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

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

Norfolk, Virginia, Bicentennial half dollar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

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

Adjusted.
Done.
Changed to a married couple. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Done.
Changed to match ref 30.

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

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

Images[edit]

Support by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

I've moved it as suggested, eliminating the need for more commas. Thank you for the reviews and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise[edit]

There is no indication that it was anything but an honest mistake made in the rush to get out of town. Thanks for the the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified that ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning second read-through:

There are three in the intermediate ring on the obverse, one on the outer ring at the bottom, and one on the reverse to either side of the mace.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, I see now. Well, those are all my comments and I'm happy to support. The article is very interesting. Note to coordinators: I also did several small copy edits as part of my review. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much obliged, thank you for the review and comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Marchioness disaster[edit]

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

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

Support from Tim riley[edit]

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

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few items:

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

Image review[edit]

Many thanks Nikkimaria - I'm much obliged to you, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supportfrom Nick-D[edit]

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

  • Many thanks Nick. I've addressed your comments - hopefully satisfactorily. Please let me know if there is anything you'd like worked on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

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

  • I thought so too, but I was pointed to WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, which says we’re ok as long as the use is consistent- SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. (A problem with using the "convert" template, but I've bypassed that now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I'll be back with the sources tomorrow and I'll have a dig around for some info to add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the recondition bit as your call, otherwise no concerns so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim. I've tweaked the 'recondition' part to say the upper works were rebuilt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

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

  • Reworked to show it was the captain, and deleted "that". - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "liability to the crash" should be "liability for the crash" (although the words "for the crash" are largely redundant)
  • I would delete "by counsel for the organisation" as unnecessary detail and potentially confusing
  • "which meant that a full inquest would not take place in case it prejudiced any future trial". Suggest "could" rather than "would"
  • "four owners of Bowbelle": according to previous information Bowbelle was owned by East Coast Aggregates Limited, part of the larger RMC Group – I can't identify four owners
  • All the above in this section done - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that the hands had been removed from several of the bodies" - 25 is a lot more than several. And was it really three years before the families discovered this gruesome detail?
  • Yes. The families were not told at the time, and it only came out later. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info about the "without prejudice" nature of the offers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Source review by Factotem[edit]

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

General

  • This was added yesterday and I forgot to add the ref when I did it (big slap on the wrist!) Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New book added to the bibliography checks out fine. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (Books)

1. 902-page edition published in 2008 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8 (the Gbook link is to this edition);
2. 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0 Worldcat listing;
The difference in pagination might affect the page numbers in the refs, so I think this needs to be addressed;
  • How odd: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less odd, now I look closer: the pre-tweaked version used the citation provided by http://reftag.appspot.com/ when the Google book link was added, so the masterfile used by the reftag contains slightly duff info (only slightly duff as Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier, which explains part of the confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with that tool, but just about every source review I've done has these kind of inconsistencies when both GBook link and ISBN numbers are provided. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (Journals)

  • That works for me - can you try again? - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously just a glitch. Fine now. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (News articles)

  • It depends on where they were found. Some of the articles pre-date the internet, so they are paper versions; some online articles don't make the newspaper. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thought as much. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Salih ibn Mirdas[edit]

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

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

Image review

Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nikkimaria, not sure what you mean. Any idea how or what kind of tag I need for this? —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pictured object will be in the public domain due to its age - you just need to add one of the PD templates based on copyright expiration to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I’ve added the PD-100 years template for the original work. Let me know if this satisfies the requirement. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

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

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

FunkMonk[edit]

Glad you’re gonna take a look at this, considering your experience in the topic area. I’ve made the captions consistent as far image dates are concerned. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be “him”, “his father”, “Salih’s father” or “Mirdas ibn Idris”?
I would just spell out the name. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think “toughs” is more neutral than “thugs”, but if you don’t see a problem with the latter, I’ll use “thugs” instead. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware "toughs" was a word, what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toughs is a word, but Bianquis uses “roughs”. Should I just change it to “ruffians”? —Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ruffians is probably closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Just changed it to “emir” throughout. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, did the same for Ba’albak/Baalbek. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very interesting point I had considered adding then didn’t out of concern for focus/concision. The fact that you’ve raised it makes me believe my original consideration was correct. After the Mirdasids, another Arab emir, the Uqaylid Muslim ibn Quraysh took over for a year and then was rid of by a Turkic ruler. The reasons it’s interesting is because, as Zakkar and Bianquis note, the end of the Mirdasids signaled the end of Arab rule in Syria. From that point until World War I 800 years later, a series of Kurdish, Turkic or otherwise non-Arab dynasties/states would control this region. I will find a concise way to mention this in the article about the founder of the Mirdasid dynasty. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be very nice for historical context, I'll support once it is added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and helping improve the article FunkMonk. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Yes, Zakkar’s highly comprehensive work on the Aleppo Emirate is apparently the ultimate secondary source for Salih’s biography and actually appears to be a major source used by Bianquis, Lev and Amabe as well. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bianquis and Crawford both require subscription for access. The (subscription required) template should be added
  • De Slane is out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography
  • Lev publisher location is missing
  • Likewise for Sobernheim

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

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

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

Comments Support from Constantine[edit]

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

  • @Cplakidas: Good point which I hadn’t considered. The same goes for the Rahba fortress image, which was also an entirely new Ayyubid construction. I’m trying to formulate a concise way to modify this, could you suggest a rephrasing of the caption? Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Al Ameer son: Something like "The present structure/The structure as depicted in the photograph dates from the XX century" should suffice. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I’ll just omit the Arabic entirely for those terms. Let me know if there are others that would fit this category. Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō[edit]

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

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

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

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

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

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Yes "per cent" is used in British Oxford English [5]and some Australians uses it too.
  • I see understandeble.
  • Yes the Brits uses both but it is more commen to use learnt same with the British word dreamt and not dreamed or burnt and not burned. However by Oxford you only use the word "learned" as an adjective not as a verb which isn't the case - see link. [6]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

Not much, mostly nitpicks:

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

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

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

Lorde[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

  • Your comments are very much appreciated :) I have addressed your concern as above. Please feel free to add more comments! — HĐ (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that information is better suited for “Royals” since that song was a reaction to the hip hop-influenced artists she was listening to at the time (e.g. Kanye, Jay-Z, Lana, etc.) De88 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me, thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

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

  • I have yet to find better wording... Would you mind suggesting an alteration? — HĐ (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Drive-by comment by KJP1. Agree it doesn't work at the moment - looking at the source, [104], I think it's saying something like, "Her stage name indicating her early fascination with royalty and aristocracy, she is known for..." It's still not great prose, but it is clearer as to meaning.) KJP1 (talk 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the comment! I have revised the sentence to make it clearer :) — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed songs sales in the lead — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also appears towards the end of the article. It would be much better to update these figures. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very hard to update figures when Billboard provides nothing and the only figures available happen to be in forums. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard to believe that there have not been publicly-available sales figures for a fairly major artist in over two years. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, I have looked to the ends of Google searching for any recent sales updates... nothing. I spent several months typing specific keywords to find sources to no avail. Anticipated a sales update for Pure Heroine fifth anniversary and nothing was updated, unfortunately. De88 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 2017 is the month her most recent album was released (on 16 June), so it doesn't seem very recent. The downloads figure is very outdated. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I understand your concern, and I myself want to include the most recent sales figures, I regret to say the current sources are the most recent and reliable ones. — HĐ (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "succession", replaced it with "different". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded, hoping that this time it conveys the idea better — HĐ (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid not: the current structure is both over-complex, and inaccurate (producers produce, not songwriters). I'd suggest something along the lines of "During this time, Maclachlan attempted to partner Lorde with several different producers and songwriters, but without success". Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed — HĐ (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added bits of info, hope it helped — HĐ (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue hasn't been addressed. The current wording (with the very exact number) implies that this was automatic. "Maclachlan viewed the decision as sensible because it helped promote Lorde to a considerable number of audiences before establishing her name in the industry" is also wordy for what it does (and "a considerable number of audiences" seems a bit odd - a "range of audiences" seems better). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reconstructed the whole part — HĐ (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added comments from two of the band's members; I also added bits of info on Pure Heroine's lyrics that led to plaudits from the media and the band — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded to "which contrasted with the mainstream music scene" — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "in tribute to the late English singer" and added "tribute" before performance. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not addressed, and "Bowie's son Duncan Jones appreciated her performance as "beautiful"" doesn't read well. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the reason why Lorde was selected? If so, I have added bits of info — HĐ (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although she is not credited on Gone Now, no source explicitly states "uncredited vocals". Removed this. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the wording? It's perfectly fine imo — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The album didn't "produce" anything: it's an inanimate object. Lorde's label released two other singles from the album. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording now implies that there were other singles. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her reason was stated in the article: "...an online campaign by Palestinian solidarity activists supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really - why did she make this decision? (e.g. what were her specific concerns?). Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good, but "did not explicitly indicate her reasons for cancellation" isn't grammatically correct - "her reasons for cancelling" or similar would work better. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I restructured this sentence a bit; I'm not sure if it's passive voice because the sentence is (to me) clearly in active voice — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? I think the sentence sounds perfectly fine. That said, I want to have your suggestion — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to simply "its predecessor" — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "instant instrumental track" to "after its melody was produced". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's less clear I'm afraid, especially given the specific meaning of "produced" in the music context. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to have your suggestion on alternate wordings Reworded — HĐ (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception" here refers to reception/analyses of credible critics, which is not necessarily negative/disapproving. — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Generally" implies there's been unfavourable commentary, which I believe is the case. The article is pretty positive about this artist, when the article on Pure Heroine notes it received a few 3 star reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pure Heroine was her debut, so a few critics were unsure if she could crack into stardom. I could not find any negative comments regarding Lorde's musical style or lyrics. While the artist has been the darling of music journalists, I opt for "generally positive" because I don't want to sound biased by phrasing it as "universally positive" or similar wordings — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that I don't follow that logic. Her first album received some luke-warm reviews, and her second album some 4 star reviews, so there's obviously some commentary arguing she could have been doing things better. This should be discussed. If it was to be the case that all commentary has been favourable as you state, the article should also state this rather than present readers off with a misleading statement. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK fair enough. The use of this in the NYT is particularly compelling. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "readers" before poll. I think that fixes the issue regarding whether it was a poll voted by NPR's writers or readers. De88 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid not. She placed in the NPR poll - unless they rigged it, NPR didn't place her anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments from ArturSik[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from SatDis[edit]

Resolved concerns from User:SatDis

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

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

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

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

Sources review[edit]

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

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

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

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

Jaekelopterus[edit]

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

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

One comment, though, it would be good to have a source for the size estimates used for the size comparison image in the Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced the size estimates :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That info is likely in the original paper (Kjellesvig-Waering & Størmer, 1952), which I have been unable to access thus far. It very probably honours invertebrate paleontologist Benjamin Howell (1891–1976)(1,2), I'll see if I can access the original paper somehow or find the etymological information elsewhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked for the paper at WP:RX? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know this existed, I've put up a request! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very effective, I've gotten some really obscure papers there, they even do scans of papers that are not online. Probably good to know the details of the original description in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah yeah, that was pretty fast. I was right about Benjamin Howell and I've added it as well as added what exactly the original J. howelli remains contained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All done; I changed Eurypterus_cropped.png to another image (that is sourced). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Seems to have quite a number of prose issues:

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chenged to hindmost. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Specified so that it is clear that it is the Pterygotidae family that is being referred to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Chelicerae" are the entire limbs, "chelae" are the actual "claws" (but usually take the form of smaller "pincers") in other groups. Perhaps this could be said in a better way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced "than" with "relative". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a 100 % certain on the differences between American and British English. I've tried to go for British English now, there probably are things I've missed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explained it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, removed the brackets. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced "members of the group" with "pterygotids". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and explained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, the source simply states that it has not been demonstrated. I would assume isometry would hold true for the rest in regards of the chelicerae but I don't have a source for that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if two opinions qualify as many but 2.5 is repeated in other papers without much comment. I've changed it so that it is made clear that it being the most accurate estimate is also an opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded a bit, the intention was that it was unknown whether they were true direct developers (e.g. NO morphological changes post-hatching) or not (some smaller changes such as additional segments and such). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got rid of the first one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "very". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are of special importance because of the detailed preservation of their eyes, could be removed if you think it's necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Fixed. Words that should be capitalized (taxonomic names, place names etc.) were kept as capitalized. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case the supplementary information was a comprehensive list of eurypterid size estimates. Link should be working now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the "discussion" section? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check if you misspelled "tergites"? This is why I didn't found it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looks like I did. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, looks like I messed that one up. I've replaced the previous sentence here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor points on the prose:

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

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

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

Thank you! I've moved up the "metastoma" explanation and removed the second link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, changed it to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It "not living in" marine environments was to contrast with it being called a "sea" scorpion, but I guess it living in fresh water would work just as well here. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

Compulsory figures[edit]

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

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

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

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

Done.
I believe that I've clarified the logic, as per your suggestion. Actually, figure skating attempted to do just as you state with the old 6.0 system, but it didn't work, as the judging scandal at the 2002 Olympics demonstrated. That's why they changed it to the new International Judging System, and there are still problems with bad judging.
There's an article on that. Who knew? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it was a turning point in the sport. I'd like to someday tackle it, since it was so important historically. My overarching goal is to tackle 6.0 system and ISU Judging System before the 2022 Olympics, so that people have a reliable place to learn about it, since the new system is so complicated and potentially confusing. I have a slew of other articles to tackle first, mostly to better acquaint myself, like articles about the different elements and individual competitions and figure skaters. It depends, of course, on my life and my level of RL busyness, but I'me having fun in the meantime.
Having fun is more important than anything else. From the statistics we've gathered on the Paralympic articles since 2012, it seems highly likely that 6.0 system and ISU Judging System will attract high numbers of page views - much higher than any athlete article - when Beijing rolls around. Partly because they will have an international readership, but mostly because people will turn to the Wikipedia when they don't understand what they're watching. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think three years is a good target. Also on my target is some athletes' bios, first Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir, since their articles are pathetic and as commentators, they're the faces of the sport these days. And Alysa Liu, whose article I created at the request of her friend, a fellow skater and WP editor. This last Olympics in Peongchang was the first time I watched the Paralympics, due to an involuntary period of unemployment. I loved it, especially the gold medal sled hockey game. I'm not a hockey fan at all, but it was one of the most exciting competitions I've ever seen. I admire those athletes so much, and I admire you for the work you've done for the articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've struggled with this issue as I've worked on this article and other figure skating articles. Other writers cite other examples of the discrepancies between skaters doing well in the free skate and not well in figures and losing competitions due to the weight of figures in scores. I've found that the examples vary with the date of the articles written about them. For example, Loosemore and Kestnbaum cite Janet Lynn, but the L.A. Times article cites Debi Thomas. I'm sure older sources, which we don't have access to, cites other examples and other skaters. Remember, WP articles are a summary of the sources. For these reasons, I've hesitated using specific examples.
Yes, right. Added a line to clarify.

