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 May 2021 [1].

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered[edit]

Nominator(s): Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time. This is my first FAC nomination, and in preparation, the article has undergone a peer review earlier in the year: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1.

Being a remaster of an existing product, my only major concern with the article is that (as I've experienced already by editors) coordinators may struggle to reach a consensus on whether the article's Gameplay section should simply list the notable changes between it and the original game, whilst linking to the original game's article for a full rundown of gameplay features (as it currently does). The other alternative is to give the remaster article a full breakdown of gameplay information, mirroring the original game's article, and allowing the remaster article to stand on its own and not rely on the other for clarity. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by AviationFreak[edit]

This will be mostly a prose review, but if I happen to see anything else that needs fixing I'll point it out. I tend to be pretty nitpicky and generally go by what sounds best to me, so feel free to ask me about these changes and/or not make some of them.

  • I've re-worded to "the 2007 game". To avoid repetition and length, and the fact it's a remaster (self-explanatory), I didn't bother to give the genre again, and the alternative "the 2007 first-person shooter" didn't seem suitable. My only concern now is that the sentence length is almost at that point where someone might ask for it to be split (again). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "circulation", in line with how it's described in Development. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "small improvements" are referring to the gameplay changes, hence why it's mentioned straight after gameplay in that sentence. I've added "to it" at the end for clarity though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was actually that initially, but was changed during one of the copy-edits. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "revised sound" (and used the same prose for its mention in Reception), but I feel it sounds better without the "and". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, meant to say I don't agree with the "a", considering both use "and". Changed your edit. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did think recently this might prove confusing for some. I basically meant in the sense that it was down-to-earth in contrast to later installments that have futuristic elements (e.g. jetpacks). Replaced with "realistic". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably best it is changed as the criticism and controversy sentences do flow very similarly from both giving three examples on the topic in question. I've re-worded but I can't really decide what sounds better; it's a toss-up between "Criticism focused on the multiplayer mode for balancing issues and the single-player mode for its pacing and artificial intelligence." or "Criticism focused on balancing issues in the multiplayer mode and the pacing and artificial intelligence in the single-player mode." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but I think this is potentially WP:OR. None of the sources explicitly describe it as "many" either. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha - Hadn't looked at the sources. If that's what they say, I agree with the current wording. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both aspects remained nearly identical. Propose the following: "However, it includes a few modifications comprising of improved controls and timing of existing animations, while remaining nearly identical to their original counterparts." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a little confused - If both aspects remained nearly identical, why are we mentioning the modifications? I would think those modifications would be insignificant if the aspects they modified remained nearly identical to the original. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but I still think it's still worth mentioning as almost all of the interviews highlight it. I've just read through it again and it's kinda tricky how I should word it because of this, but seeing the player character's arms while prone doesn't fall under what's sourced as the improved controls or animation timing; as such, the sentence erroneously starts off with "For example", so this bit should probably be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and split into two sentences as it was getting too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the name of the political party in-game so yes. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and removed the title of the level as it's unnecessary. The prose on the Plot and Characters has been taken from MW's article and simplified. However, I'm just thinking, and no one has ever brought this up before, but is it an issue that the Characters section in MWR is not sourced at all? The Plot section of MW is wikilinked from MWR but this is only referencing the plot, not the characters. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like the relevant guideline here is MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which says that plot citations are nice but not necessary. If secondary source summaries of the game exist it would probably be worth citing them in the Plot section. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "a native 1080p", per wording in the source. The problem with details on the engine is that they don't explicitly give the name of it, only that it's an upgraded version of the one for MW, which is the IW game engine (and its unique for MWR owing to some tinkering), so I'm not sure this warrants wikilinking to the IW engine page as proof. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like the IW Engine is used exclusively for the series, so I think it would be worth piping "the series' game engine" to the IW article. This does mean we'd have to remove the link to game engine though, so I'm open to other suggestions. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about wikilinking the IW article, primarily because it doesn't mention Remastered and games that use heavily-modified or almost brand-new versions of the engine aren't listed in its table, but maybe it's acceptable. We also have a note for the engine section on MWR's article, saying "Do not add any engines without a reliable source", but now I don't know if this should remain if we link to the IW engine. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha - It's not crucial that the engine is linked, but from my perspective it would be useful to identify the engine somehow somewhere in the article. This could even be in the infobox, with something like "IW Engine (heavily modified)" for the Engine field. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's basically a draft in preparation for when they're properly created. Propose the following: "Enhancements to the environments were designed (or perhaps "drafted"?) using a procedure called "paint-over", establishing a color scheme and taking screenshots of levels from Modern Warfare before overlaying them with concept art." What do you think? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose the following: "The artificial intelligence of NPCs was improved to respond more realistically to the environment; conversely, grass was animated to react to the player character's presence." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but I don't know that the average reader will recognize the connection between the two statements. Maybe instead of just "grass" we could say "environmental features" or "aspects of the environment, including grass,"? The source uses the term "foliage", which would work better as well IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to look into changing the prose on character AI because reading the source again, reacting to the environment was just one improvement made to them; their movement system was also another. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left as is. Seen several articles that refer to it as such. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to just "Target" as the sources don't give further details. One of them calls the reservation card a "pre-order card", so have just wikilinked to the pre-order page. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see an issue with the grammar here, and I feel this alternative is too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me the "from" still sounds wrong in this usage. Looking at it again, "more enjoyable because it allowed for different gameplay styles" would also work IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below comment re. Pellas.
  • The Pellas sentence looks great, but I'm talking here about the first sentence in that paragraph. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad! The wording was changed during a copy-edit from the similar "The multiplayer mode in the Windows version of Remastered was criticized by players for the available settings and from suffering from a number of technical issues." If it still sounds clunky then I don't know if the copy-editor was intending to avoid this or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, those both sound "off" to me - I think the issue is using the structure "Players criticized <x> and (for/from) <y>". Removing the "for" or "from" would create a smoother structure, so you could say something like "Players criticized Remastered's limited number of multiplayer settings and its large number of technical issues", or something similar. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose the following: "As part of his close involvement in the game's development, David Pellas playtested the PC version, stating before release that it "play[ed] amazingly" and had a "fantastic" frame rate; he acknowledged, however, that the game had been played on a high-end gaming PC." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "an indication of future virtual goods". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I'd checked all of these previously, so must have missed this one. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combined the end of the sentence with the following one, so both sentences are of similar length. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo, that should give you a bit to work on! Don't worry too much if this seems overwhelming, most of the changes are small and should only take a minute or two, tops. As this appears to be your first FAC, I want to say congratulations and good luck! Looking over the talk page, the only thing that appears as an outstanding issue to me is the question raised in the "Use of quotations" section. If possible, I would recommend slimming down or eliminating some of the direct quotes. Overall this article looks nice and doesn't contain too many MOS issues (it could use a few more images, but I understand that as a copyrighted work this is not easy). Again, good luck and stick with it! I completed my first FA a few weeks ago and it's a great feeling once you get all the source and prose drudgery out of the way. Let me know if you have any questions! AviationFreak💬 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak Hi, and thanks for the response! I'll go through those presently. I had extensively trimmed down the length of quotes (and all but removed them for the Development section) as part of the peer review, but I understand where you're coming from in that I think perhaps a few could be removed from Reception (I did struggle with how I might paraphrase these though). The use of an image for the Gameplay section I'd proposed previously, and I will look further into the possibility of using one; at the time, I think ImagineTigers' wording confused me and thought he meant only one image should be in the article, period! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, almost all of the extraneous commas (which I sympathise with) and the omissions of "that" were made by two editors as part of full article copy-edits, so while I disagree with most of these choices I'm sure their editing prowess gave them good enough reason to believe these changes were preferable. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - Again, I tend to go by how things sound to me. If other commenters here at FAC agree that some or all of those changes should be made though, I think they ought to be implemented. AviationFreak💬 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak I've now made all the required changes, with the exception of a couple I wanted to know your thoughts on first before I published them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These look great! I believe I've replied to all of your questions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak Made the agreed changes. I've still queries about the gameplay modifications, linking the engine, line summarising criticism of the PC version, and the prose on the AI/environmental behaviour. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've responded to all of these, contact me with any follow-ups! AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, looks like I missed it in my Watchlist when you finished the changes - Support, and best of luck with the image and source reviews! AviationFreak💬 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

Coming soon to theatres near you. Panini!🥪 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll publish each section individually so you can work while I review it. If you're present, that is.

