read of the article and copyediting. Once I'm finished, I'll post any lingering questions/concerns here. JOEBRO64 14:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of comments following copyedit.

  • I was confused by "eighteen skills" - we've only mentioned nine so far. "Eighteen" comes out of nowhere
  • What are you talking about? No examples of skills are provided in the gameplay section. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confused statistics and skills as being the same thing—I think it needs to be clearer that they're different. JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It said "The protagonist, known as the Vault Dweller,[b] has seven primary statistics...Two other statistics set during character creation are skills and traits." I do not think I need to clarify it anymore. Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Character creation" subsection suffers from a little WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm afraid it won't read comprehensibly to someone unfamiliar with video games. I'd advise trimming it down to the essentials and try your best to use plain English.
  • Done I think. I have removed descriptions of the seven primary statistics. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't have any comments about Development or Release, nice work
  • I think the reception section needs some more work. There are far too many direct quotes that could easily be paraphrased or just don't explain much. Examples:
    • "March Stepnik of PC PowerPlay predicted that Fallout would revive the genre" doesn't tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked the game.
    • "Dan Elektro of GamePro said that Interplay successfully created a "real role-playing game". I don't see how this is meaningful reception. GamePro saying this is a role-playing game doesn't sound like a judgement of its quality to me—it sounds like just stating a fact. I would find a more meaningful assessment.
    • "Butcher said "the look and sound of the game" combined with the "moody and ambient music"..." → "Butcher said the aesthetics, audio, and melancholic, ambient music..." Scare quotes like this can almost always be paraphrased.
    • "The karma system in Fallout was also praised." Why? If it's worth noting that it was praised, provide examples of what critics liked.
    • I would recommend excising the reviewer names from prose and just attributing the opinions to the publication they're writing for. It's easier to follow, and most game critics tend to be non-notable (I personally only include the names of ones that have articles, like Jim Sterling)
  • Done, with the exception of the PC Gamer reviewers. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generalizations like "Critics praised the character system" and "The post-apocalyptic setting and story were praised" could be challenged, I think they need direct refs to back them up.
  • Those are both topic sentences, which is encouraged by both WP:RECEPTION and MOS:VG. Most other generalizations do have direct refs supporting them. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic sentences still need direct references to back their statements up. Again, they're generalizations that could be challenged—readers should know how we're coming to this conclusion. JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: Fine, I added direct citations to the topic sentences.Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the essay WP:RECEPTION for advice on how to write a good and encyclopedic reception section. These issues extend to the Retrospective reception subsection in Legacy.
  • I think the Series subsection needs work, especially the third paragraph. It sort of falls into WP:PROSELINE territory—it's just "[game] was released on [date] to [X] reviews" over and over again. This isn't the Fallout (series) article, we don't need to list every single Fallout game that's come out. I'd say the first paragraph is fine, but the last two need to be condensed.
  • Done: Condensed the last two paragraphs of Series subsection. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back for another read once these comments have been addressed. JOEBRO64 13:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I believe I have addressed all your comments. Lazman321 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Please respond. This FAC won’t end until you vote, so either vote or at least comment. I know you saw my edits. Lazman321 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got caught up with other things. I have another a few more comments:

  • See my reply regarding skills above
  • See my reply regarding generalizations above
  • "The Electric Playground found that "all of Fallout's skills can be used to some advantage, and WILL alter gameplay."" This doesn't really tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked the skills or not.
  • Done: Paraphrased sentence to tell the reader that the Electric Playground liked this aspect. Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few ((Clarify)) tags to things that were unclear for me in the Reception section.
  • Done: I have addressed both instances.

JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I am finished with your requests. Anything else? Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well done. JOEBRO64 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DWB from previous review Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Anarchyte[edit]

Will do soon. Anarchyte (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks not done.