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

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

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

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

Image review - pass[edit]

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

Source review - pass[edit]

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

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

Comments from Laser brain[edit]

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

Comments:

I've struggled, as a non-skater, with explaining, describing, and summarizing the sources and concepts about figure skating in general. I think what "increased in difficulty" means is that variations of the shape of the circle becomes progressively more difficult. The lead, up to now, was the only place in this article that described circles and other shapes in that way; instead, the first section describes the increase in difficulty. I think the easiest way to deal with that, in the lead, is to remove the phrase, which I've done. I also changed some of the tenses as per your suggestion.
Changed.
No, so it's a good idea to provide a link; done. ;) The other items in that list are self-explanatory, I think, but please point out any other jargon that I've missed.
Again, more non-skater difficulty. I also think that the source itself is unclear. I think the solution is to remove everything after tangent, which meant that I had to change the wording to: ""Each figure consisted of two or three tangent circles", since I think that the other information is elsewhere in the article.
Done.

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

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

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

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Fixed.
No, it's a valid point. There are actually people who doubt that figure skating is a sport, or at least the ice dance part. Those people are fools, for which I have two words to say in response: Nathan Chen! ;) I changed it as per your recommendation, except where it talks about figure skating as a sport, since like other sports, it can also be recreational.
Changed as per your recommendation. The only times it happened was when talking about the "first 50 years" of figure skating.

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

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

Coord notes[edit]

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

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

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

27th Infantry Division Savska[edit]

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

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

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

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • Generally I agree with this, but it was large by a wide margin over its equivalent British formation, so I'm going to stick with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Operations[edit]

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

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

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

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

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

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

Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

Coord note[edit]

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

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

Source review[edit]

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

Thanks. I would, except I have no idea about astronauts and have avoided reviewing them as a result, and looking at it, I'm not sure about the use of Aldrin's memoirs in a FA. Happy to be convinced otherwise, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; the source review ended up getting performed. The memoirs are a tricky bit, generally are acceptable in astronaut FACs for some reason (often are co-authored which helps probably). Anyways, to the review.

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

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

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

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

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

Echo parakeet[edit]

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

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

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

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

Hope it's not too much of a conflict of interest, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because we generally cover bird subspecies in the species articles, and both are covered fully in this article (there is really not much if anything to say about the Réunion subspecies which isn't mentioned here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will get to that... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now added, can't say how good it is, though... FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Equus means horse, eques is cavalrymen. In any case, I can only say what the source says, to avoid OR. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you wrote 'The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the French cavalryman' or similar it would be fine. My point is "The specific name eques is Latin" explains the "cavalryman" bit, but not "the military colours". Now I know, or can surmise, why the colour of the parakeet reminded French naturalists of a cavalryman, but I think that you need to either spell this out or remove it. As it stands, the senrtence begs a question.
The source only says "From Latin eques referring to the military colours of a French cavalryman." I agree it is very vague, but I'm not sure it's an improvement to remove the information (and it would fail the comprehensiveness criterion). FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. OK. Your call. Leave it as is.
At the time of that publication, based on field notes, yes. So I'm not sure if I can reword it so it sounds like a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a single occurrence of something merits mention. It would seem to be "going into unnecessary detail".
It is significant enough that later sources also report it (including the 2017 book: "On two occasions Jones heard a deep, quiet purring call from an adult female just after alighting in a tree"), so it would seem like an oversight to leave something out that several sources mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Ah, if it has been heard twice by a single observer, I agree with you. Change the text to reflect that and I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, added, but it is unclear from the source whether it was the same adult female that was heard, or two separate ones, so it is hard to not be vague... Now reads: "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard on two occasions from a female landing in a tree". FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That reads ok to me. I can live with a low bar on notability, but a single occurrence seemed a bit much. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I usually don't do this as it doesn't seem to be specifically recommended anywhere, and I don't personally find it worth the time. I have no problem if others choose to change the order, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
Sure could, now is. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added "this more generalised niche". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is outlined in detail under threats, but added "(through predation and competition)". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
The source doesn't say where (though it would be Mauritius), but I added "to help". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK
The source doesn't say, unfortunately (I would love to have more information about this discovery, but the sources are pretty vague). FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A shame.
In answer, earlier the article states "Two of the young are normally raised." I do realise that raise is not the same as fledge, but their seemed to be a contradiction. Especially as it seems clear that more than one chick is left in each nest - the parents could more easily raise the brood they were left with - which seems pointless if only one "usually" fledges.
The problem is inconsistency in the sources. It would appear that the mortality changed between the time these sources were published/compiled (now that the population is more stable, more young are probably raised naturally than when the population was low and not assisted by humans), but that is just speculation on my part. As is, the sources just say different things, so we can't really "adjust" to what we think might be the correct number. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I shouldn't have done that, I should have queried it on the talk page. I'm not too happy about the "inconsistency", but both need mentioning and, as you say, you can only go with the sources.
Yes, and this actually lead me to revise the sentence further, spinning off the following: "African giant land-snails (Achatina spp.) can suffocate chicks with their slime while entering nests in search of shelter or food." FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck.

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

Now fixed, Nikkimaria, didn't see this section for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

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

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically they should be subspecies then, but it seems they are not formally considered such, perhaps for practical reasons. It is also possible Psittacula krameri will turn out to be a species complex, but the sources don't specify either... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to red-orange, in line with the source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed all to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added comma. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to a specific species of fly (Passeromyia heterochaeta) that we don't have an article for... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk, happy to support as is now, but I just wonder why you don't have Passeromyia heterochaeta as the red link... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd prefer to have that in parenthesis, though, since few if any readers would know what the name refers to, so "tropical nest fly" has to be spelled out somewhere. But if I give both common and scientific names for the fly, it looks inconsistent with the other animal species names, which are mainly just common names. Should I give scientific names for all species mentioned in the article, perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my FAs I usually give common names only unless it's something like an obscure disease or insect which doesn't have one, when I give the binomial. I've never had problems at FAC doing that. In practice, if it's possible, I'll write a two-line stub to avoid a red-link, but that's not always feasible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to avoid any confusion, I just added scientific names to everything (was already given for most of the parrots, so good for consistency). FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

It is an ebook without page numbers, I was told here[13] that I only had to list the chapter or section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above, an ebook without page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sabine's Sunbird's comments[edit]

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

I'm a bit on the fence about this one; the source has info on moulting in its own separate section. Since the seasonal moulting in this species doens't change the plumage pattern, I'd argue it has more to do with physiology (which I'd put under behaviour) than physical appearance, and that the description section should be more about features that can be used to identify the bird. I'll try to see where other sources place such info. At least FAs like Black-necked grebe and Barn owl also cover moulting under behaviour (Atlantic puffin deals with it in both sections, because it becomes much different physically according to season). FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The echo parakeet (Psittacula eques) is a species of parrot endemic to the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and formerly Réunion. It is the only extant native parrot of the Mascarene islands; all others have become extinct due to human activity. The species has two subspecies, nominate Réunion parakeet (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) and the Mauritius subspecies, sometimes known as the Mauritius parakeet. The relationship between the two subspecies was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA of echo parakeets with a single skin thought to be from a Réunion parakeet.
Good point, it's always difficult when the nominate subspecies is extinct (similar case in golden swallow). I took your wording, but excluded "nominate" since this is explained by the text below "As it was named first, the binomial name of the Réunion parakeet is used for the species". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber's comments support[edit]

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

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

Comment on Sources[edit]

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

Often it is because several sources are used to support different parts of the same sentence, but I have spread some out where it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, rechecking, it seems to be only dealt with on two pages, so restricted it quite a bit... FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no other comments. AhmadLX (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I forgot to ping Brianboulton about the ebook issue. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

French battleship Bretagne[edit]

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

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

Image review

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

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

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

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

FunkMonk[edit]

Ok, I'll support after Sturmvogel 66 has responded to this (I realise the source might not specify). FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't specify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by L293D[edit]

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

Support from The ed17[edit]

Support by CPA-5[edit]

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

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

Alf Ramsey[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

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

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

JennyOz thanks so much. I've addressed and responded to most of them, a handful for my esteemed colleague when he gets a moment. Look forward to round 2! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so far both, just adding another comment, JennyOz (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support Comments by Kosack[edit]

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

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

Comments by ImmortalWizard[edit]

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

Assuming you mean the 19702 World Cup, this source says "Journalists ranked England as favourites to retain the World Cup, although I suspect this reflects the hyperbole and unrealistic expectations that have always followed the national team." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can't find the ref you mentioned being used so far. Hopefully it will be cited in-line. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ImmortalWizard Hi, thanks for your comments, I'll wait until you're finished (please indicate when that happens) before I fix any issues. Obviously the article is a big picutre thing so it'd be best to hear from you about all your issues before starting out on anything. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Support from Ritchie333[edit]

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

The problem with that is the lead now starts off by talking about his playing career, then switches to mentioning his managerial career which he is far better known for; unfortunately, again I haven't got an ideal solution to that, so maybe what we've now got is the best we're going to get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support from Gerda[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Lemonade51[edit]

minor at that:

Lemonade51 thanks, addressed both of those comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

More on sources[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Southampton Cenotaph[edit]

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

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

Support by PM[edit]

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

Image review

SC[edit]

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

Design

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

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

Support by Zawed[edit]

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

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

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

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

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

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

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

Background

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

Commissioning

  • The template defaults to comparisons over time using the Consumer Price Index or Retail Price Index; this is only safe for comparing Consumer Price Index values over time: e.g. staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets) etc. - large war memorials are definitely out of scope. :) The template will allow to compare using a GDP inflator, but you need to be sure that you're happy with what that statistic is actually telling you, and whether or not its appropriate for the comparison you want to make, or indeed useful for the purposes of this article. (For comparison, a GDP inflator will give you equivalent to £546,000 in 2019; a CPI version will give you equivalent to £615,000 in 2023). For these purposes, I wonder if an average wage comparator would be more appropriate - tellingly, those comparison measures would equate £10,000 in 1918 to just under £2m today. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a few of Harry's other memorials, Manchester/Leicester, I see he doesn't use a comparator template in these either. Perhaps there's just not one that "works", although £10,000 (1918) to £2M (2019) sounds sort of "right" to me. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changing the start date from 1918 to 1920 also happens to result in wildly different calculations, so another reason to just let the £10,000 stand by itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1920, added. KJP1 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design and symbolism

Lord, you don't ask for much! Watts Park, Southampton. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Above and beyond, KJP1. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is Harry's style, and has been accepted in his many previous FAs. Like you, I prefer to tie my refs to the specific sentence to which they relate but I don't think it needs changing. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Agreed and removed. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2,368. Added with cite. KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

See above. KJP1 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like this is because he survived the war, and so wasn't already commemorated, but that his actions were considered significant enough to merit commemoration. Clarified that he survived the war. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's exactly that. Southampton-born and a VC holder. I've expanded a little further. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, in 2015, when all of Lutyens' 44 memorials were listed, and many of those already listed were upgraded, e.g. II to II*, II* to I. [20] KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support from KJP1[edit]

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

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources review[edit]

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

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

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

1989 Tour de France[edit]

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

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

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

Image review

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

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

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

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

Reworded.
Clarified.
@Mike Christie: I would say the lead is quite long already, and the controversy around their usage was mainly on how much benefit they actually gave LeMond rather than wether or not he was allowed to use them. I have however amended the footnote to reflect the history of the regulations concerning this (as far as I could find). Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Fixed.
Done. Also tweaked the wording for Fignon.
Done.
@Mike Christie: Have included that in the footnote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
I have calculated his average speed and added it. However, I calculated it myself, it does not come from a source. Don't know if that constitutes OR?
I have now given the name of the Tour organisation in the first section.
Clarified.
Nobody really cared about the classification, which is why it was abandoned the year after. That's why there's basically no sources for it. I have expanded upon all of the classification as far as I could.
@Mike Christie: I removed the young rider classification because no jersey was worn, so listing it would have been misleading. I removed the team classification because it had gaps in it and I could not find a source for that information. I am hoping that the stat book that EdgeNavidad mentioned below will give me that information so that I can verify all of that. We'll see, the book should arrive today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no success here, although the book does provide the infos which EdgeNavidad listed below, which I am in the process of including.

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

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

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

Comments from EdgeNavidad[edit]

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

Clarified, thank you very much for the sources!
According to van den Akker, intermediate sprints did give time bonuses, which I have included. I also included that no time bonuses were given at stage finishes.
Indeed, intermediate sprints gave time bonuses in the first half, I missed that. :)
Included.
Included.
Included.
HC: 40, 35, 30, 26, 22, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1
1: 30, 26, 22, 18, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1
2: 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
3: 7, 5, 3, 2, 1
4: 4, 2, 1
Included.
@EdgeNavidad: Can you give me a source for that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prologue, 1st stage, 2nd stage, all on Memoire du Cyclisme. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Included.
Included.
Included.
Included.
Included.

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

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

Comments from Harrias talk[edit]

Lead
Done.
Done.
It is correct how it is written. The biggest margin was 53 seconds. LeMond made up 58 seconds on the final day, coming from 50 seconds back to 8 seconds up on Fignon.

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

Oh, I see, fixed!
Removed this, his nationality is trivial to the information conveyed here.
Teams
Done.
Pre-race favourites
Removed.
Have changed this to "with few victories".
Done.
Removed.
According to Tassell, which is the source given. I paraphrased here, since there are already quite a few direct quotes in the article.
Maybe change it to something like "...top-ten placing at the Giro d'Italia led Tassell to suggest that Roche was finding his form again." Harrias talk 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Hmm, not sure about that, since Tassell writes about it after the fact, so this would be misleading. I will have another look into the book tonight and see how to best phrase it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Route and stages
Done.
Race overview
Done.
Removed.
Removed.
Reworded.
Removed the comma. I am always confused with English comma rules (are there any?). Would the comma after "keep up" count as an Oxford comma? I usually do those, but aren't they just in "x, y, and z" situations?
Done.
Removed. It was surprising, but I am unsure now if Tassell specifically said so here.