Miscellaneous
  • Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed that using its full title makes the already-long subsection heading of "Pricing of DLC and standalone version of *title*", compared to the others, strikingly longer. Do you have any objections in replacing it with "game" instead? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not citation types I'm familiar with (not that I'm familiar with most anyway), although I have seen one or two examples on articles for older games. Is it literally just a case of citing basic game data (game title, publisher, platform, release date, etc.) and writing a quote? What sort of information would you suggest needs citing for Remastered? The Origami King seems to focus on three statements that are slightly vague or not elaborated upon. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • This was done during a copy-edit but I wasn't keen on it either; we have another use of hyphens in the lead so makes sense to do the same here. Changed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay
  • I'd say mentioning you can see your arms and gun while prone matters even less, but yes, without them the section would be notably short; will keep. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's because there are only new cheats, not new collectibles, or are you saying it would sound better without the noun being used twice? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's what I was implying. Maybe "... and cheats while adding several more of the latter."
  • Used your suggestion but with "the game" instead as having the title mentioned near the end of the paragraph didn't seem appropriate. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception

Even the Reception section, which I always have something to say about, looks good! I'm gonna be bold and say right off the bat Support. A lot of the articles' problems were dealt with in the very extensive peer review. Panini!🥪 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Panini!! Do you have any thoughts on the article needing another image, as this is one area that I don't know could end up being a factor in determining whether or not the article will reach FA. The other query I have, and I don't know if this is an area you particularly focus on, is whether there are any sources you think might not be considered FA standard; those couple that are good, but not amazing, are New Game Network, Windows Central, and Comicbook.com, the latter two of which appear in the "Other reliable" section on WP:VG/S. I was told during the review that even ones like Push Square might not fly, which is concerning. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I was good when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not skilled in authenticating sources. Someone will come around and give a full source review in due time. Panini!🥪 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back; although I've supported I've got an answer to your first question that I missed. In theory, there are no issues with images, and the one there is within WP:NFCC. However, you could use a second image for gameplay reasons. Panini!🥪 10:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini! I've been seriously contemplating putting in an additional image after AviationFreak also suggested it last month, and I've compiled examples for use in either one of two sections. One would be a screenshot I've found of the new Prop Hunt mode for the Gameplay section; the alternative is a marketing image for Infinite Warfare's special edition with Modern Warfare Remastered, which would go in the criticism section on the product bundle. However, in the peer review, ImaginesTigers said I would likely have to settle for one gameplay screenshot, and we already have two in Development for the purpose of highlighting and comparing the games' visuals. On the other hand, I notice the Paper Mario article, which is now an FAC (well done!), does have two gameplay screenshots, so I'm sure it's not impossible, provided the rationale is very good. What would you suggest?
The other issue for me personally is that I'm still really not very knowledgeable on the process of uploading and formatting images, in addition to how the process changes depending on whether they're uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. I notice those I've seen from WC, among a whole host of other changes to file information, don't include a rationale; am I right in thinking they don't need these because they're free-use? And would a marketing image fall under free-use? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I've uploaded dozens of fair use images, so I can take care of that part for you. One of the rules of non-free images WP:NFCC is that the article must have significant commentary to warrant its importance; in the case you mentioned, Prop Hunt has a small sentence and doesn't fit this criterion well. You'd be better off with a simple gameplay image in my opinion, similar to that of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Boring, but more necessary and efficient to the reader. The marketing image should be fine, in theory. Is it a real-life image taken by another person? If so, it should be freely licensable and wouldn't have to adhere to NFCC if uploaded, due to it being in the commons. However, if it is not your own work, you would need to get permission from the person that took the picture. If and once you do that, I can hunt someone down to put the rest together for you. For an example of free liscencing, view [[File:Nintendo 64 with Paper Mario.jpg]]. Panini!🥪 10:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Panini! As the Gameplay section links to the Modern Warfare article for further information anyway, I don't know if having an image in both sections would be necessary (although I do think the image in Modern Warfare doesn't show a whole lot and it only concerns the multiplayer). The advertising image isn't a photo or a screenshot, it's just a graphic (see examples here and here). Also, does it matter if the source it came from isn't considered reliable? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will conduct the source review and first-timer's spot checks. Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • Removed all mention of NGN and cited with other sources; changed or removed prose as necessary.
  • Glagowski appears to be a former Destructoid writer, and has also written for Flixist, PC Invasion (these two are owned by Destructoid per Enthusiast Gaming), TheGamer, TechRaptor, and New Game Network, sources of which are either classified as situational or don't appear at all on WP:VG/S. I can't seem to find anything on Devore, other than that he was a founding member of Destructoid (per the footer tagline in his written articles).
  • Hog Farm. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a different FAC I was involved with wound up determining that Devore was okay, but it would probably be good to replace the references to Glagowski. Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Beyond that, I think everything's reliable for what it's cited for, and nothing really stuck out as formatting issues. Spot checks will be done at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing came up with spot checks; may have been me missing something. Looks to be in pretty good shape here. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing now look good, passing the sr. Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Apologies. Ignore that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Is it worth me improving it anyway as it doesn't explicitly describe what's in the images? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and did it anyway. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • I've changed most of the uses of "improvements" to "modifications" and "adjustments".
  • In the lead of Call of Duty 4's article, the plot summary is included in a paragraph on the story and multiplayer. Obviously I will re-phrase the wording, but would you suggest doing the same for Remastered and making the plot its own paragraph, or trimming it and putting it on the end of (which I believe is most suitable) the first paragraph?
  • I've used near-identical wording to the plot summary that used to be in the Plot section and included in the first paragraph. Both the lead and Plot use the full titles of the SAS and USMC and their abbreviations in brackets. Do both sections need the abbreviations? Should the Plot just use the abbreviations (and have their first instance wikilinked)? Etc.
  • Uncapitalized.
  • I've sourced [a] but I'm having a bit of trouble with [b] and [c]. The thing is, I want to cite the same source for both, and for [c] I've included a quote from the article for further clarification on the subject. I only want the quote shown in the one for [c], not for [b], however if I put both sources under the same ref name the quote is then used in both notes and I don't want that. I also don't really want the source to appear twice in the references list if one doesn't have the quote. Are you able to assist? If not I can just use another source for [b].
  • I'd wikilinked to the video games section on taunting for this reason, but I can put the word in quotation marks or otherwise clarify further by giving more detail; whatever you see fit.
  • I've given a bit of explanation based on what the source indicates.
  • Done for both.
  • Done.
  • Explained with sources (as I've used an em dash, should the comma I removed have remained somewhere?). The problem I've got though is that one refers to them as "killstreaks", the other as "scorestreaks" (scorestreaks are the revised version of killstreaks in the series; Remastered uses Modern Warfare's killstreaks). I scoured for sources that explained what killstreaks are and these were the only reliable ones I could find, and I can't really go without one or the other either.
  • Explained the modes with additional source.
  • Can I ask for your thoughts on Gameplay having a "See also" section to the Call of Duty 4 article? During the peer review here it was suggested that I try and expand signifcantly on Gameplay so it can stand on its own rather than rely on the other article, and mirror the gameplay information by possibly using the same sources Call of Duty 4 used due to it being essentially the same game. I also brought this up at FAC here but the few I spoke to were generally against the idea if we were explaining gameplay that was near-identical in both versions.
  • I've removed the subheading, merged with the Plot section, and made some improvements to the wording. However, because the introductory paragraph is as large as the first two describing the plot, do you think it would be best to include a "Plot" subheading, or even restore the "Characters" subheading for the first paragraph as well?
  • Linked to Nuclear explosion page.
  • The quote reads "rebuilt a ton from" so I believed brackets were needed.
  • This was discussed previously in the review, but in the end I decided against doing it.
  • Changed.
  • Done.
  • It's short for non-player character. Used the full term.
  • Done.
  • I wikilinked it to the page on pre-orders, but if you think this needs further clarity would you suggest I just use the term "pre-order"? Do you also think just having "Target" on its own is fine? This was also brought up earlier in the review.
  • Wikilinked. As it is, "2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo" redirects to the E3 2016 article, but do you think I should bother pipe-linking it as "E3 2016|2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo"?
  • These are explained in Development.
  • Removed link.
  • Paraphrased.
  • I think "downloadable content (DLC)" should be used in the article, but I'm undecided whether to put it in the lead or in said subsection where the abbreviated "DLC" is used several times. If it was in the lead, would this justify DLC remaining in the table of contents?
  • I think it's because this is how they were in the game's subtitles, but changed.
  • This was an oversight. Linked for all relevant examples.
  • I'm not sure why as I'm not familiar with using Wikiquote, but while the current non-italicized title links to Call of Duty (series), putting it in italics however redirects to a page on Call of Duty 4 that does not exist.
  • Upon further investigation, it seems subject titles at Wikiquote which are in-lined are formatted automatically without italics (but can be italicized through pipe-linking), per several examples I've just come across (League of Legends for one, which recently became a FA). If the link isn't in-lined, however, it's automatically italicized.

That's a very quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Responded to your comments. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, I'm satisfied that my major concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Thanks, but I still have several remaining queries with regards to the notes and killstreaks sourcing, Target prose, E3 linking, DLC abbreviation, and wikiquote formatting. Are you able to assist further? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given we have consensus to promote, and the age of the nom, I think we can leave any such adjustments till post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose The Rambling Man sorted this shortly after I replied. Thank you very much for promoting the article! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2021 (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 May 2021 [2].