  • In the archive currently being used in the page, the text is white. You have to highlight it in order to read it. Judging by the other pages, the background was probably supposed to be black, but due to some archiving error, the background turned up white. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is little reason to doubt that a source conducted a legitimate interview with someone involved with development, the interview can be used as a primary source. The interviews have pictures of their interviewees, so they might be legitimate. However, I might bring this up at WT:VG/S. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. Yeah, I'm aware that interviews can bypass the perceived unreliability of a website. I'm just unfamiliar with the site, so I wanted to confirm that it was reputable in this regard. Anarchyte (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they had an established staff including editors for this magazine that ran from 1993–2018; the article for the magazine mentions a slightly positive review that didn't question its veracity, indicating reputability; their article on MacPlay was written by the editor-in-chief who apparently visited the company's headquarters; and it was the best source for MacPlay I could find. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuncer Deniz does seem to have a sufficient level of experience and their work has been cited by various RS over the years, so I'm content with this. Anarchyte (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different archive versions of the review seem to indicate different authors. That is why I left it out.
  • Done while still preserving the Orlando Sentinel by moving it to the via parameter.
  • Done kinda: I only added Jody Macgregor as she wrote the entry for the Master. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All other sources are considered reliable to the best of my knowledge. Note that I didn't do detailed spot-checks. Anarchyte (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed most of your concerns. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting about RPG Codex. It's normal to carve out exceptions for interviews, if the interview can be verified as authentic, and the claims made in the interview aren't overly self serving or biased. That said, I don't think RPG Codex is doing any heavy lifting here that couldn't be replaced with a somewhat better source.[86] Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On VG/RS TheGamer isn't doing much better in the reliability field. There's a carve-out for work past August 2020 as being reliable, though this has been disputed on the talk page and no obvious consensus has been reached. We'll wait to see if anything comes of this discussion, but my hunch is that these interviews are fine. Also noting that all other issues I've raised above are resolved. Will be happy to support unless someone opposes RPGCodex on WT:VG/RS. Anarchyte (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there is little opposition to keeping the interviews. @Anarchyte: Would you like to support? Lazman321 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- I'm satisfied that RPG Codex can be used as interviews only. I support this nomination on the basis of the above source check. Anarchyte (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker[edit]

Can confidently support this article. The article was very close when I reviewed it, and a lot of work has been put in to take it a step further.

I would still like to see the list of influences given more detail:

Good work on this, and good luck getting it over the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I have edited the influence section to address your two bottom requests, but I am less inclined to incorporate the top two requests due to a lack of sources that directly state that Fallout influenced Deus Ex or Wasteland 2, at least as far as I'm aware. If you do find some sources, feel free to let me know and provide links. Lazman321 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found some time to look into this.
  • Warren Spector cited Fallout as one of the influences on the original design for (what would eventually become) Deus Ex.[87]
  • Here's some stuff about "closing the circle" between the Fallout and Wasteland 2. Fargo seems to clearly focus on the influence of the original Fallout, and less so the Bethesda versions. [88] There are also lots of other sources that make the comparison, though I'd consider Fargo to be more authoritative.[89][90][91]
There is some room for interpretation about how much the influence is there, but considering the influence of all the titles mentioned (Wasteland, Fallout, Deus Ex), I think it's worth a mention. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Okay, I have added those two games. Lazman321 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 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) 3 October 2022 [92].

Ray Reardon[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC), Rodney Baggins [reply]

Nicknamed Dracula, Reardon was the dominant snooker player of the 1970s. He won six World Snooker Championships, and was the number one player in six of the first seven years of the snooker world rankings. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins.[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Thanks Chris, tweaked article per your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 25 July 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
BennyOnTheLoose, Rodney Baggins could we see some action here please, or this is in danger of timing out. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Please can you check the article again to see if your concerns have been addressed now? Let us know if there is anything outstanding. We can't show his highest break in the infobox because that parameter is no longer supported. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Pawnkingthree[edit]

  • Thanks, Pawnkingthree. I've found a couple of bits of info in Reardon's autobiography and from press reports. I will add something into the article soon. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some details, Pawnkingthree. All the 1980s sources I saw have "Carol" rather than "Carole". (Incidentally, the Aberdeen Evening Express (10 December 1985) reported that he was "due to return to the flat which he shares with another woman" after the MBE ceremony.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, that addresses my concerns. The article seems fully comprehensive to me now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties to review (I remember watching Reardon and co. on Pot Black as a kid)...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- formatting looks okay, but some queries re. reliability:

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the work with an OCLC of 498112105? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I added that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your review is very much appreciated, Ian Rose. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's it, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 2 October 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) 2 October 2022 [94].