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

@Harrias: Thank you for your comments! I have adressed everything above, please feel free to go through it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Will you find time to do the rest of the article as well? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Have been in hospital, but should hopefully be back to this in the next few days. Harrias talk 23:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Oh! I hope it wasn't too serious. Get well soon! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Do you think you can find the time to stroll through the rest of the article in the coming days? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pyrenees
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "moved clear". BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transition stages and Bastille Day bicentenary
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "..the only remaining Kelme riders abandoned, pre-race favourite Fabio Parra and José-Hipolito Roncancio." BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alps
For each section I put the full name at the first instance and removed surnames in the following mentions. I recently asked about this here, but didn't get a clear answer.BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference for this and clarified two others. Were there more? BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classification leadership and minor prizes
Added (time subtracted) after "time bonuses". BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

Noting that I reviewed this article for GA status.

Have added this and some more information about the importance of the Tour, including a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about just "one of cycling's Grand Tours and generally considered the most famous bike race in the world." I think the claim that it's the biggest sporting event is a bit too much for the lead, especially given that it's just a specific edition of the Tour, and not the general Tour de France article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure why you propose this change. Writing it like that would make it sound like the two things happened one after another and not simultaneously.
Ah, I thought it was one after the other. I feel like the "but" doesn't belong. How about: "The Tour organisers relented in exchange for being allowed to run the race over 23 days instead of the original 21-day period given by the FICP." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
All numerals now.
Done.
Removed.
Done.
Done, although with BE spelling.

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

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

Coord notes[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sources review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Francis Willughby[edit]

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

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

Support from Aa77zz[edit]

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

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

Image review

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

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

  • GB is a geographical entity as the largest island, but changed to England and Wales for clarity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spelling of names was still fluid in the 17th century, although not as much as it was a little earlier in Shakespeare's time and it seems to have been a personal quirk of FW

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

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

SupportComments from Chiswick Chap[edit]

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

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

  • See footnote i. Although some extant versions were indeed painted by Baldner, that's not the case with FW's copies. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments from JM[edit]

What a great topic.

  • I've expanded to make it clearer. The study of language was important to Wlkins in his search for a way to rationalise the terminology of animals and plants. The idea was sound, although it had some batty aspects the way he tackled it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked this slightly, although to be honest I'm not sure what's wrong with the punctuation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is a lack of material. Although he was a competent mathematician, he wasn't primarily active in that field, and little survives; his work on probability in games might have been important, but no trace of any manuscript survives. His interest in games was unknown until that manuscript was found in the Nottingham archive in the 1990s, and as far as I know isn't mentioned by Ray and only tangentially by Cassandra Willughby. Birkhead (2018) has fewer than five pages in a 300+ page book on this aspect, which I think fairly reflects that all we have is the manuscript of the Book of Games. As far as surviving sources go, virtually all his other known work was biological or linguistic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

An impressive article, just a few quibbles:-

  • Although they doubled back from Anglesey to Llanberis before heading south, that isn't obvious, now tweaked to clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked sentence and footnote to make it clear Baldner wrote the text. Baldner drew the illustrations in some copies, but not FW's, see footnote. There's discussion on the talk page at the last bullet point of aa77zz's comments. Although FW had two copies, we don't now when he obtained the second one. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the children were minors at his death, so his widow was legally the owner until they were old enough, and when she remarried her awful husband ran the estate as he saw fit, all three children leaving home because of his general unpleasantness. When Thomas reached majority he inherited Wollaton Hall, which he restored, but it took some time to get access to Middleton. The first para of "Insects" mentions that. I don't think Thomas or his sister ever moved back to Middleton, but it remained in the family until it was sold, as was Wollaton, in 1920 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article meets the FA criteria and I have added my support above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your helpful comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

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

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

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

Battle of Bergerac[edit]

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

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

SC[edit]

Slightly later than I intended, but...

Gascony
Done.
Plans
I think that I am failing to see your point - apologies. Are you suggesting that the ellipses should (simply) be removed?
Yes. I don't think you need them, particularly as they are not in the original (beginning and end quotes are always of dubious value in quotes anyway, but particularly so here). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Gone. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Thanks for both the review and the support. A query above re one of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: Thank you. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for taking a look at this. Both additions made. I have also added page numbers to the Rogers article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

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

Working on it. I have rejigged it, although not as you suggested. See what you think.
I don't think this addresses my point or criteria 2a. The first sentence doesn't properly introduce the article, place it in context of who fought it, or the war in which it was fought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Third attempt. I think (hope) I have cracked it.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Yes. As it says in the first sentence of man-at-arms, "A man-at-arms was a soldier … who ... served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman". I have not gone into detail as a) it seemed clear to me b) it is Wikilinked c) it seemed to me to fall foul of "going into unnecessary detail". If, contrary-wise, you feel that the article misses "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" then I could add a paragraph on weapons and equipment earlier on?
  • No, I mean that the layperson would not know that the cavalry were the men-at-arms. I suggest just using men-at-arms here, and avoiding introducing a new term. Of course, there were also mounted archers, which are a form of cavalry, and a charge would not have been conducted by them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Understood. "cavalry" replaced by 'men-at-arms'.
No one knows. Nor if it was written by an individual. Usually referred to as "the St Omer Chronicler".
Done.
Done.
Removed. (It was intended to give a reader a feel for the value of the ransoms, but apparently it mors confused than enlightened, and so is gone.)
Done.
Done.

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

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

Support from Tim riley[edit]

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

Support from Jim[edit]

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

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

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

Scoops (magazine)[edit]

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

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

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

Publication history and contents

  • "sf" feels a bit in-worldy. Up to you, but I might consider finding ways to spell it out and rephrase other mentions (see, e.g., the edit I just made).
    I'd like to leave this for other reviewers to comment on before making a change. Since you posted, Josh edited the article in the other direction, adding more uses of the "sf". Specialist sources such as SFE3 use the abbreviation, and I think it doesn't hurt for a reader of a topic to be gently introduced to some of the terminology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I didn't realise there was an ongoing discussion, otherwise I wouldn't have touched it. I think I would prefer not to abbreviate, but that's just a personal preference. I do feel, though, that if you are going to abbreviate, you should abbreviate consistently (hence my edit). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and removed the abbreviation since you both suggest doing so. Usernameunique, I saw your edit but didn't see any other opportunities to substitute "genre" as you did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a good obit here, for your footnote. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll stub an article on him in the next day or so using that; very interesting. I think I can just call him "a researcher" for this article, and link him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now stubbed and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic details

  • If you can find a website with a sold listing (e.g., an auction), it might be worth adding. Totally discretionary though. It's just hard to figure out, without context, whether "high" means $50, $100, $500, or $1,000.
    I'll have a look and see if I can find something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

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

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

Image review

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

Per this it's 70 years after the death of the author/artist, as far as I can tell. The artists would have had to have died by 1949 for them to be out of copyright, which is not particularly likely. A 25-year-old artist in 1934 might well be alive in 1994, so copyright might not expire till 2064. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT the likely copyright expiration would be 2029 in the US. For works by unknown authors during this time period in the UK, copyright expiration is 70 years after publication, meaning it's already PD in the UK. However, it became so after the URAA date, meaning that copyright was restored in the US and extends to 95 years after publication. See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I was worried I got this one wrong, but the difference is between UK and US copyright, right? Kees08 (Talk) 02:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - assuming the copyright wasn't renewed (haven't checked) the copyright would have expired in the US, and since the US is country of origin as well, that one's good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

A footnote will be redundant once the article is created, so should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Smythe's Megalith[edit]

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

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

  • A good idea. I've added a photograph of the Coldrum Long Barrow which shows a similar chamber. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Yes it is. I've added said information to the image file itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - given that information, the URAA tag doesn't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

Support by Ceoil

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I think that the border improves the image in this instance, although I certainly won't object if anyone removes it from the picture (or creates a better quality image that my rather amateur attempt). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Links in the intro, article body, and captions are considered separately. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've double-checked the sources on this point as I'd never encountered this term before either. Apparently the original report did say "under-jaw". However, I think that it must be a reference to a mandible; I mean, what else could it be? I'll make the alteration in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it certainly refers to the mandible, but must be some kind of archaic term that is better replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that here is ambiguity as whether these are two pieces of a single ulna or two separate ulnae. I've switched the prose in the text from "ulna" to "unlae" anyway, as I think that the plural works better here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed this sentence so that it starts: "Analysis of the recovered teeth showed that the molars were worn down …." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no public access onto the actual farmer's field where the monument once stood. Obviously, one can look at the field from the adjacent trackway (from where this photo was taken). Do you think that I should alter the prose in the article accordingly? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph above that ends with "The stones were then removed, likely with the assistance of horses". Do you think I need to add more here to make the destruction more explicit? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in that first part of the "Discovery and investigation" section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, there's a little confusion here. It was discovered in the 1820s, not the 1920s, when Crawford looked at it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah *facepalm* FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that I have no idea. If it is ever revealed in publication I will ensure that the Wikipedia article is updated accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 57: pp. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • In the bibliography, Philp & Dutto are listed out of alphabetical sequence

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

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

Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

IFF Mark II[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

Support

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

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

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

Comments from Ian[edit]

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

Well it would, if by "alarm" you mean "AA exploding around you". I've re-worded this section.
The timeline I think - this is referring to the BOB period when the unreliable Mark I was in (some) use. I've touched it up to make it more obvious.
  • Where there any notable cases where the system was used but failed somehow and Allied fighters attacked friendly aircraft? I don't mean like Barking Creek where it wasn't used at all...
  • I suspect hundreds - even in Korea IFF was considered suspect to the point they ended up assuming all aircraft were friendly. But this is more about IFF in general than Mark II specifically, I'm not aware of any Mark II specific incidences. Closterman's famous example was Mark III. I think that's simply because Mark II wasn't in service for that long.
  • Aside from infiltrating Allied bomber formations, did the Germans have any other methods for spoiling the system? For instance did they ever try duplicating it (perhaps using captured Allied planes as a starting point)?
  • Yes, but again, not for Mark II. They did have one for Mark III (and IIRC, the Japanese had it too) but I'm not sure of its operational experience. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sources review[edit]

Only minor issues/nitpicks:

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

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

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

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

Sinking of SS Princess Alice[edit]

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

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

Comment from Wehwalt[edit]

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

Comments from Ian[edit]

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

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

Comment from Tim[edit]

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

Image review[edit]

Comment from Kablammo[edit]

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

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support from KJP1[edit]

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

Oops! Good spot - 6 boys: it's a poor quality scan. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done - Many thanks, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129[edit]

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

  • I only slimmed down the docks to river size, rather than inventing them! Anyway, Goran has now got rid of them altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Np, I was chuckling over your earlier reply, that's all  :)
It's only very minor, and there isn't much we can do without loosing an image altogether. That's always possible, but I think they're all good at illustrating the point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're doing two different things: one is size, the other is alternative text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed—I mean, some articles use |alt= while others don't, and some use |upright= while others don't.
We don't need alt text for all images (either because the caption says all that is needed, or is the image is just for illustration); upright is only missing from one image, but we don't need to control the size of that one, so it's OK without it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.
I'll have a think on that: the problem is the inquests start much earlier than the suggested point (at para three). We could break it at "Running at the same time as the coroner's inquest was a Board of Trade inquiry", I guess, although that's way down the section. What to call the first subsection tho, as it covers both inquests and the raising of the vessel? - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, perhaps? It's really the chunky quote from the inquest that bloats the section, and there's nothing that can (or should!) be done about that.
Hmmm... I'm not a fan of that, mostly because the sections cover a little more than the subtitles suggest
Disagree.
Yep, I keep forgetting about the website archiving, so I'll get onto that shortly. Newspapers have dates, which is much better than the OCLC system - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The links that can be archived have been now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these. There are a couple of points I'd like to mull on further, but I'll get onto the archiving shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Mukhtar al-Thaqafi[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Source and prose review Support[edit]

Thank you ;) AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked where article on publisher exists. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Howard Ian K. (1990), ISBN 10 exists in dash format. For Wellhausen, Julius (1975), I couldn't find dashed ISBN ;) I don't know how to fix that :D All others are in dash format. Could you please help in this regard? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi AhmadLX, you can make all ISBN numbers with 13 digits and dashes as follows: Go to http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter. For 10-digit ISBN's you can convert them 13-digit ISBN's with dashes; for 13-digit ISBN's without dashes, you can first convert to 10-digit and from there convert again to 13 with dashes. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I did that (manually), but it didn't work. If you search such isbn on google you don't get the book. With this tool, again same result. For example, try this original undashed isbn and this converted dashed isbn.AhmadLX (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. For you the expectation is the user can copy and paste the isbn into Google and the book will come up cleanly as the first search result. I’ll admit I’ve never given much thought to that side of things, but you make a good point that it could be a worthwhile consideration, if that is indeed how most people use the isbn numbers. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I originally meant: Ibn al-Zubayr sent new governor to Kufa. Mukhtar bribed him and threatened to use force if he [the new governor] didn't go back. Instead of going back to Mecca, the new governor went to Basra since he did not want to face ibn al-Zubayr.AhmadLX (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Havent check, but then say that so, much clearer. Ceoil (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to change, but you already did it. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking to join them with "and":D These are the only important things that he did after coming into power. If I move one in either direction, wouldn't it affect the sequence? AhmadLX (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the sequence is historically accurate, then yes. If the record is vague, then phrase so its less bizarrly put. Ceoil (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this okay? AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were some Alid supporters from Kufa, and their loyalties were not with him but with Alids. AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered; can we be more descriptive than "the men". Ceoil (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about replacing The men with They, which refers back directly to people just mentioned in previous sentence? Clarified.AhmadLX (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now......