Shoom[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seminal late 1980s Acid House nightclub in London that almost single-handedly introduced Chicago house and Detroit techno music to the UK mainstream, creating an explosion of interest in electronic music and repetitive beats that culminated in the Second Summer of Love and still reverberates in contemporary European dance music culture. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: I have issued, now resolved, comments on the talk page. I'm satisfied that this article is comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced—although a separate source review is still absolutely necessary. DMT biscuit (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support, talk page suggestions, and copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Shoot for the Stars[edit]

I'll be leaving some comments in a few hours after I get some sleep -_-. ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi User:The Ultimate Boss, will there be a review forthcoming? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimate Boss has said on my talk that unfortunately they will be taking an extended break from wiki matters (never a bad idea, esp with exams and that), so in other words, not at this time. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(This is TUB. I changed my name to something for meaningful.) The article looks amazing so I support! Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Thanks Ceoil. I confess that some of this has me wondering if the article was actually ready for FAC when it was nominated, but as you seem to have addressed TRM's concerns - although we have yet to see how they view your changes and responses - it seems that this may be getting close to consensus to promote. Can I enquire as to what progress has been made to date in addressing Sandy's concerns? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, in the cold light of day, that it was nominated too early...so my bad and learnings, genuinely. However Sandy has put quite "a lot" of effort into detailing specific and general areas for improvement, which were mostly addressed, and now we are down to tense, capitalisation and things like that. TRM has been sterling here, and most of his points were of the clearly actionable (change this to that) type, so I considered them resolved. He reviwed about half the article, but on the back of his points have audited the rest. I realise I'm pushing my luck here, but if its ok, can we let TRM finish up (in a few days), and then I would be happy to ask Sandy to sign off if she sees improvement.. All this brings us to next Thursday, as I have a beast of a week ahead from tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been crazy busy IRL but am now done with project and can revisit whenever Ceoil is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging SandyGeorgia, as The Rambling Man has now completed a thorough and detailed review during which no punches were pulled ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Ceoil; I have been extremely busy IRL, but am putting this on my list to complete ASAP; hard to know where to begin catching up, but I will get here soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no rush here. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

Commenting at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, will be giving you the go ahead to revisit probably early next week. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I will revisit today or tomorrow ...have been busy in the garden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#Revisit SG, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As relatively little was commonly known about ecstasy, a common misconception was that it was legal, when it was legally classified as Class A under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.

... the music worked so well with the drug because the warm and empathetic high from E's aligned with the both small, intimate size of the early London clubs, and the shared excitement of discovering a new and revolutionary form of electronic music.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, should I expect any further comments or changes before I talk a walk through the article myself with a view to closing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I’ll be looking again in a few hours. Ceoil (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have done some further editing, and trimmed out repetitive things. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, any update? Or should we go ahead and review with an eye to closing? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to put this one to bed, any further tweaks can take place post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas[edit]

Support. Everything seems to be in order. I have no problem supporting this for a FA. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciate this considering all you have done here on electronic music...the article was started after admiring your work on "Acid Trax" last year. Ceoil (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

Lead

  • Yes said later, but will clarify also in lead. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunatly, after much searching, have not been able to find out when in 1990 it closed. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reclarified as "early 1990", but thats all I have. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, and have red linked for now. Shoom was only created Nov 2020, and intend to also create something for The Trip and Spectrum shortly. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified as "entrance policy" Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

  • Larger than Shoom. But fixed. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged...formation and early nights coving similar period/ground. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was Saturdays until the first venue change. Then went to Thursdays at would attract less punters. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks TRM for the look and observations. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe all done to here. Again, going to this level of detail is very much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sound. No rush - I'll go over again based to the type of thing raised above, so hopefully your list for the 2nd half wont be so long. Prob wont edit between Sunday and Thursday pm, so no pressure. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Club

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All done except that have retained the "Until the summer of 1987" para...shows the roots of the sub-culture that Shoom popularised in the UK, and also how the early adoptees later became Shoom patrons...are each mentioned later in the article. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rest

That's probably it for the first reading! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great. All done....Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of work has gone into this, and I feel it's been much improved since my first read, so I'm happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I really appreciate all the time you put into this. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
Reliability
Verifiability
Thanks v much Aza. All sorted, except the NYT is often here minus the "the", and I bought both Hook and Brewster & Broughton as an e-book; hence no page number. Not sure how linking to a kindle "area" works, though the format makes it none the less valid. ps Sedazzar now removed. Anyways, thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil on specifying a section where you have no page number, see dementia with Lewy bodies#References and use of | loc = SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a change in citation style that is not required (and has introduced harv ref errors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok, this has been fixed again. Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ceoil, we're still missing a page number for Hook 2009 and BrewsterBroughton 2014 (now refs 17 and 78)—a chapter would do too, I would think Aza24 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted Aza in case you missed the above. Adding chapter nrs/sections for e-books is a new one for me...thanks for tips; Co-vid and its many weird impacts on ordinary life eh. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops yes I don't know how I missed you comment now—but yeah, tis odd how Covid manages to sneak its way into everything—looks good now, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...tweaking as I go.....queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thinking about this. The thing is that only around third of them would have gotten in. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a valid point....I should have remembered that from queuing all those years ago...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that he became a rather boring internationally renowned mainstream DJ, while she went into private industry and became very successful as a formidable character. Hang on; searching through the sources to find about her. Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and for the edits Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've found everything that could be found. A nice read :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas for all the direct and suggested improvements. Re queuing not knowing if you would get in...remember it all to well. The trick was to look them in the eye and show no fear, which worked around..."some" of the time :) Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. As a country person who's never ingested anything worse than caffeine and some accidental pesticide exposure a couple years ago, I expect to be completely unfamiliar with a lot of this topic matter. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be it for my review; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits and review. Have resolved those now. Ceoil (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; not familiar enough with the subject matter to assess other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 18 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [3].

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this one's on the shorter side, I believe everything is covered thoroughly - this isn't the most large-scale topic. Formed in mid-1864, the unit was generally unkind to railroad property on multiple occasions, saw some minor fighting, and played a significant role in the Battle of Little Blue River. At some point in 1865, the unit dissolved, although the details are really hazy. What is known is that most of the unit's men didn't care enough to get their official surrender paperwork. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

File:Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg is possibly PD but the licensing needs more documentation, we need to document Mileham's death date to apply the stated PD tag, and the creation of the painting is not equivalent to publication. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Are the changes made satisfactory for you, @Therapyisgood:? Hog Farm Talk 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear someone outside of MILHIST comment on WP:LENGTH as it applies to this article before I support (ie is the article or sections too long?). Therapyisgood (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - Since this one seems to be coming along pretty smoothly and has passed image and source reviews, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally want to see a third support and for it to be three weeks since it was nominated. But I am happy to follow Ian's lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may unleash another. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

Please consider this a non-expert review.

Those are all my comments. This article is well written and I struggled to find problems with it. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [6].

Battle of Dupplin Moor[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done.
They have been removed.
Fixed. (James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, would I be correct in assuming that there was more to come by way of a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. And cite changed to Sumption 1990.
Less than two months is almost immediately in Medieval terms. (On 17 October 1346 David II was captured by Edward III. His ransom negotiations overran and he was released in October 1357.) Changed to "Within two months Balliol granted ..."
Apologies. Well spotted. Thank you. Wrong Nicholson work. They should have cited the 1974 one. Fixed.
Grr! I used this to show when the war ended, having already established its name in an earlier sentence - which I deleted along with the cite in the copy edit! Now nailed down at each corner. (Can I cite to the title of a book?)

(t · c) buidhe 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Buidhe, your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks.
  • between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?
That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.
  • Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline
Done.
  • Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?
Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.
It's not a job title; it's a title of nobility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?
The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)
  • Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...
Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...
Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)
  • I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Fixed.
Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, but fixed.
Oops. Now covered in main text.
Done.
Fixed.
Removed

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

That's not quite what the source says, so I have changed it to "pike-equipped ordinary infantry".
Done.
What do you think about "had room to use their weapons more effectively"?
Done.
Every one seems to like this. Perhaps I should skip ACR more often. ;-)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sturmvogel, that is good of you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but you probably missed my comment in Jim's section about capitalizing King of England?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66, I did. I disagree, but changed anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@Ian Rose and Ealdgyth:, @WP:FAC coordinators: , as this has completed image and source reviews, has three supports, including one by a non-MilHist regular, and has been up for three weeks, can I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Balliol's subsequent periods on the throne added.
Why? Both are reliable sources, and Sumption in particular gives a good and detailed account of the political background, as part of his 184 page examination of the background to the Hundred Year's War.
Good point. Military jargon. Removed. (And a Sumption cite goes with it.)
Good point. Done.
Removed.
Replaced with Nicholson, 1974.
My sources give Balliol as the overall leader. Rogers for example talks of Beaumont's "remarkable military experience" and has him initially organising the disinherited lords. Once Balliol joins them he repeatedly refers to "Balliol's army". Or Nicholson (1974) "Their leaders included Edward Balliol, Henry Beaumont ..." He then lists six others, but note that Balliol comes first of the eight "leaders". Or DeVries discusses Balliol's role and continues "As well as Balliol these men included [names seven] and, perhaps most importantly, the rich and powerful Henry of Beaumont ...". He then describes the army as Balliol's: "Balliol [meaning his army] marched west". Nicholson in the Encyclopædia Britannica article you quote from says "Balliol came from France to head their expedition".
I follow your logic, but the sources take precedence. What are the sources you have accessed which suggest that Beaumont was the expeditionary force's leader?
No sources on Beaumont as leader, only ODNB articles on military experience. As you say, the sources have Balliol as leader. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard copy of the 1964 edition which has the same statement. I rejected it as not adding anything to the description in the article. It doesn't seem worth quoting in full, so I have replaced Oman with a paraphrased version of this.
Many thanks for looking through this Dudley, I appreciate it. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A first rate article. I would however like to see the Nicholson comment expanded to explain which tactics Edward copied and I think it is worth mentioning in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley: quote - you are right; I was over focusing on the description of the Scots behaviour and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Tweaked to read "The modern historian Ranald Nicholson states that Edward III copied the tactics used at Dupplin Moor – "all the men-at-arms dismounted, while archers were posted on either flank" – in the English victories at Halidon Hill and Battle of Crécy."
Lead - I am already unhappy at the length of the lead, yet struggle to see how I could slim it to make room for additional points. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [7].