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination. I previously nominated it back in April, but it attracted no reviews, and I asked for it to be closed to make way for another article. I hope things will go better this time. This article is about American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign. This campaign was part of the campaign that is officially called "Rhineland" and went from September to December 1945. In the first decades after the war, the strategy, operations and logistics of the campaign were controversial, and many of the issues covered by the article still exercise amateur armchair historians today: why was ammunition in short supply? Was the Sherman tank the better available? Why were there so many cases of trench foot and frostbite? Why did these crises occur when the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the world? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Got here. Non-milhist member comments...

Lede

Background

Supply depots

Winter clothing

Footwear

Medical

Ammunition

Rations

Liquid fuels

Solid fuels

Outcome

Notes

Consistencies

Misc

That's it. Learnt a lot, so thanks. JennyOz (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for taking the time to review. I keep telling people that logistics is not rocket science but the devil is in the details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No more from me, looking forward to s'porting. JennyOz (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Indy beetle – pass[edit]

General comments

Spotchecks

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA[edit]

For now I'll keep it small but might do a full review in the future.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I've made some hands-on edits where there did not seem to be doubt about what was meant. They should be reviewed though.
  • "The advance came to a halt in September.[10] This was not a result of inadequate supplies or port capacity—there were still some 600,000 long tons (610,000 t) of supplies stockpiled in the Normandy lodgment area two months later" If I read this correctly, this gives a figure for November to explain why there weren't problems in September?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the medical annex of the Overlord plan did not mention cold injury,[37] and the medical manual issued shortly after D-Day gave them only a brief mention," Should them be it?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Backlogs remained even after the opening of the port of Antwerp in November and were not cleared until February 1945.[40] Between June and August 55,000 long tons (56,000 t) of cross-Channel cargo tonnage had been allocated to clothing and personal equipment, but only 53 percent of that had been shipped. Some 62,000 long tons (63,000 t) remained in the UK, but its priority was so low that it could not be shipped before October.[41]" I'd toss a 1944 somewhere in the second sentence.
    Tossed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. Your reviews both here and on the astronaut articles are greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will resume with "Medical".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Third Army had to call off the Battle of Metz owing to ammunition shortages." This isn't mentioned in the article Battle of Metz.
    It is alluded to. "Direct assault was forbidden against the holdout forts in order to preserve artillery ammunition". That article is poor though, especially considering that Metz was one of the United States most significant battles of the war. It seems that World War II is of little interest to Americans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the discussion of the credit system makes it clear how this worked in practice, and how this discouraged building up reserves and the other matters complained of.
  • "ETOUSA asked for a loan of 75 tanks designated for the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, (MTOUSA), but that had been unloaded in Marseille, on the understanding that they would be replaced from the tanks being shipped in January." Should the first use of "that" be "those"?
  • "105 mm howitzer" linked, I think, only on the fourth usage. You might want to go through similar usages.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Thanks for the kind words. An impressive piece of research.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John[edit]

Great article! I made some small copyedits, here is the cumulative diff if you want to inspect. Mostly small typos and smoothing out the language. One query (so far): when the Arado Ar 234 attack on Liege took place, you have: "...and started fires that resulted in the loss of 900,000 US gallons (3,400,000 l)." This isn't present in the Smithsonian reference, and none of my sources mention it, e.g. Price, Alfred (1991). The Last Year of the Luftwaffe. Arms and Armour. pp. 114–115. ISBN 1854091891.. My understanding was that this historic jet bomber raid was aimed at the city's rail station and achieved little, in line with the Ar 234's somewhat disappointing war record. Can this be sourced? John (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruppenthal says: "The Advance Section lost about 900,000 gallons of gasoline as the result of fires started by German planes on two successive nights". I'll dig into it a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging in and for fixing the article. That makes more sense now. I support. Good work.John (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties, I came by to perform an image review but decided I wanted to learn something so read and lightly copyedited the whole article -- very well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, is that a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- organisation, comprehensiveness and supporting materials look fine as well as the prose, and I'm taking as read the source review above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- one certainly can't complain about the comprehensiveness of the imagery, and licensing appears appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 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