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

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

Thanks Casliber. @Al Ameer son: Can you have a look please? thanks AhmadLX (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

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

Actually Arabs called the region as Iraq. Historians refer to it as Iraq as well as Mesopotamia. Should it be changed to Mesopotamia then? AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't object to it being called Iraq if that was the term used at the time. However, perhaps the current link is misleading, as it takes us to the article about the Republic of Iraq. Might it be better to link to something like History of Iraq#Middle_Ages? Obviously, it would be ideal if we had a whole article about Medieval Iraq that we could link to, but I don't think that we have one yet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, it links to modern Iraqi state:D My mistake, sorry. History of Iraq#Middle_Ages is itself a summary of Muslim conquest of Iraq. Wouldn't it be better to link to Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#Conquest_of_Mesopotamia_(636–638)? AhmadLX (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to History of Iraq#Middle_Ages.AhmadLX (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked on first instance. As for explaining the term, there is a compromise. The term is a bit complicated and explaining it may affect brevity required for lead. Linguistically Shia means party. They were a political faction (i.e. supporters of Ali, during the first civil war). But after murder of Ali, this party started taking a unique religious colouring, and following murder of Husayn and Mukhtar's revolt, they became a religious sect, and the term Shia took this meaning thereafter. Wherever in the article first meaning is required by the context, I have used "pro-Alids" or "Alid partisans". For the latter meaning, I have used "Shia" with link. It can be explained a bit in the body of the article. What do you say?AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Added explanatory notes. AhmadLX (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved sentences around a bit, so now no repetition of "of". AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Any further comments?AhmadLX (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments by Al Ameer[edit]

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

General points

Done, except where it appears in quote.AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources either write that as "b." or as "ibn", unless it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. So i have used "ibn".AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I disagree. I don’t mean when “ibn” is in between two names like “Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr”. Nearly the all the sources capitalize “Ibn” when it stands alone as in “Ibn al-Zubayr”. Anthony, Daftary, Dixon, Donner, Hawting, al-Abdul Jader, Kennedy, Sharon all capitalize “Ibn” when it begins the name, regardless if it’s at the beginning of a sentence or not. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right , changed. AhmadLX (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Had overlooked that. Thanks.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, the pipe links Umayyad caliphate should be Umayyad Caliphate, Alid should be Alids, Kharijites should be Khawarij. I’ll do these ones now, you can do the rest as you find them. At the end of the review I’ll do a once over. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Done.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned tribe name and his mother in the article body; whether she was Thaqafi too, is not in sources.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have something, I’ll add it if I find it. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he did. One religious source (Majlesi), as discussed in relevant section, talks about his son without naming him. Since RS don't say anything about it, it can't be added, I think. AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a journal article, so I have kept the page numbers with the full citation, as with other journal citations. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The specific page number should still be mentioned in the citation. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar uprising

Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit tricky. Sources vary on details whether Hasan was to succeed him or if Shura was to elect new ruler. Examining what exactly the terms said, is better suited in the article on the treaty. Here, in my opinion, it suffices to say that according to the terms he could not have nominated successor (whether Shura elects new one or it is Hasan/Husain is left out).AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination disturbing the Kufans is mentioned in the preceding sentence. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was cited, but somehow it was rmvd in recent editing. re-added.AhmadLX (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added another ref.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added reason. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is already mentioned in this section. Perhaps you missed it ;) AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read this again. Not sure what I missed. I still think it needs to be written clearer. It’s a bit garbled as it currently stands. Al Ameer (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rmvd. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used term massacre as sources almost unanimously call it as such, so I thought it was uncontroversial term. Changed now. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some (eg. Dixon) say he was not sincere in his allegiance, while others (eg. Donner) say he was sincere. I have tried to avoid the discussion of his motives altogether. AhmadLX (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought of the wrong passage. Yes, regarding post-revolt letters, sources tend to portray that he was double-dealing.AhmadLX (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Thanks, I will copyedit accordingly. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Will check sources for this. @Al Ameer son:Added, although did not add sources intentionally (Wellhausen 1901 and EI2 Vol. 5 respectively), as this is uncontroversial stuff, and adding new source for this will only increase clutter.AhmadLX (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned, based on Source already present. AhmadLX (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: So far, I have tried to keep the article as focused and as compact as possible, with the density of a neutron star :D But based on comments from reviewers in this FAC, several details have come to be expounded. As such, I now think that a explanatory note on nature of Mukhtar's claim of Mahdi, and one on the nature Mawali may also be appropriate. What do you think? AhmadLX (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I agree. Add what you feel is appropriate and we’ll copyedit it after. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

A village near Kufa. Added note. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Al Ameer son: Any further comments? AhmadLX (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was waiting for changes proposed in the FAC, including those of other reviewers, to be implemented before I do a full re-read and give my final thoughts. Things seem to be wrapping up so here are my notes:
Done all. Ali's intro with Ibn Hanffiyah, since Husyan is more famous wrt to Muhammad himself and has been introduced as such. Adding Ali there would introduce confusion b/c of many names I think. AhmadLX (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine. Thanks for the quick response. Please see the two unresolved points I raised above about the page number of the Watt journal citation and the sentence formation about Mukhtar’s meeting with Ibn Hanafiyya.
Also, since you mention arbitration twice in reference to the talks between Muawiyah and Ali, it’s confusing when you immediately mention “arbitration” in reference to the talks between Ali and the Kharijites. Maybe use a different word for those talks. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the journal citations, the specific page number(s) should be used not all the page numbers for the entire article in the journal. Assuming this gets addressed, you have my support. Thanks for devoting your efforts to this subject area and to this historic figure in particular. I’ve only done a minor spot-check, but I’ve been editing the same topic area and have found this article to be factually accurate. It is comprehensive, focused and finely-sourced. My concerns have been addressed, the main one having been the prose since Featured articles need to meet the highest standards for this criterion. I believe that has now been met. That being said, I’m glad FunkMonk has turned his attention here as an extra pair of eyes. Good luck ;) Al Ameer (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Al Ameer. Pages done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

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

Where should such a section be added? Before Early life? New section on background added. Section "Early life" incorporated into it. AhmadLX (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • retaliation for Husayn's murder – You sometimes call him "Ali", and sometimes "Husayn". It would reduce potential confusion to stick to one, and use it consistently.
They are different persons. Husyan was son of Ali. "Ibn" means "son of", so Husayn ibn Ali = Husayn son of Ali. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his elder son Hasan became Caliph – whose elder son? Reads as it would refer to Mukhtar, but I guess it instead refers to Ali?
Yes, clarified.
  • He was afterward released – I suggest "Mukhtar was afterward released" for better reading flow. While reading, I had to pause to think who "he" is referring to.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the murder of Husayn ibn Ali, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a son of a prominent companion of Muhammad, Zubayr ibn al-Awam, secretly started taking allegiance – I had to pause here as well: Quite convoluted sentence, and difficult to comprehend in one go, because of the many names.
Removed one name and shortened a bit. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most pro-Alid Kufans supported Ibn Surad because he was Muhammad's companion and refused to join Mukhtar. – This is ambiguous. Who refused to join Mukhtar? Ibn Surad or the pro-Alid Kufans?
Kufans. Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • attack on Medina with the ultimate intention of ousting the caliph. – There where two caliphs (a caliph and a rival caliph), so which of them was ousted?
Ibn al-Zubayr. Fixed. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the first instance in lead, we have a short description and a footnote. The note can be moved down I think. Or?AhmadLX (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, didn't see that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Sorry, I don't get this one. Abbasids claimed Imamate and used it for their propaganda while overthrowing Umayyads. When sucessfull, as-Saffah, and latter al-Mansur, became caliph. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all good then, I misunderstood. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for bringing up the points. I will address the issues soon. This last point is a bit tricky. Originally I had used "Sunni", but actually no source specifically names any sect/group who consider Mukhtar liar. So I removed "Sunni". But it can be made "many Muslims" instead of "many people". Changed to "many Muslims". AhmadLX (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What about this? AhmadLX (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I am supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jens. AhmadLX (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two missing ;) Added ref to one. the other one doesn't need ref IMO. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find its source, so if it is deleted, I will be pleased AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image added, includes other useful locations as well. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Separated. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per sources, he was sincere in his support and the fault was Ibn Aqil's. According to plan, they had to wait for Husyan's arrival. Mukhtar was away when Ibn Aqil came in open. But once arrested, Mukhtar denounced Ibn Aqil's activities. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this could somehow be expanded in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned briefly. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explained in brackets and note moved down. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UK ;) Thanks for pointing out. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that the following quote is supported with. Added here as well. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get this one. You mean something like "fighting"? AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean was he killed during battle or executed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
During the battle. It was mentioned, but was removed on another reviewer's suggestion. Re-added. AhmadLX (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much better to be specific. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I had used "Sunni", but no source names any particular sect, so I removed it. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only two sources, as far as I know, deal with this: Inloes (2009), an article by a Shia scholar in Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies and Anthony (2011). Former doesn't specifically say "Shia", but since she is a Shia herself, so IMO it is okay to take her own views as representation of views of Shia Muslims. Anthony mentions of the reverence that Shia have of him, but doesn't say anything about if some or all of them hold him high. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because refutation requires prior statement of claims that are being refuted. Reversed order in lead. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk. AhmadLX (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

Buzz Aldrin[edit]

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Support, though "engineer, former astronaut, and fighter pilot" needs revision. If I understand Hawkeye correctly, he agrees that Aldrin is not currently a fighter pilot. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hathor[edit]

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

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

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

Ceoil[edit]

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

Appropriate choice of exclamation. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was avoiding the passive voice, but I suppose it's necessary here. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've specified that it was the Fourth Dynasty's founder. The other problem is the product of a slight disjunction between the sources. The Hollis source in the latter half of the sentence treats Hathor as directly supplanting Neith in the Fourth Dynasty, but the evidence for Neith's importance to the royal court mostly comes from the First Dynasty, and Lesko, cited for the first half of the sentence, only refers to First Dynasty evidence. Evidence for the Second and Third Dynasties is so sparse that it would be hard to evaluate whether Neith still held her First Dynasty status then. Now that I check Wilkinson 1999 there is some evidence that Neith remained important in the Second and Third. If it said "During the Early Dynastic Period…", that would include the Second Dynasty and, under some definitions, the Third. What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I've now changed it to "During the Early Dynastic Period". What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I haven't been this tempted to crack a Monkey Island joke in years... I've varied the wording a little, so that there are 20 instances in the readable prose and 24 in the wikitext. For obvious reasons, we are talking about a lone female most of the time, so it's hard to reduce the repetition more than that. A. Parrot (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

FunkMonk[edit]

The duplicate links are either in captions in the iconography gallery, where the script apparently doesn't read them as regular image captions, or (in the case of Temple of Edfu, Kingdom of Kush, and Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt) a long distance apart. I've always been skeptical of the hard link-only-once rule, believing that readers who want to click a link shouldn't have to scroll up through two thousand words of text to find the last place the linked term showed up. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, none of the duplinks that script shows me are in any image captions, it specifically ignores those. They are mostly in the latter part of the article body. Can't say I personally feel strongly about the issue, but the WP:duplink guidelines are pretty clear. I can understand your argument, but then again, why only link these arbitrary terms again and not others? FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them. A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a caption, though I'm not sure about the current wording; see what you think of it. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "the Egyptologist" every time a new Egyptologist is named can feel intrusive and clunky. In this article there aren't that many scholars named, so I've added that introduction for Gillam and Graves-Brown, as well as to Troy, although I think it feels awkward there. That leaves the three names in the Festivals section. I've changed the text to imply that the three opinions come from within the Egyptological community, but I'm very reluctant to introduce them individually, which would be repetitive. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "In the Fourth Dynasty…"
This is difficult. Fischer's book Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C. gives the name of this god, but only in transliteration: ı͗ḳr if we follow Fischer's transliteration, or jqr if we use the system more common on WP ancient Egypt articles. If the name were instead transcribed to fit into English running text, as is that of Hathor and most other Egyptian deities, it would probably be Iqer, but given how obscure this god is, I don't know if any Egyptologists have done so. How do you want to treat it? A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as is then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Given how rarely this article mentions individual scholars in the body text, I don't think this problem crops up elsewhere. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A typo. Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done; see above. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "exposes her genitals". A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were definitely fiction: short stories. Should the article clarify that? I'm not sure how to do so. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This wording was introduced in one of Ceoil's copyedits and I'm not entirely sure which wording he was aiming for. I've changed it to "Hathor's maternal aspects can be compared with those of Isis and Mut" for now. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Corrected. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind the close connections between the goddesses described just below, but I suppose it's an unnecessary word, so I've deleted it. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in ancient texts. The modern sources don't state this very clearly (the citation for this passage only says "…Imentet often appears to be only a manifestation of Hathor or Isis"), but captioned images of Imentet in tombs like that of Horemheb or Nefertari label her as Hathor. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked, in both the lead and the body. "The milky sap of the sycomore tree…"
It's subjective; some Egyptological sources italicize it and some don't. For what it's worth, "uraeus" appears in my dictionary (New Oxford American), whereas the terms I italicized, such as naos and menat, don't. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was linked in its first appearance (as sistra), but I've moved the link to the following sentence, where it's more noticeable. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the redundancy.
Regarding the larger question, the first section is about the Egyptian belief that Hathor was the goddess of foreign countries. It was an important part of Hathor's character as the Egyptians perceived it. The second is about the worship of Hathor outside Egypt, primarily by non-Egyptians. Some passages may need to be moved from one section to the other to make the distinction clearer, but they shouldn't be combined. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr rnddude[edit]

  • There are several sources that have some or another error showing up:
  • Missing identified (ISSN, JSTOR, etc): Cooney (Dec 2010), Hollis (2009), McCain (2011), Poo (2010), Stadler (2008) and Vandier (1964–1966). Allam (1963) is missing an OCLC and Derchain (1972) is missing an ISBN. These should be added if at all possible.
I've done these, except that the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology articles (McClain, Poo, and Stadler) don't seem to have identifiers of that sort. Here is a page listing the identifying information for a UEE article. Derchain has no ISBN (I'm guessing that ISBNs got established later in Europe than the US), so I provided its OCLC.
A. Parrot my apologies, I had that problem with UCLA myself. They have a registered ISBN and OCLC number: [40]. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing page numbers for book chapter: Derriks (2001), Finnstead (1999), Fisher (2012), Frandsen (1999), Goedicke (1978), Graham (2001), Griffiths (2001), Harrington (2016), Hassan (1992), Hoffmeier (2001), Lesko (2008), Manniche (2010), Morris (2007), Morkot (2012), Ritner (2008), Sandri (2012), Schneider (2007), te Velde (2001), Thompson (2001), Vischak (2001), Woods (2011), Yellin (2012), and Posener (1986). I consider this low priority because page numbers are provided in the specific citations, but it's a good practice and makes the source more directly accessible. It's a bit of a pain running through a 600+ page volume of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt trying to find the few pages on a subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page ranges added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IB image alt caption: you mention the red disk that's between the horns, but not the cobra that envelops it. No mention of here holding a was-sceptre or ankh sign either.
Added. I'm never sure how much detail to include in alt text. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt caption for "File:Plaque of a woman giving birth assisted by Hathor.jpg" in Popular worship is missing a word: Plaque showing a woman squatting while cow-headed stand at either side <- while cow-headed what stand at either side?
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whoops, sorry about that! I corrected the Hoffmeier entry, and Serial Number 54129 has fixed the capitalization problem with the Woods article. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the text in this paragraph to clarify. There are two possible readings, one of which is more common. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "As suggested by her name…" A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I called it "profile-based". The exact art-history term seems to be "twisted perspective", but we don't have an article for that term, and without a link, "profile-based" was the clearest way I could think of to describe it without digressing. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird; I thought I had checked whether there was an article about it and saw that there wasn't. Now I see that it's been there since 2006! Linked. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sources review[edit]

An addendum to sources comments included earlier in this review.