Hurricane Olivia (2018)[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Olivia, a long-lasting Category 4 hurricane that affected Hawaii as a tropical storm in September 2018, shortly after Hurricane Lane passed by a few weeks prior. NoahTalk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink
  • I removed that mention and kept the opening as well as the one with the wind information. NoahTalk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything more recent than that. NoahTalk 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explained that models predicted weakening due to dry air and lower SSTs. NoahTalk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed several duplicate links and linked that county. NoahTalk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the mention of this road in Maui. NoahTalk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased and clarified based on what was in that source. NoahTalk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good article overall. Most of my comments are nitpicks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I should have addressed everything. NoahTalk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support from LightandDark2000
Support from codingcyclone advisories/damages 15:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from codingcyclone

I may make typos as I am on a mobile device. There are just a few minor issues.

  • You need alt text in the collapsible set showing all the season's articles.
  • Navigational templates at the bottom of pages do not need alt text as their sole purpose is to navigate from article to article. The image in the box is purely decorative. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • began a weakening trend could be shortened to began/started to weaken or just simply weakened.
  • Olivia became a Category 1 hurricane around 00:00 UTC on September 4 while located 575 mi (925 km) southwest of Cabo San Lucas. needs a comma between "September 4" and "while", as well as the advisory as a reference.
  • Added a comma. This sentence and the next are both are supported by the TCR. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cyclone continued to intensify, reaching its initial peak intensity as a 125 mph (205 km/h) Category 3 major hurricane at 00:00 UTC on September 5. change to The cyclone continued to intensify, and at 00:00 UTC, it reached its first peak intensity as a Category 3 hurricane, with wind speeds of 125 mph (205 km/h).
  • To be honest, I think breaking it up like that would make it read a bit choppy. NoahTalk 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • entrained do you have a simpler alternative?
  • The hurricane began to weaken shortly after as sea surface temperatures decreased, wind shear increased, and dry air entrained into the storm. Olivia's eyewall collapsed in the north and convection eroded in the northwestern quadrant. when?
  • Models had predicted that Olivia would weaken as a result of dry air and lower sea surface temperatures. you have to tie this in. Merge it into another sentence: Despite the predictions of models,[12] Olivia strengthened over the next day, regaining major hurricane status by 12:00 UTC on September 6.
  • I didn't take the suggestion as that would involve removing details about the not-so-great environmental conditions. I split off the part about the unexpected intensification and added it to the end of model prediction sentence. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooler, 77–79 °F (25–26 °C) sea surface temperatures change to Cooler sea surface temperatures of 77–79 °F (25–26 °C)
  • Low wind shear and slightly higher sea surface temperatures allowed Olivia to restrengthen slightly and re-develop an eye feature on satellite imagery later that day. put the "later that day" at the beginning of the sentence.
  • The storm turned westward and transitioned into a post-tropical cyclone by 06:00 UTC on September 14. add "then" between "The storm" and "turned."
  • The word "then" is often redundant. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This system opened up into a trough of low-pressure about 12 hours later. replace "This system" with "It."
  • I'm going to add in some notes for these. NoahTalk 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hololani Resort Condominiums and Goodfellow Bros, the company performing the work, was fined $75,000 in that month for violating state and county regulations. what regulations did they violate?
  • Added in state health and county environmental. I don't know any more specifics on what exact regulations got violated. NoahTalk 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An elderly woman was rescued by her neighbors during the storm. replace "was" with "had to be".
  • I think "had to be" implies there was no other option (such as waiting for/contacting authorities), which I don't believe the source supports. I consider "was" to be more neutral. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, tourism increased in the month of October, following the two storms replace "following" with "despite".

Great job with this! codingcyclone advisories/damages 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will request access... Likely won't be able to get this added in until at least Monday. NoahTalk 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon looking at the source, it appears to mostly be a briefer regurgitation of the information in the TCR (Only includes the Eastern Pacific portion). I don't really think there is anything worth including here, although it could be a useful source for some general information for the season article. NoahTalk 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two writers are listed at the bottom as having contributed to the article. NoahTalk 20:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but is there a reason first author name is different? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed Khon 2 and KITV, which are both news channels. I believe that is it. NoahTalk 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed all the other ones as well. Should be fixed. NoahTalk 19:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe all data-base type sources are now works. NoahTalk 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears another source in the article already covered the information. NoahTalk 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A decent number of news and insurance sources use AON's estimates and other materials: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12] to name a few. NoahTalk 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I should have addressed everything. Let me know if there are any other problems. NoahTalk 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Never reviewed a hurricane FAC before, so this will be interesting. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I forgot to fix that when I rewrote the sentence. NoahTalk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a part of the aftermath of Olivia. We have had cases of company misconduct being included for past storms. It is similar to a country's gov't being criticized for its efforts. NoahTalk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not entirely convinced that it quite belongs, but this is minor enough I'm still comfortable supporting this. Hog Farm Talk 20:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's generally understood by default that nobody died unless it can be proven that people were killed. NoahTalk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one's in pretty good shape; most of my comments are minor prose concerns. Some of the descriptions of the flooding damage remind me of some disaster relief work I did after the 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods along the Missouri River. Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman[edit]

I looked through the article and did not see any particular problems that would be objectionable. Nice work! 웃OO 03:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [13].

Plants vs. Zombies (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plants vs. Zombies is a video game developed and published by PopCap Games. When it was first released, it became the fastest-selling game developed by PopCap Games. I have worked on this article since November 2020. It passed a GA nomination on February 18, 2021. Now a peer review and a copyedit has been done on the Plants vs. Zombies article and now it is ready for Featured Article Candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Plants vs. Zombies (video game)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm very familiar with the game. My comments:

  • "If a zombie makes it to the house on any lane, the level is over." Would it be more accurate to say the game is over, or that the player has failed the level?
  • Done
  • Zombie is linked on a second or later use in the lead.
  • Done
  • "The player can only pick a limited number of plants through seed packets at the beginning of each level,[7]" Perhaps you mean "... limited number of types of plants ..."?
  • Done
  • It might be better to describe the stages as the Zombies advancing across the front yard by day, then night, the pooled backyard by day, then night, then the roof. The Lawnmowers are not used on the pool lanes, nor on the roof, though there are analogues, by the way.
  • Comment: It is already made clear that stages 2 and 4 are night levels, stages 3 and 4 are pool levels, and stage 5 is a roof level. Also, the gameplay section did originally did mention the different types of lawnmowers. I removed them following a peer review in order to make the gameplay section more consise.
  • Something more could be said about the role of Crazy Dave, that in addition to running the shop he offers (somewhat eccentric) help and advice, and "chooses" the preselected seed packets when playing Adventure Mode after beating Zomboss.
  • Comment: Like above, they were originally mentions of this but were removed for more conciseness following a peer review.
  • It might be mentioned that as one advances in Adventure Mode, there is access to more types of seed packets.
  • Done
  • You are not consistent on whether the "M" in "Adventure Mode" is capped.
  • Comment: There is only one instance of the "mode" in Adventure mode is capitalized and that is the heading in the gameplay section.
That's what I mean. Does it need to be capped?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it doesn't. Done
  • There is a clarification needed tag that should be resolved.
  • Done
  • Perhaps something could be said about that the zombies' intent is to eat the brains of the house occupants, and if they get past the defenses, they do so.
  • Done
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I have addressed all your current problems. Lazman321 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 20, 2009, Plants vs. Zombies was reportedly the fastest-selling video game created by PopCap Games.[103][104]" This seems awkwardly phrased. Perhaps the game "was declared the fastest-selling" or similar.
  • Done
  • Some of the strings of citations are not in numerical order, which is OK if what you are doing is always putting the most important citation (the one the cited material most relies on) first. Is that what is going on?
  • Done
  • Can anything be said about marketing of objects based on the game, toys etc?
  • Not Done Information about that is only possible if reliable sources report on it, which they haven't.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAntro[edit]