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

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

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

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

Black mamba[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

linked to Asp (reptile) now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just above is a link to Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales. hence they are scales along the lips. If we linked all the scales it'd be a sea of bluelinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments by Samsara[edit]

:) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

dunno how that happened, tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok the problem is that it is an orthographical variant to how it is spelt now (somebody added an 'o'), which is why I used 'spelt' instead of 'erected'. Am still musing on this and best way to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any information other than that given. It seems to be just the name for the snake, but no source clarifies it one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the latter - a valid subspecies is still distinct, just less so than a species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
none are recognised as valid. Will think how to get this in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of that anywhere. In fact I could only find one source mentioning weight at all. One should assume they are similar size if not stated overwise. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sigh....nothing coming up....will keep looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a pity that sources do not reveal more on the description. I give my support now for the well-written article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

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

ok, done at first mention...not too keen on this but not strongly opposed so happy to go with flow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that up a bit. He is still listed as head of science right now (i.e. "2019" in article text),[1][2] but as has been said, that document is undated and will be updated with a new person at some, perhaps distant, point in the future. Unfortunately, even a feature on him in the Independent[3] does not indicate the year of his appointment. Samsara 03:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
trimmed...it generally means (presumptively) less venom as the symptoms presumably are less systemic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

References

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

The range map[edit]

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The scalation is essential to diagnosing to species level often - like spore print, size and shape for mushrooms Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Further comments by Samsara[edit]

I have not seen anything about this in my travels through black mamba material...frustratingly... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah...I know....have to stick to sources... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC) ok found and added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samsara? LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Opabinia[edit]

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

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

From Dweller[edit]

What was wrong with this map I made on request[46]? FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. Just wasn't in the article when I made the comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was more a question for the nominators, the map was replaced during the FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: That discussion is on this page. Samsara 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this map issue is a big deal to me. We can't have an FA with an incomprehensible map. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN map is missing parts of the range. @Samsara: can the current rangemap be overlaid onto a plain map of Africa rather than one with tints for deserts and jungles? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Done, to a first approximation (colours and resolution are reasonably easy to change). Samsara 21:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! @Dweller: is this version better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I could quibble over the brown looking black but a) I know I'm not great with colours and b) even if I was right (and I refer you to 1) nobody reasonably intelligent would be overly confused by it. Good stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution going before habitat is typical for animal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source just states that and them describes what it does when threatened (fleeing and threating). LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image showing it swallowing prey. LittleJerry (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All venomous snake use their fangs to inject venom. The sources I have appear to not feel the need to specify that the mamba does. LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dweller, done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 8: should note source language is German
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: publisher location missing
Decided to remove locations for all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: ditto
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: returns the message: "Sorry, we can't find the page you're looking for".
damn, wish I had archived that. oh well, folks can just go to abstract Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21: not clear as to the nature of the source
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Not sure if numbers changed - WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization - is WHO official body, FN 25 is Jerry G. Walls, who has written many books on this and similar topics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34: publisher location missing
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: lacking publisher
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Ref 41: ditto
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45: "BBC News" should not be italicised. Use "publisher=" not "work="
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48: Likewise for "strange behaviours"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article was my first major attempt at a historical "biography", in so far as they are actually possible with this passing of time; it went through the MILHIST A-class review slightly over a year ago. It fell off the radar, but has recently received further polishing and should be ready for promotion. I've no idea, now, and looking back on it, exactly why I chose Buckingham to beef up back then; he's an interesting character but I can't remember recognising that! He began his life fighting for Henry V in France, and died defending Henry VI in England. Between those points he fought, argued, married, and heired, and went from being the voice of reason and conciliation in government to calling for war on opponents and urging death on his enemies.
See what you think; get stuck in. ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

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

  • And actually, I see you have just New York for Zimbalist (2012). That one can go either way, generally speaking, but you do have "New York, NY" for Logan (1979).

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

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

Support from SC[edit]

Lead
Early
Estates
Affinity

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

Many thanks SC; coincidentally, many of your recommendations were also suggested below, and have already been done; those that weren't are in this edit. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike then... - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Later
Roses
Last
Northampton

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

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

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

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

@Tim riley: Thanks very much for looking in, Tim, it's generous of you (as ever)...I've attended to those aspects in the first run, doing as you suggest when you suggest it and endowing comprehensibility where you find it lacking, hopefully. The PR was over a year ago, and I'm not sure we had even "met" at that point! Regarding the refs, the important thing is consistency, so I've addressed the examples (and more) of capitalisation that you found, although as you note, consistency can also lead to oddities such as New York, NY; but omitting the latter would rather stand out, I think. The oDNB use sentence case for their titles so was adjusted. Theses are used per WP:SCHOLARSHIP (accessed via the Bodleian). ——SerialNumber54129 15:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments on text

I've stuck to Stafford; that piece of advice will come in useful in many other (hopefully!) future articles, as I'm always tripping myself up over what these chaps were called at various points in their careers. It's particularly difficult in thematic—rather than chronological—sections such as this. Thanks!
Please don't take my obiter dicta as authoritative! I'm sure your sources have a modus operandi that you can clock. Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Image review - pass[edit]

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

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

Support Comments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Lead[edit]
I'm not going to action this just now; I think it did mention it some time in the past, but has ben removed...if that's the case, it might have been another reviewer, so will need to dissect the history.
Changed to: To/during/few/King Henry.
Notes[edit]
Changed: "less...earlier"/£/accessible/passed
Main body, part I[edit]
Tweaked.
Recast the entire sentence.
Odd, I thought that had gone aeons ago.

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

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


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

Act 2, part ii[edit]

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

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

Comments by Cinderella157[edit]

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, in the spirit of not being as didactic as I may have appeared, I have dealt with whatever specifics have been presented—mostly from Mr rnddude but also some of the others where possible—tightning prose, Humphrey's 1458 death, a cited explanatory note re. the Dinham family (not Dunham in my source, it's this family), scare quotes, etc. Obviously broader calls regarding general reorganisation and disjointedness are impossible to address and so profitless to attempt. The question of language appears to have been addressed by M. Random above, and, incidentally, regarding the significant point re the "misuse" of "caput"...the misuse was not by me  :) Have a good weekend all. ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, Thankyou for confirming the matter of Dinham and adding some needed context as to who they were. The article reads as caput but links to Caput baroniae, so perhaps we are all right (or all wrong).[FBDB] Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, The criteria 1a is somewhat subjective and the guidance not explicit but it does touch on the issues I raise per the links I have cited. Articles should be written in a way that they do not rely on links for clarity. Unnecessarily complex structures are a matter that affects readability and comprehension. How it is remedied may be a matter of personal preference but the issue itself is not. The matter of "editorialising" (and like) is a matter for which there is explicit guidance. That other reviewers have not identified such issues does not mean that they are not valid. While awaiting some responses from SN with respect to the family section, I commenced to review the article from the top down. I had not intended to do so initially. I have taken it upon myself to action many of the changes. You may wish to consider the significance and validity of these. I ceased upon this comment (above) by SN. I consider this unwarranted and unreasonable. While they have apologised elsewhere, the comments still stand here. As to the rationale for preferring Katherine, it was only with that statement that they identified their preference was based on Rawcliffe. The statement by SN here, is not in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building. There are some very clear issues that have needed to be addressed and I am pleased that SN has actioned at least some of these. You will note that I have/will be actioning some of these. I will not press the matter of language and style but do note the following:
  • On the matter of the Aftermath section and repetition, this was drawn to my attention by Mr rnddude. It is inappropriate to repeat essentially the same material (re Humphrey's death and Buckingham's ultimate heir) at multiple places in an article. This falls to 1a and 2b. It is not impossible to remedy this if there is a will to do so.
  • At first para Family section: Tait also notes that "about 1450 there was some talk of marrying one of Buckingham's daughters, probably the eldest, to the Dauphin, afterwards Louis XI". At second para: There was also, about 1450, "some talk"[171] of a proposal for one of Buckingham's daughters to marry the Dauphin of France (subsequently Louis XI). This repetition falls to 1a?
  • The main part of the first para in the Family section is intended to justify this statement: Sources conflict over the precise details of the Staffords' progeny. How this is achieved is a matter of personal preference. SN has chosen to present this in the main text. The text that follows is intended to highlight the inconsistencies between sources.
  • The point in referring to Humphrey's death is to highlight that Dunham is in conflict with other sources. Moving this to a note tends to conceal the point. 1a
  • The point here (this para) is to show inconsistencies between sources. Sources conflict as to Joan, Joanne or Joana? Standardising on "Katherine" at this point in the article is a false consistency. While I cannot comment on Dunham, it is not an accurate representation of Tait. 1c
  • The statement in the first para re the Dauphin is only relevant at that point if it shows how the sources diverge. It does not. That is done in Note 18 in the next para. That note; however, could be cross-reference. I could show how this might be done (see here). The statement is out of place here as it presently stands. There are, of course, other ways to remedy the matter. 1a
  • As previously stated, note 14 serves no apparent purpose. 1a
If you consider these minor and of no consequence, so be it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Affinity (medieval) is already linked above (re the king's I think). Though the term is under a cloud, I think there should be a link to Bastard feudalism somewhere, as this section is so much about it. Don't much mind where. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: True: it would probably be odd for any article on this period not to link to it somewhere. I'd want to avoid linking the same word to two different things—but how about linking like In the late medieval period, all great lords... ? ——SerialNumber54129 16:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok.

Coord notes by Ian[edit]

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

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

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

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

Kenora Thistles[edit]

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

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

SC
Formation
Apparently it's a Canadian thing, as it would mean easily or simply. I've changed it to be clearer.
1903 Stanley
March 1907
Done
Sources
  • Diamond, Dan, ed. (2002), Total Hockey
  • Zweig, Eric (2012–2013b), "Bonjour Montréal"
Removed

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

"Handily" means "with ease"/"easily". So you could phrase "handily defeating their opponents" as "easily defeating their opponents" but you find "handily" quite often at least in ice hockey-related texts, I think it usually tends to be next to "won" or "defeated [an opponent]" and to me implies both an easy and thorough victory. This word usage must definitely be a North American peculiarity. Maxim(talk) 03:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking through it @SchroCat:, always nice to have someone unfamiliar look at it as well, to ensure it makes sense. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Prose looks pretty solid. A few concerns:

Added
Fixed this.
  • The Kenora Thistles site is probably my biggest sourcing concern. Is there any chance this is replaceable? Local newspaper article, anything? Two-thirds of the cited page outright declares that it is providing content from Wikipedia. I understand that you're citing an uncontroversial piece of local information, and that your source is the bit of the page that's not mirroring WP, but... the appearance of citogenesis is a concern. If you have to retain this source, the website is not KenoraThistles.com, but Kenora Senior AAA Thistles.
I found something that should do the job. Agree it was not the best source.
  • For the latter, I would suggest presenting the site name as Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame but not crediting an author (there is no byline given, even an organizational one). Also for that source in particular, Kenora Thistles Page is not really correct as a page title; it is true that you are linking to a page about the Kenora Thistles, but it's not actually titled anything with "Page". I'll agree that the way they format their individual pages makes it more challenging that usual to identify a title here. I would go with 1907 Kenora Thistles Senior Hockey .
Fixed
That is just from copy and pasting the titles used. But I've modified the Star article title, and the newly-added Hamilton Spectator article.
I actually have read the article, and have copy of it saved. But I recall it didn't have much that would specifically help here, and a quick glance through confirms my initial thoughts. But if you have different views please let me know, I'm certainly not opposed to using it.

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

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

Support Comments by from Sportsfan77777[edit]

Noting that I reviewed this article for GA status.

I may be missing something, but I only see the initial sentence ("The Kenora Thistles, officially the Thistles Hockey Club, was an ice hockey team...") that needed fixing. If there's others please let me know.
Fixed
Moved.
Addressed what you have so far, but I'll keep an eye for further comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have anything to add, Sportsfan? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More minor comments:

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

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

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Roger B. Chaffee[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support from SN54129[edit]

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

Good luck. ——SerialNumber54129 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at it. I applied your suggestions. I am a serial-overuser of commas, so I trust when I get feedback that there are too many. Let me know if you come up with any more suggestions. Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Hey there, seeing if you had a chance to look over the article another time. No pressure to give a support/oppose, just reminding you of this in case you forgot. Kees08 (Talk) 04:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:90E0:60B5:AD4F:C85C (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

SR by Mike Christie

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

Notes on 1(c).

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

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

Notes on 2(c):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woops. Just sent page 82. Kees08 (Talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It supports the material; the "lung capacity" sentence is a fairly close paraphrase, but I think it's OK; it's a straightforward statement of fact and I can't think of a good way to restate it without sounding silly.