I'm ready to look at this again after the peer review. I will say that I disagree with the use of present perfect tense in the third paragraph, as all of the citations are reviews from 2009, upon the game's release. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • Comment: I am looking through the sources and none of them seems to help say how this video game impacted design on video games or the genre of the tower defense genre. While its design was definitely unique, especially in terms of its tutorial, it wasn't ever stated to be influential or having an impact. A lot of the sources just say that Plants vs. Zombies was a popular tower defense game. They often just use the game as examples of something with occasional but trivial analysis. Saying in the article that Plants vs. Zombies has been the subject of many scholarly sources is original research unless a reliable source directly says so, which none have. Maybe if you can find some sources that directly state significant information about Plants vs. Zombies's legacy, maybe that will help.
  • Working: You know what. I've found some sources that I could probably integrate into the legacy section and Plants vs. Zombies impact on tower defense and overall the industry. Lazman321 (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done though I can't do anything about Metacritic at the moment.
  • Whoever programmed cite MC needs to understand Metacritic is not a work. Until he realizes that and changes the template accordingly, you're going to have to manually cite the Metacritic sources with a cite web template, and the name of Metacritic in the publisher= field. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That was not was I talking about. Metacritic is a website, which by definition is a work, not a publisher as per WP:CS1. I was talking about its link being on every single citation. I can edit the template to remove that. Lazman321 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Done with more of your commments. Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @HumanxAnthro: Addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4/11/21

Please excuse the lack of comments over ten days. I have been juggling other reviews and articles on Wikipedia and sometimes delays like this happen. My apologies.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4/22/21 Now that this has a re-write and expansion, here's some more comments. I'll have more to make after this.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Not Done: That is not what the guideline says. It says that if the reference is located next to a punctuation mark, it should be after the punctuation mark. Citations are allowed to be put mid-sentence as long as it is next to the cited material. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (4/23/21)
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Any more to come here? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've haven't re-looked at the rest of the article, but other commenters are and are giving it a thumbs up, so I'll let them handle the rest, given that I want to work on other varied topics. The incorrect tense in the third paragraph is still not addressed, however. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the incorrect tense in the third paragraph. It was addressed, I simply forgot one of the words. Lazman321 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Done
  • Done
  • It's been expanded, but not appropriately. It looks like it's been largely copied from the lead image? They serve different purposes within the article so should have different rationales. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The templates being used are different. I'm mostly using the default text on the rationales. Is that wrong? Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It reads as if the default text is for a lead image; that's not the use of the image here. What are you trying to convey with this image? What benefit does it provide to readers to have it here? Why is it needed in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free? These are the sorts of questions that the rationale should answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used for readers to have a better understanding of the gameplay itself and can also be used to tell people that they made it to the right article if it was what they were looking for. This is what is mentioned in the rationale and I believe it is sufficient. Plus, I can't even change the descriptions. Lazman321 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation currently in the FUR is insufficient, because it doesn't tell us what benefit this image provides in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free. If there is no added benefit we won't be able to use it. You do have the ability to edit the FUR here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I replaced the rationale with a non-free media rationale in order to actually edit the descriptions. I have clarified the purpose of use in the rationale. Lazman321 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

I am not sure I have time for a full review but I have a few comments:

  • Done
  • Comment: Is generally positive a better summary? Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe so yes, should be reflected in the lead as well
  • Done
  • Working: I have asked Dean Takahashi through Twitter to license a picture of George Fan he took during a 2018 interview about Octogeddon under Commons. Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: @Spy-cicle: Takahashi agreed to send OTRS an email saying that he will license the image under Commons license. He chose CC-BY-SA 4.0 International and now the image is in the article. By the way, in regards to the cosplay images, the problem is not copyright. The problem is this article does not have a cultural impact section as there is little-to-no information about its cultural impact. The closest would be the cultural references section, but adding a picture of cos players would add nothing to the section or this article. Lazman321 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see nice one on getting that free image. I understand what you mean about the relevance of cosplayers if there is no cultural impact section.
  • The Fan image should have an alt text, and should be on the right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
  • Done
  • The way it was placed seems a little MOS:EGGy, may need to reword a little bit.
  • Not Done: There needs to be reliable sources that mention the physical copies of the PS3 version, not store directories. If you can find some, I will definitely add them. Done for linking.
  • For example in ref #37 IGN is linked, whilst in refs #40, #44, #45, etc it is not. The website parameters (IGN is just one example) should either be consistently linked or consistently not linked in references (iirc MOS does not mandate which one but may be worth double checking).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've always been told that you only link the first instance of a work in a citation. But, I guess it is allowed to link every instance of a website in a citation. Done. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • The nbsps do not appear to be placed correctly (example $11((nbsp))billion, see MOS:NBSP).
Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your requests.
@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your second set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll circle back to this once I have some more time on my hands, but it is certainly looking better.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments[edit]
  • Done: Moved back the IGN DS citation to the other DS citations. Lazman321 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I removed citations to the readme where secondary sources could reasonably already confirm the information. Lazman321 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • @Spy-cicle: I have done your requests along with adding names of authors to sources that previously didn't have them. Lazman321 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No source I looked at ever stated when exactly Plants vs. Zombies started. Lazman321 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done for PS-Vita. Not Done for PS3 as for that one, the only reliable source I have access to that I know of is the IGN review. As far as I know, there isn't a significant difference between the Xbox 360 version and the PS3 version.

Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Nice work - made some tweaks. Seems alright on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments by Qwertyxp2000[edit]

Independent thinking here, but I would like to say that the content coverage of the article as a whole feels complete. It covers a well-balanced amount of both the in-universe and out-of-universe content in both quality and quantity, including the ratio between them. The word variety and sentence structuring appears to be clear and concise; neither too excessive nor too vague. Sources appear to be reliable and primarily secondary upon first glance, and source formatting feels well-structured upon a brief look at the reference list. Balance in Critical Reviews section appears to be done exceptionally well for tower defense games. The entire article provides a good example of how a tower defense game game should be formatted. The legacy section is also structured very clearly, and I can easily understand the content of those sections just by reading the entire sections within several minutes of deep reading. The leading section is a bit long for my liking, but the leading section sure sums up the entirety of the article sufficiently, keeping the most important points written there including the basic information about the game itself, the design and development, and the critical reviews and legacies.

If I have some criticism, I would probably work a bit more on the Legacy section and its subsections by introducing a bit more about each stage of the legacies, like perhaps add a leading section in Legacy about the general legacy of the Plants vs Zombie original game, obviously backed up with reliable secondary sources that is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I would like to say this is a good candidate for Featured Article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will get to soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done: The correct spelling is "Stephen Notley". Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He is a primary source. At the time of the creation of the slideshow, James Gwertzman was the vice president of the Asia/Pacific division of PopCap Games located in Shanghai, China. [21][22] Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: The correct spelling is "Suburban Almanac". Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I have removed the blog but kept the other citations as they are considered RS. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: Considering USA Today is reliable in it of itself, I just removed the Kotaku citation. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it for formatting/reliability. Will conduct spot checks for text-source integrity and copyright soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/PlantsZombies. No issues detected with copyright or text-source integrity. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing on source review - no issues with copyright or text-source integrity; satisfied with source reliability and text-source integrity. Sourcing seems to be a thorough and representative survey, as well. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done: I've gone through the article to remove many instances of "game" and "the game". Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Not Done: Tower defense is a sub-genre of strategy, making the inclusion of "strategy" in the lead repetitive. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Comment: I listed examples of their "own special behaviors".
  • Comment: I'm just going to remove its mention. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Not Done Nope, money. Zombies don't drop sun when killed. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving for now, I need to re-boot. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Comment: That wording just sounds awkward. I'm just going to remove it. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article says "There are five stages in the Adventure mode, each comprising ten levels." What do you mean? Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Comment: Because in this context, Lily Pads is a proper noun. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

That takes me to Development. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Done
  • Comment: No, they simply walk towards the end goal while they are attacked by the towers. Keep in mind that I am going off of what the sources say. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Not Done: I would if George Fan himself did in the interview. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Comment: I don't think so, as the Suburban Alamanac is fictional and as a result, may not be a major work. However, since it is based on actual almanacs, there may be a chance you are correct. I can't decide at the moment. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done: Changed
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Comment: Not really. Why would that be needed anyway? Lazman321 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done: Rewrote to be more concise.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

That takes me to "Promotion and release". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done: Replaced with "and additional achievements" Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done: Android Market already redirects to Google Play. As per WP:NOTBROKEN, I linked it to Android Market. Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

That's down to Reception. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Done: The vice president of the Asia/Pacific division of PopCap Games. Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I removed the link. Previously, I changed the redirect itself for consistency.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done: Replaced the two others with "According to Metacritic, the only version that didn't receive "generally positive reviews" or "universal acclaim" is the DSiware version, which received "mixed or average reviews".[103]" Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

Gotta rush now, more soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done with this now. Also, I apologize for not doing some of the release section stuff earlier. Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: Removed "new". Yes, it is only available on the iPad. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Comment: I'm not sure what you want me to do? Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it, just the refs to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:: Done with this set, ready for the refs. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done: Yes, Ng is his surname. It is apparently a common surname from China.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

And that ... is that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:: Done with all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Article is in excellent condition, reads well, is comprehensive, sourced well and meets all the bits of MOS that I know of. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [23].