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

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

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

Comments from Harry[edit]

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

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

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

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

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

Pod (The Breeders album)[edit]

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

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

  • Thank you again, Ceoil, for all your help. The PR was very rewarding from my side of things, too, and I'm really glad about the various additions you and BLZ proposed. Moisejp (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thanks so much, Gavin. I certainly wasn't expecting that level of praise for the article, but am really glad if people enjoy it. I'll say again that a lot of ideas for expanding it came up in the PR (thanks again especially to BLZ and Ceoil), which contributed to the article reaching a higher level of comprehensiveness than it otherwise would have. I hope all is well with you, take care! Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth mentioning that the article takes a big step, along the lines of WikiProject Women in Red's mission to promote gender parity in the encyclopedia, to highlight and tell the stories of women's contributions to alternative rock. Wikipedia has several FA-quality articles on women in alt-rock, including stellar biographies on Courtney Love, Kate Bush, and Stereolab, but not enough. I count seven current FA-class alternative music articles about albums recorded by bands with women as members, and I believe this would only be the second article—after Title TK, also about the Breeders and written by Moisejp—about an album for which a woman was the primary songwriter and bandleader. This comment is separate from consideration of this article's FA-worthiness on the merits, but as Wikipedians become more conscientious of these issues and strive to overcome old biases I think it warrants mention and praise.
I was involved with providing some of the article's sources, so I'll recuse myself from doing a source review. However I think I can fairly perform an image/file review, so I will do that now. —BLZ · talk 21:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Copyrighted files:

Some miscellaneous recommendations here:

Free-license files:

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Gave it another read, just a few minor things:

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

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

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

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

Sources[edit]

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

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

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

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

Gioachino Rossini[edit]

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

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

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

Support from Gerda[edit]

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

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

Image review has minor problems is now fine[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Have deleted 'Ironically'--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in the right section now, but is still formatted as a web source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two quotes cited in the sentence come one from each range.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that - my question is why the second range is abbreviated, when the style throughout is not to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood now, corrected.--Smerus (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brussels Conservatoire format is still different. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would query this: Brussels Conservatoire is there as a website: GMO as a publication.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brussels Conservatoire here is a website, I'll make that clear. GMO appears here as entry in template which capitalizes it: I think what needs to happen here is to use template:encyclopedia rather than template:web - I've now done this for Doctor, Jennifer, see what you think.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilton is a very distinguished (imo) musician and writer (see the WP article on him). " Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" - but as Hamilton has subsequently had his musicological work published by Cambridge and Oxford University Presses I believe it passes this test.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments by/Support from Dmass[edit]

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

Lead

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

Early Life

Naples

Vienna and London

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

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

More nitpickery from me.

Paris

Early retirement

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

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

Last batch

“The Code Rossini"

  • Yes, that's plainer, I agree, but I wanted to convey something of the businesslike attitude....--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't seeking here to be comparative, but more to stress how R. 'moved back' and extended the finale section as a proportion. Let me see if I can find an apposite opinion which would fit here and point the issue.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italy, 1813-1823

  • But I'm an archaic kind of fellow, which I don't think makes my style culpable by WP standards....but I actually agree that arounsing is better here.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal

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

Influence and Legacy

  • Nice quote and good point. Let me think on this. Have added a bit of this. Many thanks by the way for your help in raising these points.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support from KJP1[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

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

  • I hope music articles are no more opinionated than others. To me (who did not write this section) the expressions you cite seem justified by the context and indeed conform with the sources. After the first 'remarkable' there is however a second which follows in short order which Tim may wish to adjust....--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. First one is now "considerable". On the general point, there is no absolute criterion for success (or failure, for that matter) and we have to follow the sources. I was writing about a later composer recently and found a contemporary article that said something to the effect that anything over 100 performances was regarded as a good run in Paris in the 1880s (long after Rossini), but even that is not objective: a piece expensively mounted in a large house might run for over 100 performances and lose money; a modest piece in a small house could make a profit with a lot less than 100 performances. Tim riley talk 07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the repeat to 'popularity'. Not sure why 'gained fame' could be construed as NNPOV- his operas were the source of his fame, not his other works, and I feel the article makes this clear.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think these are all well-enough known; Ferrara might perhaps be marginal.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for this arose from discussions at peer review.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe these may be sufficiently current not to need a link - Tim?--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do I, though don't tell the MoS purists. Whether a link is actually helpful to the reader depends on the context. I can't imagine that anyone penetrating this far into the article needs a link to explain "mass" etc. Tim riley talk 23:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • many thanks for these comments, awaiting further. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really see any other serious issues. However, I'm not quite clear that my leading point has been resolved. I'm not convinced that article this doesn't contain more opinions than many biographies, but given the experience of the authors, I'm prepared to take this on trust, as with not linking to cities. However, the comment which Tim may wish to adjust seems to be hanging in the air at the moment and needs resolution one way or another Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Jim, for your comments and suggestions. All addressed now, I think. Tim riley talk 07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your support, Jim. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schrocat[edit]

Coord note[edit]

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

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

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

Swift Justice[edit]

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Support from MaranoFan[edit]

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

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

Support from Kailash[edit]

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

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

Support from Damien Linnane[edit]

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

Support from HĐ[edit]

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

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

Source review[edit]

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

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

Support from TheDoctorWho[edit]

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

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

Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

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

Coordinator notes[edit]

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

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

SN54129[edit]

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

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Revised. That makes sense to me since the city was already clarified in the previous part.
  • To the best of my knowledge, a majority of the reviews were published when the show first debuted, and the pilot episode was the only one singled out during reviews. Other than the critiques of the pilot episode, the criticism was relatively generic toward the show (i.e. aimed at the show as a whole rather than specific episodes or scenes outside the pilot). Let me know if that makes sense. I will look through the sources again though later tonight to check and see if other episodes are mentioned by name. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Interlude)
  • I do not think a separate "Cast and characters" section is necessary for this article. There are only three main characters (Mac, Randall, and Al) for the show. Skipp Sudduth and Kim Dickens only appear in the pilot episode (and play rather important parts for kickstarting the main storyline of the show). I have only included guest stars that were mentioned by reliable, third-party sources. I do not see a reason to list all the lesser / walk-on parts as you suggest above because it would border on trivia in my opinion. How would it really add to the reader's knowledge/understanding of the show to see an exhaustive list of all of the guest stars for a series? It just seems unnecessary to me, as the focus should be kept on the lead characters. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would better to keep the sections together as it keeps things more streamlined in my opinion. I do not see an issue with having the actor's name in parenthesis by the character, and I have done that structure in several of my past featured articles on television shows. I am open to further discussion on this, but I do not see the value in a "Cast and characters" section. I understand its use in film articles, and I have only used it in one of my previous television FACs and that is because there was more critical and cast commentary on the characters. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premise and characters
  • He is one of Mac's superiors in the NYPD. I thought it was clear from the context (other superiors, including Andrew Coffin (Giancarlo Esposito).).
  • Moved down. I must admit that I am not necessarily a fan of this show myself. It is certainly not bad (as I have seen far worse television shows), but it was never going to be my personal favorite. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the "Premise and characters" section to convey the basic premise and overarching storyline of the show. I have only include brief summaries in the "Episodes" section since there are only a limited amount of episodes available online. I think one or two episodes are missing so it would be a little odd and mess with the cohesiveness to have longer plot summaries for some episodes and smaller ones for others. Again, I see no reason for separate "Plot" and "Character" sections. There are only three main characters so that would be a very short section, and I think it would be better to keep everything together to make the information more cohesive and flow together rather than break everything up. I have revised the "Premise and characters" section to be a little more cohesive in terms of the flow, but I am opposed to starting a "Character" section as it seems very unnecessary in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come tomorrow, touch wood. ——SerialNumber54129 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Apologies for pinging you again, but I just wanted to check in on your progress with this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DarkWarriorBlake[edit]

  • According to a source cited in the article, it was canceled (alongside other programs) to make room for black sitcoms. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not described the information in the "Premise and characters" subsection as critical reception. I added that part to the section to help the reader better understand the show's story, characters, and overall tone. I do not identify those parts as reviews because they are not making comparisons to say the show is necessarily good or bad. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a link for action film. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best thing that I can find about the show's legacy is the interview in which Wolf said that UPN considered the cancellation a mistake and Ice-T being cast in some of his later stuff, but that is about it to the best of my knowledge. I think the show has primarily been forgotten by most critics and people in general. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Darkwarriorblake: Thank you for the review! You have raised very good points, and I hope that I have addressed all of them. Please let me know if anything else needs work. Either way, have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my bad, I completely glossed over the cancelled sentence because I was looking for it in the later sections. I take your point on the Production part mentioning critics. While it's making comparisons I feel would be ok in the reception section, you're using it in a different context to describe what the show is. I'm fine with that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and I greatly appreciate your comments/suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise[edit]

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

  • I think it is useful as it appears to be a somewhat important plot point. Mac is portrayed as using technology during his cases, and remember that the show is set in the mid-1990s so email was a pretty big technological development back then. I understand your point, but I think it matters because of context. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Revised. I am always bad with has/had constructions so I should look into that more in the future. As weird as it may sound, I may be slightly more familiar with grammar of other languages because I was more aware of it when learning those lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be Everett doing the praising so thank you for catching that silly mistake on my part, and I have paraphrased the quote. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the bias. I had tried to clarify that in the prose by emphasizing Wolf said this himself. Personally, I am not sure if I believe him. I think it is an important point to include in the article as it is the only time the show was really discussed following its cancellation (at least to the best of my knowledge). I thought he was more exact in the interview (I was probably just misremembering) so I have adjusted it to be more accurate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually not sure if murder is restricted to just people or not. I have made the suggestion revision, but it is an interesting point to think about or look into. Maybe I am just used to using murder because I come from a family of criminal law attorneys lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. Thankfully, it is one of the episodes available on YouTube. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not exactly certain about the common practice myself. I could understand removing the column as long as the rating information is merged into the "Production and broadcast history" section since it is important. I am uncertain how that information could be merged into the section seamlessly, but I am more than happy to hear your suggestion. I think the N/A/ works for the director/writer credits for "Stones". To the best of my knowledge, it is one of the only episodes unavailable online. Otherwise, I would have tried to expand all of the episode summaries. Let me know what you think. I will wait to make any changes until I hear your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics praised Swift Justice for its visuals." Suggest to mention the contrast between visuals vs. plot clichés tin this topic sentence. Everett, Johnson, and Biddle also seem to say a variation on this, so if you put this contrast in the topic sentence, the reader will better know what to expect and be able to follow the flow of ideas.
  • How about merging the Everett and Johnson sentences, something like "Todd Everett [maybe even mention Variety again here?] and the Chicago Tribune's Steve Johnson criticized the show for relying on clichés, but both liked the look of the show; Johnson wrote that the show had "a visceral, close-to-the-streets feel", and Everett that it was the most visually attractive program on UPN.
  • Then consider switching Nichols' and Biddle's comments, as Biddle's seems to be in the same vein as Johnson's and Everett's, something like "The Boston Globe's Frederic M. Biddle similarly felt the visuals alone could not carry the show, saying that... [is there possibly anything else you can add to qualify Biddle's comment?].
  • I have revised all of the above comments on the "Critical reception" section. I am uncertain on how to comment on each one of your points without making things appear too messy so I opted for a comment at the end here, but please let me know if I missed anything or something needs further work. I have always found this type of section to be the trickiest one to write. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Clarified. [[User:Aoba47|Aoba47]Bold text] (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. I agree that the second quote was unnecessary, and I was thinking that it was out of place anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

Support from BLZ[edit]

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

Some changes to the "Legacy" section so far:

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

And one comment:

  • The "Answers from the Dean: Online Exchange with Robert Christgau" source is split into multiple pages, but across multiple URLs. This makes the quote on "p. 2" harder to access and unintuitive to find, but also completely omits an archive-url for that second page. Characterizing these as "pages" may not be quite precise, either; the second page carries the distinct title "Answers From the Dean: Online Exchange with Robert Christgau, part II". I feel like "part II" should be cited as a second source in the bibliography, using "Christgau 2002a" and "Christgau 2002b" in the footnotes rather than "p. 1" and "p. 2". Here's an archive link via webcitation.org for part II for your convenience. —BLZ · talk 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Making this comment to keep the review from getting stale: Any update on the memoir, and this review? @Brandt Luke Zorn: Dan56 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll be able to get ahold of the book on Tuesday. —BLZ · talk 21:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few pages I hadn't seen in the previous glance on Amazon and added text accordingly. Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well done! Here's pp. 330–340 as a scanned pdf. I haven't had a chance to look over it too closely. In retrospect, it was a little silly to assume the 90 hours excluded his regular schedule at the Voice, but he does mention that he was hardly listening to new records at that time period and that it was his "only such hiatus" in his 50-year career (p. 333). —BLZ · talk 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those details were added yesterday. I have just added a few details I see from p. 338 in your pdf. Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The last thing I might add from Going Into the City would be some of Christgau's commentary on the Rolling Stone Record Guide and how it differs from his CG, which would fit nicely in the "Contemporary reception" section. (And having skimmed through GITC: knowing you intend to take Robert Christgau to FA one day, using the full book would be essential. It cuts off shortly after the '70s CG, but it seems like an excellent resource for biographical details from his early career.) Otherwise...

Source review[edit]

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

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

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

Support by Kees08[edit]

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

Any update? @Kees08: Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Review by Jayron32[edit]

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

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

Other comments[edit]

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

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

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

SMS Preussen (1903)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image review

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

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

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

Source review[edit]

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

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

Apollo 15[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

SC[edit]

Crew
As the article says he went to the same school as Scott, I think we're OK there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Planning

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

Final batch from me:

Hardware
Launch

Second and third EVAs

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

Thanks you. I've adjusted those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

Article is very good. Some quibbles:

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the group nickname in parens..--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I think the contexts are different enough that they are acceptable. After all, Scott was only seen to drop one feather, and he had brought two (he had planned a test run but didn't get around to it).
Scott mentions it in that context. And remember before the 15 training, all three were the backup crew for 12. So the training, all in all, was 2 years plus.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)'[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08[edit]

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

Introduction

I've recast it slightly. While I agree that "outside the lander" is redundant, I think the reader needs to be taken by the hand a bit here so I've rephrased rather than cut. The others I've done more or less as I think you want them.