Paper Mario[edit]

Nominator(s): Panini🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a sub-series of the Mario franchise, Paper Mario. Someone at Nintendo decided, "hey, the graphics on the Nintendo 64 are not good", and made everything two-dimensional instead. This game was called, and the department team worked overtime on this one, Paper Mario. The game was critically acclaimed. They released a sequel, and it was universally acclaimed. The developers then decided to switch up the genre a bit for the third game, Super Paper Mario, and it was simply acclaimed. Then they released Sticker Star, and everyone hated it. Color Splash, hated even more. The Origami King, eh.

In short, it's a video game series once acclaimed but recently fell to average reception. Still popular, however.

When this article was created by me, I got some initial thoughts from PresN. It also received a very short peer review, a copyedit from Willbb234, slight touchups from (Oinkers42) and through all this Blue Pumpkin Pie watched like a hawk. Panini🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RetiredDuke[edit]

  • isn't the 2nd game called Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and not "Thousand Year"? Might want to check all of those;
    Done.
  • please review so that the references are in order (for instance underdeveloped gameplay.[99][13] and overly complicated,[100][13]);
    Done.
  • per MOS:CAPTION, sentence fragments should not end with a period. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
Thank you for the ping. I won't be able to continue the review though, as I'm a bit short on time right now. Good luck with the nomination! RetiredDuke (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Hi, Panini, and good work on the article. However, there are a few major problems I have:

  1. There is no representation from academic or scholarly literature discussing the franchise, which I found pages of thanks to a simple Google search.
  2. This may seem minor, but I'm not a fan of the way the article is currently organized. The gameplay section is fine and does its job of describing the general gameplay of the series, but an issue arises after that section. Most of the "development" and "reception" sections (apart from the paragraph about the criticism of the last three games) describe specific games instead of the franchise as a whole, and the content in those "Games" sub-sections are too little and could be proper length if stuff from the development and reception sections were combined to those.
  3. Speaking of reception being only about particular titles, that's the biggest problem when it comes to its compliance of 1b; there's nothing about the entire franchise's impact and legacy, as there is with the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise featured article. Come on, this is a successful Nintendo franchise, there's no coverage about how the Paper Mario games have influenced the gaming industry?
  4. Why are there no citations for the release dates in the "Games" section?
    Cited

I won't state oppose because I don't think this article is a lost cause: I don't doubt the game's prose efforts from the users Panini mentioned above, and from a quick skim, most of the citations (apart from IGN not being formatted as a work in one cite, and a Metacritic source incorrectly formatted as a work while its formatted in a publisher in others) look well-formatted and are from reliable, quality sources. But I do think the critiques I imposed above are valid. Any thoughts? HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

I'll do a full review on this soon! One thing I'd note for now is that ref 28 has a cite error. GeraldWL 14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait! Doing the review below. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason why it's here is just in case readers might get the games confused with the Super Mario series, which this is a branch of. In my opinion, I think it's harmless.
  • Yeah, but it made me have to move every other image in the article around to fit it. Thanks for that.
  • Virtual world and simply "world" are different things; worlds are different sections in a game, like how New Super Mario Bros. Wii has "World 1", "World 2", etc. shown in this image. The "Virtual World" is simply just something or somewhere on the internet where users interact, such as a chat forum or a game on virtual reality.
  • Changed
  • Honestly, that's just not how the term is used; they call it XP, plural or not, probably because XPs sounds stupid. For this instance, though, I referred to it as its full term to avoid confusion.
  • Changed
  • Changed
Oops, sorry, the watchlist pushed this page down and down and down. But yeah, supporting. GeraldWL 17:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns. Panini🥪 02:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker[edit]