Background

Avoided.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

I like Apollo 8 too but let me sleep on how to accomplish it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've adapted the Apollo 8 format slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I think I'll let it stand. I'm trying to be brief here. Armstrong only gets a shout-out because he is Armstrong.
"Michigan" is an acceptable shortened form, especially on second and subsequent usage, in American English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right per their style guide, which says "Because it can cause confusion with the state of Michigan, avoid referring to U-M as “Michigan” unless the context is obvious." Kees08 (Talk) 03:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've never read anything in particular. Obviously the greater emphasis on science might have led to more. Some of them might have been brief, I've read most of the transcripts and I don't remember Shepard coming on the loop. I've inserted that Gordon most likely would have commanded 18 and that Brand later flew on ASTP and the STS, as a way of having a snippet about each backup astronaut. I don't think we need the whole hoorah over the crew for 17, that's part of 17's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Section looks much better. I found this on CAPCOMs for the mission in case it is useful to you. Kees08 (Talk)\

Planning and training

Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
OK.
OK.
OK.
You have to send me an email so I can reply with an attachment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so. I think omitting the second one leaves things too abrupt.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware

I did it in the body, but for lede purposes, I think the link should suffice.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above are done, and I've avoided the term "zero gravity".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mission highlights

No, but it is often good to lead off with the big event and then discuss relatively minor issues that surrounded it, even preceding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out they use mild detonating fuse (MDF) from what I can tell, which is close enough to det cord. Explains the messy separation I saw during the Apollo 11 documentary. No more actions to take here, just thought you might find the explosives handbook somehwat relevant and interesting. Kees08 (Talk) 07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Controversies

Visibility from space

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

General comments

I don't think every detail from them needs to be in the main article. They could probably do with more specific referencing, but they do serve to provide details this article doesn't. I'd rather keep them and maybe improve them down the road.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

I don't think so.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Distance and rate of closing to the object being tracked, principally the CSM. If reviewers have a better way of putting it, I'd be happy to see it. I'll add sometihing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shortage of potassium, dehydration (Irwin's in suit drink bag did not operate properly). Let me see what I can find on this in a nutshell.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that got bulk-added to a bunch of the Apollo articles. I'll remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Source review[edit]

What this is cited for are, for the most part, statistics and registration numbers. Is there reason to believe these would be inaccurate?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I keep hearing more that the site has more inaccuracies in it than it should. I have not personally found any, but I also do not check, I just replace all the citations with others (okay, I suppose I do check a little) and then add it to the External links at the bottom of the page. I think better RS's exist for at least most of the information, and it would be good to use them instead of (or in complement to) Wade. Kees08 (Talk) 08:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's changed and I will check for others.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think they look the same now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found it rather hard getting a source to cite that exact text, so I've rewritten with a different source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cut.--09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Gascon campaign of 1345[edit]

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

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

Support by Lingzhi (also Source Review)[edit]

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

Hi Lingzhi2. Thanks for the input. rereading the article I am inclined to agree with you regarding the lack of scope. The problem, as you touch on towards the end, and as I mention in the FAC introduction, is the shortage of modern (post-Medieval) coverage, There is a now a fair bit, but it tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side. I shell trawl back through the sources and see what nuggets I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
let's see what I can find:
Burne, Alfred H. "AUBEROCHE, 1345: A FORGOTTEN BATTLE." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 27.110 (1949): 62-67.
Godmond, Christopher. "A brief Memoir of the Campaigns of Edward the Third in the Years 1345, 1346; and 1347, ending with the Surrender of Calais: with a Defence or Apology of Edward as to his Conduct to Eustace de St. Pierre and the other Burgesses on the Surrender of that Fortress." The Gentleman's magazine (1837): 357-361. "In the year 1345, the war between England and France, after a short and hollow truce, had broken out again, and Derby was despatched by Edward with a strong force into Gascony. In that campaign he reduced the castles of St..."
Gribit, Nicholas A. Henry of Lancaster's Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345-1346: Military Service and Professionalism in the Hundred Years War. Vol. 42. Boydell & Brewer, 2016. Seems to have a chapter on battle of Auberoche.
I see more but not sure of relevancy, can check. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lingzhi2. I have Burne, but in this article rely on his fuller treatment, The Crecy War. Gribit is the most recent treatment. I use it , although it is one I had in mind with "tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side"; although a reread may well yield some material. Godmond. I haven't come across that, not surprisingly given that it is 182 years old. I'll have a look at it, but just from the title I suspect that it will focus on Edward III; who operated exclusively in the north - Crecy and Calais etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-) Nah; always worth poking at a FAC, you never know where it will be weak. I think that I have all of the RSs, I just need to reread them with "scope" in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: You are an excellent "digger" - I have just been admiring your research on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Jean Bart (1911). Thanks for your efforts here. I am now coming back to this, intending to add a paragraph in "Assessment" laying out the strategic consequences, or lack of, more clearly. It will mostly be from Sumption and, yes, Rogers. I note that I flag up the trade and financial importance of Gascony in the second paragraph of Background, ending "Any interruptions to regular shipping were liable to starve Gascony and financially cripple England; the French were well aware of this."
The Black Prince's grande chevauchée was in 1355, ten years after the events in this article. Sadly, there is no Wikipedia article on this fairly major event. (It is on my To Do List, but, you know, "Ask me for anything but time".) He carried out another the next year, was intercepted by the French and brought to battle, but won a famous victory, capturing the French king. Derby was Edward III's cousin, but not a prince; the Black Prince was Edward's son (and was).
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words! I enjoy the research & learning new things. I'm becoming quite interested in all this Medieval stuff. Look forward to seeing your improved "Assessment" section...Everything connects to everything in these historical articles. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: The period is endlessly fascinating. Six months ago I had only a vague, general mental outline of the Hundred Years' War. I now know more about its first ten years than I ever really wanted to. And seem to have acquired half a shelf of books.
I am not happy about my attempts to add "scope". I suspect that I had milked the sources about as much as I could first time around. Having cone back through everything, they are all horribly weak in this too. But it is an under-studied area. Burne, writing a chapter on the Gascon war in 1955, bewailed that there was not so much as an article on it prior to 1355 in the English language, and precious little in French. I have added what I can, and even then am getting twitchy that I am verging on OR, but much of it is shuffling around what is already there. The changes are here. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Images, Nikkimaria[edit]

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

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Thanks.
  • Oops. Thanks. Done.
I have bumped them up to standard size. Better?
The caption doesn't pretend that the image relates to any event in the article. I could add "the following year" or "in 1346" but I am not sure that will add much for a reader. I am even less keen to name the specific event it is supposed to depict, partly because the image bears little resemblance to what we now know of Crecy, partly because I feel that the red herring would confuse a reader. Perhaps I could add "as imagined by a contemporary chronicler"?
I think your last suggestion would be good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Good point. Done.
Unfortunately, no.
Probably Gascon language? FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling a little to work it in. Given that the full phrase is "blocked upstream communication along the Garonne" do you think it likely that it will not be clear that the Garonne is a river?
Should be ok then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The precise dates are not known for any, but all are contemporary. I could add "contemporary" or equivilant if you think that it would be helpful.
Hi FunkMonk. Thanks for taking a look at this. I have responded to your points, sometimes with queries of my own, above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, will review the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Oops. Done.
Changed.
Not in my opinion. I was asked to put it in during a previous review. Now removed. (Thanks.)
@FunkMonk: I have addressed your points so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Interesting stuff, and no big issues apparent.

Good catch. I am not keen on brackets in the lead, so have expanded the first sentence. See what you think.
I have added a sentence to the start of the Aftermath section. Hopefully it covers, at least implicitly. your queries.
Périgord. Added.
Yes. Events happened (broadly) in the order mentioned in the text.

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

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

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

I see what you mean. Reworded. Any better?
Much clearer. Two "wars" in the sentence, but I think we can endure that. Tim riley talk 19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a small bee. ;-) But you are correct - I overuse the word. Cut back to one "significant" and one "insignificant", both of which I believe are used appropriately. You and Mr Fowler may disagree.
Done.
Excellent spot. No, it is Rodger at the end of the paragraph. Now duplicated to the end of this sentence.
Yes.
A major rephrasing.
Well, I'm a fogey too, so I have amended to duck the issue.
Duplicated. Oh, I'm a rash, impetuous fogey!
Quite right. Done.
Oops. Done.

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

Many thanks Tim. Your usual insightful job, pinpointing my sloppiness. All points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support promotion to FA. The article is a splendid read, evidently comprehensive, admirably illustrated, and seems to this layman's eye to be well balanced. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN[edit]

Hi SN. Yes. Probably easiest to refer you to the discussion on the same issue in the FA assessment of Battle of Auberoche, here. You may recall participating. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeees...was your take away from that discussion that it is unnecessary to use any French sources whatsoever—in the context of FACCRIT 1b & 1c? ——SerialNumber54129 12:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Goodness no. My take away was that there aren't any reliable French sources. I would love to discover some. As it is I have included a source from the 1870s, just to get a token French source in. That seems to be as recent as they get. At least one modern (British) source bewails the lack of French coverage of this front. (Prior to Poitiers.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators[edit]

Hi Ian Rose and the other coordinators. To my untutored eye it looks as if this FAC may be drawing to a close. If I am mistaken, apologies. However, if it is, could I request permission to nominate my next candidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [58].

Japanese battleship Ise[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Built during World War I, Ise didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Ise's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. The article went through a MilHist ACR last year and I've tweaked it a little since then. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and consistency in English styles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

What a nice article you've.

  • "(683 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(94 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(708 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(31 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(104 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(21.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(5.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • The article use both American and British draughts. In the and a draught of 8.93 metres (29 ft 4 in) at deep load. and the and their draft to 9.45 metres (31 ft 0 in). and again "draft" in the The weight reductions decreased her draft to 9.03 metres (29 ft 8 in).

The article use both Vice-Admirals. Commanded by Vice-Admiral Shirō Takasu,, The ships of the Fourth Carrier Division were assigned to the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa. Which one should the article use? Also switch the link of the Vice-Admiral from the second sentence to the first one

  • Weird I really thought it was 2 and 3 maybe I was in a little dwaal for a moment. I guess never mind then.

That's everything from me. Good luck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manoeuvring, in all its permutations, just messes with my head; It just looks wrong to me. And I still have internalized licence. Thanks for catching all of these!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: I know your feeling Sturm, as child I learnt alot of American English words even I'm not a native English speaker. I was also shocked about the manoeuvring and maneuvering differences when I found that out (even we here uses the British one in our language). But I more used and learnt British words instead of American words. Now the British English is part of my daily bases because the UK lies closser to me than the US. Anyway it looks a straight FA-class in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

Lead[edit]
Could "Battle of Cape Engaño" be linked to the relevant section within Battle of Leyte Gulf.
"where she decoyed" My understanding is that she was a relatively minor component of a group o aircraft carriers and hybrid battleships which decoyed TF 38.
Good catch
Design and description[edit]
Construction and career[edit]
Then you need to state that in the article. (That whether it was 22 or 24 is not clear.)
If it is BritEng, then yes, I am sure. If it is AmEng I would have expected it to consider "The Main Body" as a singular, but would not be 100%.
Infobox[edit]

Nice work. Reminds me of reviewing Hyūga. , also a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Sturmvogel 66. You haven't pinged me, so I am assuming that you haven't finished your response. If I am wrong, let me know and I'll get back to you. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm done with my response and have addressed most of your concerns. Just a couple of questions mixed in with all the stuff above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Two comments above responding to your queries. Otherwise its a wrap. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lengerer uses both numbers, so I've tweaked the text accordingly. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support - I reviewed the article at the Milhist A-class review last year, and I'm happy with the article. There is, however, a dupe link that crept in at some point between then and now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go see if I can stomp the impertinent little bugger.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Support I've read it over and see no issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [59].

1962 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1962 edition of the Tour de France cycle race. The first FAC in late-2017 was closed due to the lack of attention, apart from Harrias. Twofingered Typist at GOCE gave it a copy-edit before the first FAC. Since the closure, the only significant edits have been recent suggestions from a GA review by Sportsfan77777. There was no opposition the first time round. BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

This was adressed in the first review (I don't mean to imply that you should have read it): the licence at the source has changed, it used to be CC in 2016. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

Looks good overall; these are all minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC) -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent points Mike (remember the 2012 FAC?). BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I've just reviewed the 1989 Tour article too, and I'm impressed by the quality and consistency of the three I've looked at; looks like the cycling project has a good basis to work from. I hope we see more Tour articles nominated. Have you considered reviewing some FACs, by the way? Your prose is more than competent and we always need more reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a go with the FAC reviews. I know I should be returning the favours others have done for me, it's just not confidant about my expertise with prose. BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll be surprised what you can spot. Some excellent writers nominate at FAC, but there's always something to improve. Prose is just one of the criteria, anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are a couple of minor points left above, which don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All points now struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdgeNavidad[edit]

I have edited this article in the past, but my last edit was in 2013, so I checked if there was (according to my expertise) information missing on this page. I specifically looked at the information on rules and classifications. For reference: I used this book and searched for 1962. As far as I could see, everything is included in the Wikipedia article, except for some minor details on awards:

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

Thanks for taking the time to do this Edge. Significant contributors are allow to support as stated on WP:FAC, also, not to discredit you in anyway, but as you can see here the prose has been changed a fair bit. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All seems to be included correctly! No objections from me for making this a featured article. I won't !vote because it would feel like a conflict of interest, because I have previously stated my goal of having all Tour articles featured. I am aware that I am stricter than I need to be.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk[edit]

I looked at this back in 2017, and it looked good then. Looking at it again now, it's clear that further refinements have been made. I have a few small comments only:

As I say, this is in very good shape, nice work. Harrias talk 12:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good thorough check there. I appreciate you returning. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

I wanted to review this because I’m a big Louis Malle fan, and it gave me an excuse to re-watch Vive le Tour after many years.

I’m on my second read-through and am finding very little to comment on. One point found so far:

Those are all my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Moisejp. Vive le Tour is a fantastic piece of film. BaldBoris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. OK, I'm satisfied with your changes and explanations. I really enjoyed this article, and it was quite cool to read about episodes I'd just seen in Vive le Tour, which as you say is an excellent short film. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

@BaldBoris: Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Requested. BaldBoris 01:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I can do the source review. It may take me a couple of days to complete. Moisejp (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working through the source review. One thing so far is I couldn't notice any consistency for when retrieval dates are used in the online references. Could you please make any additions/removals necessary to make these consistent? Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." Per Template:Cite news#URL. The source text in old newspapers or books cannot be changed, so a retrieval date is of no benefit to reader. Also, I've archived any URL that is able to be. BaldBoris 09:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's good then, and your inclusion of retrieval dates seems to consistently follow this standard. All of the references are well formatted, and each one appears to be for a reliable source. I did several mini-spotchecks, and they all check out. The sources look good to me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [62].

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz[edit]

Nominator(s): buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help a Jewish Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee, Siegfried Lederer, went on to smuggle weapons into the Theresienstadt Ghetto.