Promise I'll get to this within the week, if not sooner. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker, yeah, me too for yours. I cannot do it tonight as I've had a busy day and need to wind down. Probably tomorrow, as I've also promised two others a peer review so I'll make tomorrow a review day. Panini🥪 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to work through the prose and references and see how far I get.
  • Lead
  • I've never seen the word "sub-series". It might be a little jargon-y and there could be a plainer way of explaining its relationship to the overall franchise, and what makes it separate from the other platform games.
  • The commas in the sentence about the allies and antagonists add a lot of wordiness, in two sub-clauses. I feel like you could drop them without losing much information.
  • Removed, but left "Primarily Bowser".
  • "game to be Paper Mario," → "game to become Paper Mario,"
  • Fixed
  • "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to keep each game's style, such as in genre and combat, different from the previous game." This type of sentence isn't terrible, but trying to avoid run-on sentences with lots of commas is something to strive for. How about "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to each game to have a different style, varying the genre and combat system for each new title."
  • Changed but replaced "and combat system" to "and core gameplay element" as that is what's most often changed (there was also a typo in there).
  • "transition from role-playing games to more the action-adventure genre" → "transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure".
  • Changed
  • "The new format of the games, starting from Paper Mario: Sticker Star onward, received mixed reception, with complaints regarding the new genre style but praise for the writing, characters, music, and reimagined paper aesthetic visuals." → "With the release of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, the series began receiving complaints about its change in genre, but still continued to earn praise for its writing, characters, music, and paper-inspired visuals."
  • You, my friend, are very good with words. You should consider Extraversion.
  • Gameplay
  • You don't need a semi-colon when a period will do. Truthfully, this whole sentence is a slew of commas that should be broken up into smaller sentences.
  • What can I say, I, for one, am a comma guy, as they not only help combine sentences, but, in my opinion, help with the flow of transition.
  • Maybe find a way to rephrase, without using "each game" so soon after each other.
  • Changed the first instance to series.
  • "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or help fight in combat." → (parallelism) "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or helping fight in combat."
  • Fixed
  • "but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used" → "but uses up a finite amount of flower points (FP)."
  • Done
  • "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead" → "Super Paper Mario is more of a platform game compared to first two role-playing games in the series."
  • Done
  • Unclear what you mean here: "Although Mario does not fight alongside unique partners"
  • Done
  • "In addition, allies known as Pixls, which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels, can be summoned and used" → "In addition, Mario can summon allies known as Pixls, who grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels."
  • Done
  • "the Paper Mario games are more aimed towards the action-adventure genre" → "the series shifted towards the action-adventure genre."
  • Done
  • "RPG elements, such as XP, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced." → "The series reduced its emphasis on RPG elements, with no experience points, fewer allies, and a simpler plot."
  • Done
  • Instead, the games are more based on puzzle-solving elements, and, although combat is still turn-based, each game has a unique strategy element in lieu of XP." → "Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat."
  • Changed
  • Games
  • "Paper Mario also saw multiple re-releases, namely on" → "The game was later re-released on"
  • Changed
  • "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and has stolen..." → "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and steals..." (parallelism)
  • Changed
  • "Paper Mario's puzzles put emphasis on Mario's allies; most puzzles are based upon the skills of Mario's partners, all of which have a unique ability." → "Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities."
  • Changed
  • "The story highlight Rogueport, which contains a closed portal that holds great fortune. When Mario and Peach get involved in the discovery, Peach is kidnapped by the X-Nauts, who are also aiming to open the portal." → "The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune. Soon after, Peach is kidnapped..."
  • Changed
  • Again I might just replace the semicolon with a period, but this might be a matter of style than a hard requirement.
  • I'm also a semicolon enthusiast; I'll leave it in for now.
  • "which he can use to destroy the universe and replace it with a perfect one" → "so that he can destroy and remake the universe".
  • Changed but added a "to his liking" in to explain why a little more.
  • "To prevent this, Mario, aided by Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi, set out to collect the eight "Pure Hearts"." → "Mario sets out to stop Count Bleck by collecting the eight "Pure Hearts", with the help of Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi."
  • Changed
  • "Royal Stickers inside the comet" → "Royal Stickers living inside the comet"
  • Added
  • "six Royal Sticker" -- plural
  • Probably just a typo
  • "using coins as currency" -- don't need the currency part
  • Removed
  • "pre-determines" do you mean "plans"?
  • Plans sounded a bit off to me so I replaced it with prepares.
  • "against enemies in combat" -- don't really need this. It's implied from being an attack.
  • Removed
  • "not visible in the regular camera angle" → "not visible from the standard camera angle".
  • We're getting F a n c y
  • "After noticing the island is also color drained, they are prompted by Huey who explains how six Big Paint Stars give the island color, but the six stars have been scattered, later to be revealed because of Bowser." → "After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing."
  • Changed
  • Having trouble understanding this one. Try to rephrase. "The player can use the Wii U GamePad which allows Mario to use the "cutout" ability, which peels a part of the environment and reveals locations that were not visible prior."
  • "The player can use the Wii U Gamepad to trace a hole in the paper environment to reveal secrets, known as the "Cutout" ability."
  • "To engage in combat, Mario uses cards that, much like Sticker Star, pre-determine what ability Mario is going to use or how he will attack the enemy." → "Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target."
  • Changed
  • You could probably just break this into two shorter sentences. "When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly, with many other residents, including Bowser, meeting a similar fate."
  • Split like a Pepto Bismal bottle that was actually cake.
  • "some elements of RPGs" → "some role-playing elements"
  • Changed
  • "For example, allies have been reintroduced, but don't serve as much use compared to the first two games in the series." → "For example, the game reintroduces allies, albeit in a stripped down role compared to the first two Paper Mario games."
  • My favorite fancy sentence change so far.
  • It is a little weird to put the spinoff games out of order, but I recognize this is a series within a series within a series. Just something to note in case someone else brings it up.
  • Again, I might try to find a way to explain the relationship between the series without the jargon of sub-series.
  • "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book in the library of Peach's Castle which contains the Paper Mario universe." → "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book that contains the Paper Mario universe." (you don't really lose any explanation this way)
  • Changed
  • "After the Paper Mario residents spread all over the Mushroom Kingdom, the two Bowser's of both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach." --> "This causes the two universes to cross over, with the Paper Mario residents spreading all over the Mushroom Kingdom. The two Bowsers from both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach."
  • Changed
  • "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario; Mario and Luigi can perform their usual actions, and Paper Mario can do paper-like actions such as folding into a shuriken in battle" → "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat."
  • Changed
  • "In combat, he can make multiple copies of himself, creating a large stack that deals more damage as a special attack." → "Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack."
  • Changed
That's quite a bit and I'm going to leave it there. But should let you get started. I will try to work through the Development and Reception soon. The sources look generally good so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Shooterwalker, for the review. I did plan to get to your article today, but Plants vs. Zombies had some big prose issues it burned me out before I got to Namco. I'll get to it tomorrow. Panini🥪 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trying a few more suggestions. Thanks for the kind words! Two general rules that help me write better:
  1. Try to avoid sentences where there are more than 3 clauses (e.g.: a sentence with more than 2 commas). Sort of like Wikipedia articles, sentences have size limits where it's more appropriate to split, shorten, or re-organize. (More commas for lists are a funny exception that you can get away with sometimes, especially at the end of a sentence.)
  2. Vary the pacing between simple and complex sentences. My last sentence was simple but not necessarily short, and this one is a little more complex without being too long.
  3. Avoid passive voice, especially in a more complex sentence, because it makes it harder to understand who is doing what. "The game was designed as..." vs. "Nintendo designed the game as...". Or even shorten that to "The design was..." to make it flow in a larger sentence.
Onto the review...
  • Development and history
  • I suggest revisiting how these paragraphs are broken up, just to really organize each paragraph around a game, or the period between games. It's possible that all the attention on "announcements" is adding clutter without adding much information, but use your judgment if the announcement is important to understanding the series history.
  • "Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro after he was hired as an employee by Nintendo to port games on the Famicom Disk System to cartridges." I think make it clearer that they hired the company but it was effectively one person at first.
  • Put an "on his own" in there
  • "After his success in developing video games himself, such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, Narihiro hired more developers and expanded the company into Intelligent Systems" → "Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, which allowed him to expand his company with additional artists and developers."
  • "now modern-day Square Enix" you could drop this without losing much, and have a simpler sentence.
  • Removed. I don't like them, anyway.
  • "To try to get fans interested in the genre," drop this too, since you say it better at the end of the sentence
  • Removed
  • "following this," can cut this
  • Removed
  • "because he believed players would be tired of low-polygon graphics, as well as an attempt to bring out the "cuteness" in the characters." → "because he believed players might prefer a game with "cute" 2D character designs instead of another game with low-polygon 3D graphics."
  • "The game had a four-year development process; it was released in August 2000, late into the console's existence with the Nintendo GameCube about to be announced." → "Development took four years, and was released in August 2000, towards the end of the console's lifecycle."
  • Changed.
  • "The Thousand-Year Door was announced at the 2003 Game Developers Conference, and was announced to be the direct sequel to the previous game." You say announced twice, and this could probably be a shorter sentence. Try "At the 2003 Game Developers Conference, Nintendo announced a direct sequel, The Thousand-Year Door."
  • Fiddled with this a bit but overall changed.
  • "in July 2004 in Japan and late 2004 worldwide" For the sake of the summary it might be easier just to say 2004.
  • Changed
  • "the Mario & Luigi series started in 2003 with Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance, developed by the now defunct AlphaDream" → "Developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series, releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance in 2003." (You could probably drop the semi colon before and just do a full stop.)
  • Changed, and for the second suggestion, no;
  • "The future producer of the Paper Mario series" Maybe bring this up later more naturally, so it doesn't break the flow and chronology.
  • "which he says influences changes to the staff or a game's core system" → "leading them to explore bigger changes in each game's gameplay and design team." (This is something that hasn't quite happened yet, and is about to happen.)
  • Changed
  • "the game's director, Ryota Kawade, " → "game director Ryota Kawade"
  • Changed
  • "When the idea of being able to switch through 2D and 3D was conceptualized..." Try breaking this into two shorter sentences
  • Split like that one kid when he accidentally pulled the fire alarm.
  • "Super Paper Mario was originally planned to be one of the last games released for the GameCube, which was announced through a trailer at E3 2006," → "At E3 2006, Super Paper Mario was announced as one of the last games planned for release on the GameCube." (Full stop)
  • "when it was switched over to the Wii its motion controls were not implemented" → "it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls."
  • "was fully announced" → "were fully announced"
  • Fixed
  • "The developers, upon request from Miyamoto who was no longer the series producer, did not" → "As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers..."
  • Changed
  • "Additionally, he also asked for the combat to be changed due to similarities to The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove the story because not many players found it entertaining and he believed the game would be fine without a story" → "Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove most of the story elements due to early feedback from fans." (simpler sentence, and you have the quote off to the right)
  • "Core changes in Sticker Star and further games in the series were made to help introduce the series to a new audience" → "Starting with Sticker Star, the series transformed to try and reach a new audience."
  • Changed
  • "prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise" → "limited outside developers from modifying or adding characters to the Mario universe." (gets you most of the clarity, especially when read with the next sentence)
  • Maybe another few examples where a full stop would be better than a semi-colon.
  • "last mainline game" needs clarification and could probably be rephrased. Could we just say game?
  • Clarified a little bit, meant to say "last game in the series"
  • "The artists made the worldbuilding look entirely out of paper," There's maybe a better way to say this.
  • Changed
  • "through a Nintendo Direct" could be "on Nintendo Direct" or even "through Nintendo Direct"?
  • Changed to "via"
  • Maybe end that last sentence with a full stop. The negative fan reception is a separate event and separate thought.
  • Changed
  • "The game released worldwide in early October" what year? do we need to say worldwide for a Nintendo game?
  • Fixed
  • "in a video in early September" Don't really need to say "in a video"
  • Removed
  • "in mid-May" is missing a full stop
  • Yeah, I just don't like them that much.
  • "He stated how due to not being able to satisfy every fan, generally the core fans of the series and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts, which is why The Origami King used origami as a new paper-like theme." This could be simplified a lot.
  • Simplified
  • I'd say the last paragraph of this section does have a few run-on sentences that could be shortened and/or split.
  • Fiddled a bit
Reception
  • Maybe try to re-state the timeline for the reader as you start this section off. e.g.: Paper Mario is the first game, it's from the year 2000. Probably doesn't need more than a few well-placed words, but if it starts to add clutter, you can try its own sentence.
  • Maybe move the 2006 list ranking to the end of this paragraph, to distinguish between its immediate reception in 2000 and its long-term legacy.
  • Fiddily-diddled.
  • I think my last two comments also apply to each additional paragraph, establishing a year, if not some other marker of how the series was changing (maybe the platform?). It would help those paragraphs flow, and help the reader keep the timeline straight. As is, it just feels like a few disjointed paragraphs about different games.
  • Skipping to the end, the paragraph about the three games since Sticker Star is actually really informative. I saw one of the above FA reviewers comment that this article could use some more discussion of the series as a whole, and I think this paragraph is a great example. I know that's difficult if the sources don't exist. But maybe there's a way to re-organize it to have the reception feel more like a general comment on the evolution of the series, instead of a series of separate receptions for separate games. It sometimes feels like we are losing the forest by staring at each tree.
  • Shooterwalker, Just for confirmation, there should still be prose commentary for each individual game, however? Just some extra on the series as a whole?
  • "Additionally, the plot was also slightly criticized for being overly complicated" → "Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated,"
  • Ctrl C Ctrl V'd.
  • If you have three reviewers in the citation who agree, do we really need to name any of them?
  • You're right, Eurogamer doesn't deserve attention. Frikin' Europeans, man.
  • "the game's reception was mainly mixed and criticized for being centered around stickers" → "was mixed." Saying mixed and criticized is two different things, and you talk about the criticisms later.
  • I think I was trying to imply, "the game's reception was mainly mixed, with stickers specifically being criticized for being the center gameplay mechanic." I made the change.
  • "Thing Stickers were called" → "Reviewers called the stickers"
  • Changed to "Reviewers called the Thing Stickers" as "Thing Stickers" are a different thing than stickers.
  • "disdain" is a strong word. Just making sure that's what you mean.
  • Oh yeah. Talk to any Paper Mario fan and they'll come to an agreement on "this game is the absolute worst".
  • I see why the announcement of Color Splash is important, but you should try to keep a clearer chronology between the announcement and the game itself. Re-organize the first two sentences a bit.
  • Re-organized the first two sentences a bit
  • "lack of purpose" isn't clear.
  • Changed to "lack of overall necessity to the game".
  • "Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins in the game was to buy cards for combat, which in return awarded coins which he believed made the system pointless." Try to say this in fewer words.
  • Fiddled
  • "as it returned old RPG elements and removed other faulty ones in the games before" → "as it re-added beloved RPG elements and removed other elements that had received criticism."
  • Changed
  • "considering their hiding spots and humorous dialogue" → "praising their humorous dialog and interesting hiding spots."
  • Changed
  • "The game's combat system was both appreciated and disliked" → "Reviewers gave the game's combat system a mixed reception"
  • C ha n G ed
  • You could drop the semicolon in the "other media" section.
  • Dropped
  • Related to my comment about this section more generally, the sales section could benefit from trying to make it flow as a comment on the whole series, instead of several separate sentences about several separate games. It might be as simple as using more words like "also" or "again", and other comparison words that show a when a streak is forming or being broken.
  • Added words.
That takes us up to the end and should give you a lot to work with. I know that's a lot of comments but it's on the right track. Feel free to ask any questions and we can revisit after a round of edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, thanks for the review! I've been more busy recently and I do hope I have your patience for the time being. I'll get to your reception concerns in the near future. Panini🥪 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand being busy. Work at your own pace. Would very much like to see this article improved to FA status. Keep up the good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to check in with support. It would help to have another reviewer take a thorough look on the prose, but it's generally up to standard, in my view. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Support from DWB[edit]