The article recently passed an A-class review. I'd like to thank everyone who has offered comments so far, including Gog the Mild, Sturmvogel 66, Peacemaker67, and HJ Mitchell. The source review at the A-class nomination should be sufficient, but additional image review is needed since some images were added. I'm hoping to get this at TFA for the 75th anniversary of the escape, which is 5 April. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on those images; there certainly are plenty, but as a result you now have MOS:SANDWICH issues. At minimum they require rearrangement, but perhaps consider whether you need some of the slightly more tangential images. Good luck with this in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks, I think I have fixed this issue. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Righto; there's also a couple of locations missing from your bibliog—worth a double check. ——SerialNumber54129 22:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked, and the only locations missing are for two academic journal articles, for which location is not typically provided. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:[edit]

  • File:Siegfried Lederer.png: Is there a firsthand source for the image?
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review. I'm not sure what you mean by "firsthand source". I consulted the publication Zdrazilova (an open-access master's thesis linked in the image description), who credited the photo to Vlcova's publication. Other than that, I don't know anything about the provenance of the image.
Firsthand source means the original source of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both non-free images could use a better WP:NFCC#8 description as the case for "without this image the article would be much poorer" isn't very strong.
I've removed one of the non-free images. It was decided that Lederer would not get his own article for WP:BIO1E reasons, so for all intents and purposes this is is his biography. Including fair use images in biographical articles is standard, so I'm not sure how the fair use rationale could be improved.
Well, that would be a problem, because while a fair use photo is OK on a biography article, it has often been held to be inappropriate for an article that includes biographical information but isn't a biography per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Removed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like they are all pertinent and well licensed, beyond these two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Placeholder. It's a'coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are journal articles. It appears that a bot changed them to ((cite book)). I changed them back, but is there a way to bot-proof it?
I have had that problem. I shall look back as to what I did about it. Meanwhile, passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Disclosure: I assessed this article for GA, commented on it at ACR and carried out the source review at ACR. At ACR I mentioned a number of areas where it might be improved for FAC.

The caption was confusing because it it discusses two parts of the camp, BIIb and BIId, but only one is highlighted. I fixed this by creating uploading a new version with both highlighted (same permissions). LMK what you think.
That's much clearer. Thanks.
Edited this—LMK what you think. For the record, the source for this reads Esesácké stráže dostaly instrukce, aby se k těmto vězňům chovaly shovívavěji nežli v jiných táborech, což způsobilo, že i SS-mani nabyli casem jisty vztah k vězňům z Terezina – zejména k ženám. Dávali jim přednost před dohola ostříhanými ženami z ostatních táborů. which translates roughly to "The SS guards had been instructed to treat the prisoners of the family camp more favorably than other prisoners. As a result, some guards formed relationships with the family camp prisoners, especially the women. They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp." Unfortunately, other sources do not elaborate on this aspect.
OK. You have faithfully adhered to your sources. Not a lot else you can do, whatever our sordid suspicions may be.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have actioned all of the above. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good. I shall go through the rest as soon as I am able. To me it is looking pretty good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the above. The point about the last paragraph in the "Breaking into Theresienstadt" is a valid one. I cut down a few sentences, but I do think that it's important to discuss why his report had so little impact. buidhe 21:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weell, I feel that this drifts away from the topic of the article, but I can see that its a judgement call and I wouldn't want to quibble over such a fine article. Supporting. Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67[edit]

I went through this article in detail during the Milhist A-Class review, and consider it now meets the Featured criteria. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from KJP1[edit]

A very interesting story. Some comments below:

Lead and infobox
  • "Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz" - is it accurate to describe Pestek as "escaping"? Given that he was entitled to, and applied for, leave I'm not sure he can accurately be said to have escaped.
  • My reasoning was that Pestek had to known that if he were caught helping Lederer, he would be considered a traitor. Therefore, if he helped Lederer to escape, he was in danger of prosecution (and execution) and it's appropriate to describe his exit as an escape. But I'm open to alternate title suggestions if you have a better idea.
  • "Because of his Catholic faith and infatuation with Renée Neumann, a Jewish prisoner, Pestek opposed the Holocaust" - The section on Pestek says that "The humanity of his enemy ... brought him into conflict with the genocidal German policies". That seems to be three reasons, rather than the two given in the lead.
  • Right, the lede is supposed to be a summary and I don't think we could concisely explain this incident there.
  • "despite facing antisemitic persecution from the Communist government" - I'm not seeing this covered in the Afterward section, where one would expect it. Lead material should be covered/expanded upon in the body of the article.
  • Yes, we had to take it out due to not having an RS for it. Removed from lede.
  • "The story of the escape was retold and exaggerated by Lederer" - so Karny suggests, in the Assessment section. But Bauer/Kulka (and Koltatra?) appear to suggest not. I think a caveat (some suggest exaggeration) may be necessary as I'm not clear that the sources support a definite statement in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Removed mention of exaggeration in the lede.
  • "Gate of the "family camp" at Birkenau" - will captioning the infobox lead image simply as Birkenau, as opposed to Auschwitz or Auschwitz II–Birkenau, lead to confusion?
  • I wouldn't have thought so, but changed it to Auschwitz II–Birkenau. The reason I used the abbreviated name is to avoid the line break.
Siegfried Lederer
  • "he moved to Plzeň and worked odd jobs" - this reads slightly oddly. "worked in a range of manual roles"? Better still, does the source say what as, labourer/bottlewasher?
  • Previous version had a note:

    According to Czech historian Miroslav Kárný, he worked as a fabric seller, in a kaolin factory, and as an agricultural laborer on multiple farms. Josef Černík, a leader in an organization for reserve officers in the Czechoslovak Army, helped Lederer get the farm work.

  • Changed to "worked various manual jobs, including agricultural work and a stint in a kaolin factory".
  • "aided those living underground" - I'm not sure I'm getting this. I'm assuming it means "helped those living in hiding" but I'm not sure.
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "He was arrested a third time" - do we know when?
  • Unfortunately, sources do not give a date for this.
  • "(Of the Jews deported from Theresienstadt before October 1942, more than 99% were killed)." - was this originally a footnote? I'm not sure why it's bracketed.
  • Yes. This inclusion made more sense in a previous draft which mentioned that some of his family members were deported, but we couldn't find an RS for that. Therefore, I've removed it.
Auschwitz-Background
  • "The Nazis, however, were planning to kill each group six months after their arrival" - which groups, "group(s) of arrivals"?
  • "Although he quickly developed a reputation for "organizing" (trading contraband)" - I'm not sure it helps to have a red link as the main term, which you then have to explain. Just "trading contraband"?
  • Done
  • "Some SS men formed relationships with Jewish women in the family camp because, unlike other prisoners, they had been allowed to keep their hair" - if that's what the source says, so be it, but it seems unlikely this was the sole reason. I see it's been discussed above.
  • Apparently: "They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp". See above for full quotation/translation of source.
Auschwitz-Escape
  • "Cierer and Pestek both spoke French to avoid being overheard" - I don't think speaking French would stop them being overheard. "understood"?
  • Done
  • "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in hopes his escape would be successful" - "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in the hope that his escape would be successful"?
  • Done
  • "They planned to escape with Lederer disguised as an SS man" - I get a bit confused here. Firstly, I think the "they" is Lederer and Pestek, not Neumann even though she is mentioned immediately before? Then the next five lines describe their planned return to Auschwitz after their escape. So, maybe some thing like, "Pestek and Lederer planned their escape, and their intended return to rescue Neumann, in considerable detail. Lederer would leave disguised as an SS man. After obtaining false documents..."?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was being investigated as a suspect" - not clear to me. Pestek obviously isn't being investigated in person, as he's on the way to Prague. Perhaps, "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was under suspicion as a suspect"?
  • Done
Aftermath-Obtaining false papers
  • "She also told them of Faltys" - do we have a first name for Faltys?
  • Unfortunately, no.
Aftermath-Breaking into Theresienstadt
  • Note 4 begins "According to Baeck's testimony after the war, an unknown Mischling had been deported directly to Auschwitz". But, in the previous section, we learn that Brigitta Steiner's Mischling status "prevented her deportation". The Mischling article perhaps provides a partial explanation, Mischling from Eastern Europe appear to have been considered as Jews?, but it's not that clear to me. In any event, I don't think we need the second blue linking.
  • The blue link was added to the note per request from a previous editor. If a Mischling's non Jewish parent was Czech, they were deported, but if the parent was German they would typically not be, as was explained in a note in the previous version. However, I'm not sure if that would be relevant to include in this article.
  • "Václav Veselý, a barber, told him how to sneak past the sentries of the ghetto" - is "evade" more encyclopedic?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "until he or she was standing on the Judenrampe and undergoing selection" - I think Judenrampe needs explanation, in the absence of a link. Auschwitz station platform"?
  • The mention is unnecessary in this context, removed.
  • "Explaining the weak reaction to the possibility of imminent death" - to me, "weak" expresses a viewpoint which, in the absence of a supporting source, would be better left out.
  • Removed
Aftermath - Return to Auschwitz
  • "Josef Neumann said he had been approached by an unknown SS man" - have we met Neumann before. If not, does he need a short intro?
  • He was mentioned earlier.
  • "Stefan Baretzki, who knew Pestek well, testified that Pestek had been arrested" - when? At a subsequent inquiry/trial? And do we need to be told Baretzki is a guard?
  • Mentioned that Baretzki was a guard. According to Langbein, some of these testimonies were given at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials but he does not specify where Baretzki's testimony came from. (OR alert: I suspect that it was personal communication. Langbein visited Baretzki in jail on multiple occasions and got a lot of useful information out of him; see Baretzki's article).
Aftermath-Afterwards
  • See comment in lead re. antisemitic persecution.
Assessment
  • "Pestek is not recognized as "Righteous Among the Nations" by Yad Vashem" - do we know whether this is as a result of his case being considered and rejected, or not being considered?
  • Yad Vashem does not typically disclose this information. (OR alert: I doubt that Yad Vashem, if petitioned, would award him that status. He doesn't meet the criteria because he was involved in war crimes both during anti-partisan operations and later as an Auschwitz guard.)
References
  • No.14 - is this "442 to 446", in which case it needs a dash, or 442 and 446, in which case it's fine?
  • The two separate pages.

I hope the above doesn't come across as too critical. I know the work and time that goes into preparing an FAC. It's an interesting story and you've obviously worked hard to identify all the available sources. But I do think there are some areas where clarification/some expansion is necessary. Let me know if any of the comments are unclear. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks for your comments. I think I have explained and/or resolved everything, let me know what you think. (here's the diff). buidhe 14:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the super-fast turnaround. And for the very helpful amendments/clarifications/explanations. And lastly for the article itself, which was fascinating and which led me off on a trail of very interesting blue links. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN[edit]

I'm minded to support—the article's clearly of sufficient quality—but I wonder if the name should be tweaked? as it stands, the total length is 3651 words; over half of that is not the escape itself, but rather the "Aftermath", at 1933 words. Shall we consider a title which indicates that? ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially, no. It's certainly not a major malfunction  :) another (small) thing, is the use of forenames important? It would be tighter without; but, again, it's also not that important. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It never occurred to me to drop the first names. I do not feel strongly about it, but as far as I can tell, most nonfiction books on Google Books discussing the escape of a particular person use the full name. buidhe 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This time, I was thinking (for once!) of the MoS rather than the sources, as it goes. ——SerialNumber54129 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think you'll find this with a lot of articles about events. The more significant the event, the more words are devoted to telling the reader why it's important and what it affected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: FYI all, I'm supporting this candidate now as my questions were answered civilly and the only pertinent issue—that of the actual page title—has a consensus to wait until after the promotion. ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Aside from those very minor points, this seems to me to fit the FAC criteria as far as I can tell and I happily support its promotion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I should have addressed all of them. buidhe 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

Thanks for your support. Comma added. buidhe 21:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

We seem to be almost done here but as this would be the nominator's first FA, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- I realise this could be a challenge as most of the refs are books and some of those aren't in English, but let's see what we can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dank[edit]

Spot check[edit]

Picking up on Ian's request for a spot check, let's see what we can manage with what we've got. I can't cover the German or Czech sources, but can get most of the English sources. Buidhe, I'll ping you a list of pages I can't access - could you scan and email them over? Thanks

Checking that the content is supported by citations; no close paraphrasing from the original; and that quoted material is as it appears in the source.

More to come shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: She  :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops – my apologies to the lady! - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, the relatively minor points above addressed. Probably best to await Ian's view before emailing me the others.
Hi Gog, There was only one more source I wanted to check, which was Kulka 1965, pp. 192, 193, 199. Are you able to access these three pages? If so I'll pop over an email and you can send over what you can. That's all that's holding this one up, so if there is anyone else who can access them, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Only in snippet view, but this seems to support cite 54 a - here - and b - here; part of the paragraph cite 15 covers is referenced by this, but the snippet runs out before one can see if the whole paragraph is covered by that page. I have no reason to suppose it doesn't, but will ask around to see if someone can scan and email me that page; page 192 isn't covered at all. I shall likewise see what other editors might have. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest asking those nice people at WP:RX. On the assumption the library's closed of course... ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RX have come back saying that I should have the two pages by the end of the week. SchroCat, should I just email them on to you? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: remember that special:EmailUser doesn't allow attachements to be sent though. ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I've emailed you with my address. If you could send them through when you get them, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"remember"? Having never used Wikipedia email, I didn't know in the first place. Thanks. It would seem that my query was unintentionally rhetorical. SchroCat, I have your email. Once the pages come I will let you know and we can work something out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah  :) how they usually do it at RX—in case of futut reference—is, they will ask you to email them on wiki: they can then attach something in a replybut not in the original email. If you see what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Thank you. That makes sense. So hopefully I can in turn attach to SchroCat's email and send them on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check continued
(Many thanks to Gog the Mild for obtaining scans of the relevant document)

Ian, there have been a couple of tweaks made to the cites checked, but these have been fairly minor points rather than anything that gives any concern. As far as I am concerned—bearing in mind I've only checked the English language sources—I've checked, this is a pass on the source check from me. Thanks again to Gog for stepping in, and well done to Buidhe for an excellent article: I hope there will be more of these to come in future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: ——SerialNumber54129 16:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the ping from Gav -- patience... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patience? WP:DGAF sums me up. But it's impossible to know know whether ohe has received a ping or not. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to help out[edit]

I have stepped in before to wrap up relatively minor points when a FAC nominating editor was not available for the final stage of the process and would be prepared to do so here. I am moderately familiar with the article having assessed it at GAN, ACR and above. I also did the ACR source review: obviously it was not as thorough as a first FAC source review is, but it was far from a wave through. I am not sure if that makes me more or less suitable, but no doubt Ian will advise on both this and the whole idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, do you have access to the Linn and Kulka sources? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Only in so far as they are on Google Books, but there are a couple of editors who may have who I would bounce specific queries at if they weren't covered by GB. (At ACR, a lower bar, it was about fifty fifty as to whether GB covered something when I didn't have the source.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem in principle with you stepping into the nominator's shoes to tide this one over, Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More