  • Well, he's not going out and having fun for the heck of it, "quest" means he has an official goal. So it makes sense in its right.
(talk page stalker) Actually it doesn't. It's not grammatical. One is tasked with a quest. Or it could be 'sent on a quest'. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Gog, don't call my grammar out like that. It's embarrassing! But yeah, changed. Panini!🥪 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, good catch, changed to "one or more".
  • Added (and made another change)
  • Mentioned
  • Fiddled
  • Put the logos in a multi-image box (good idea), and moved the quote down a paragraph
  • I went spicy and changed it to "derided"
  • Moved
  • Yes, it's supposed to urge the article's creation. It is definitely notable enough to have its own article, considering its many other annual ceremonies have one too.
  • Added
Darkwarriorblake, thanks for the review! That should be everything. Panini🥪 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job Panini. Reading through again I notice that the last paragraph of the lede has two sentences that open with "despite this". I think the second one would be easy to reword to make the whole section read better.
  • I feel like the last sentence of the first paragraph should mention the number of games in the series since this whole thing is a summary. Something like (and I'm not saying this is the right phrasing) "The series comprises seven games, beginning with Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64 in 2000, to the most recent game, Paper Mario: The Origami King, released for the Nintendo Switch in 2020."
  • Maybe add a date and/or the numerical entry for the mention of Sticker Star in the third paragraph to clarify its positioning in the series and around when it started receiving complaints. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Panini, I don't have a tonne of experience with series pages but there are no other issues that stand out to me, so I'm happy to Support Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Changed; see below.
  • I've explained further its purpose in the article.
  • Good, but this would benefit from further improvement. For example, what does "this image is the best instance where identification is clear and resourceful" mean? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has, I've since added, "not only graphically improved from the game prior, the games following introduced gimmicks that made combat more complex and such combat varies from game to game. Here is where the combat is seen in its simplest form."
  • Removed it.
  • Sourced. The image is to emphasize the whole point of the paper-like graphics.
  • Er, there don't seem to have been any changes made here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I thought you meant sources as in references in the article, not the website where its found. Wile looking for the source, I couldn't find it so I simply replaced it with an image where a source exists.
  • Oh, should've mentioned I had yet to do this one...
  • You are the third-ish person to believe the logo to be public domain and not fair use; I've since changed its criteria.
  • Nikkimaria Ha! Please forgive me, simply a lack of understanding what you were requesting (see above). I've responded to the remaining issues. Panini!🥪 16:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will take a look at this. Probably gonna claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please correct me if you're looking for something specific, I'm not too familiar with what exactly I'm looking for to prove credibility. But here's what I found:
  • Every other instance I found it easier to remove or replace with something more reliable.
  • Hog Farm, I plan on finishing this today. Does Devore seem credible? 11:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devore seems to be one of the more credible Destructoid people (with Jim Sterling), so it's probably fine here. Hog Farm Talk 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced
  • Should be fixed
  • Changed
  • Source removed
  • Fixed
  • Seems like one slipup; fixes
  • Replaced altogether
  • Fixed
  • Removed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed

Checks for test-source integrity and copyright violations will be at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/Paper Mario. Will be doing those now. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with saying this is copyright compliant, but want to see the replies to some of the spot checks for source-text integrity questions.

  • Removed
  • Simply because full sales numbers don't exist, from my knowledge. In the article, "Although the number of worldwide sales of Color Splash are unknown, Japan sales totalled 63,000 as of July 2020."

Hog Farm Talk 05:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Hog Farm. I will most likely work on this in the near future. Panini!🥪 12:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, finished the CESA sources and attributed. Anything else you would like to look at or bring attention to? Panini!🥪 01:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wikibenboy94[edit]

Sorry for the delay in completing this review. This ended up being a lot bigger than I anticipated with regards to prose improvements. Not I'm decrying the quality of your written work, but I've included a lot of changes, perhaps to a nitpicky degree, that a copy-editor would likely pick up on. On the topic of this, and while you've noted it did have one in the past, I would definitely recommend another copy-edit (Twofingered Typist, who I see copy-edited The Origami King, I would ask for again; he also helped me for my peer review of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered). The below suggestions/improvements are more of a helping-hand in getting the prose that bit better before a copy-edit. Feel free to disregard any of the following changes you disagree with.

Lead
I would include the word "released" somewhere in the last line of the first paragraph, preferably before the year ("on the Nintendo 64 released in 2000"). Also, there's more of a structure if you moved "the most recent being" to before The Origami King rather than after, as "the first being" is used before the title of Paper Mario.
Done.
"After Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro, Nintendo was planning to release a successor to Super Mario RPG, which Nintendo had Intelligent Systems develop". When did these events occur? I would definitely cite a release year for Super Mario RPG at the very least.
Done.
"Resulted in the game becoming" in my opinion sounds better than "led the game to become".
Done.
"This led the series to slowly transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure". Omit the mention of "games".
Omitted.
"The first two games in the series received critical acclaim, being praised for their story, characters, and unique gameplay. The series later received multiple installments". While the first two games may have received the most acclaim, the wording of this places emphasis on them and almost treats the successive titles like an afterthought. Also "later" is vague, and makes it seem like there was a large gap between the second and third releases.
Unafterthoughted.
I think there needs to be a reshuffling of the wording in the latter two paragraphs. There are two lines outlining reception, which can be condensed into one, and the first two sentences of the second paragraph should be moved to the end of the first paragraph. We would then have one paragraph focusing on development and the genre changes made to the series, and the other on reception and the response to the changes.
Sounds like a plan.
Gameplay
"that contain puzzles and interactive elements. For example, Mario can hit objects with his hammer, which needs to be completed to progress in the story". "Need" is the correct tense; "needs" makes it sound like it's referring to just one occurrence.
Oops
"These locations". "These" is redundant.
Changed
"and contain coins and other various collectibles". Include some examples of collectibles.
Exampled
"Mario will encounter multiple allies". Is it obligatory that multiple allies are encountered, or is it only some of them? If it's a minority Mario is forced to meet I would change this to "can encounter".
Yeah; the first two games you are forced to team up with someone because certain puzzles need an ally to complete them; the recent games have that one person that is just, "Hey, I could help you" and sticks around the whole game until they die.
"when Mario and his other present allies". "Other" is redundant.
Unredudanted
"Mario and his allies can either perform a regular attack, where they time a button-press on the controller to deal more damage". The player is the one timing the button-press, not Mario.
"The player"ed
"but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used". I would say "in-game statistic" is redundant.
When looking at other video game articles with complicated plots they often introduce locations or content without explaining their significance or purpose. I try to explain new details to someone who isn't unfamiliar with something. For example, I was reading the plot of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train a while back, and it reads out of nowhere, "Enmu, Lower Rank One of the Twelve Kizuki". As a non-anime fan, what does that mean?
"which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels". Change to "abilities for combat and traversing levels".
Changed
I did notice Shooterwalker made six suggestions to the prose in this section last month but you haven't made these changes; had you missed them or just disagreed with them?
Probably missed them, I'll give it a second look.
These were taken care of a while back, I just never marked them off. I did so now.
Games
"Mario must then save[...]" "then" is redundant.
Unthened
"Mario must then save the imprisoned Star Spirits, defeat Bowser, and save the Mushroom Kingdom. [...] Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities". As gameplay centres on puzzles and unique abilities, rather than characters to alternately save and defeat which falls more under story (and I don't know if using "which" was a mistake but it doesn't make grammatical sense), I would re-phrase to "Gameplay centres around Mario and his allies solving puzzles, with many of the challenges[...]"
Yeah, it seems like a typo. Used your suggestion.
"which take up a portion of FP when executed". I presume this means filling up a portion, and not deducting it? If so, change to "fill".
The first is correct; using this video as an example, the player only has ten FP and must use it sparingly. I've tweaked the wording to emphasize this, though.
"The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune". Change to "The game is set mainly in Rogueport". Also "great fortune" seems a bit vague.
Changed
"Peach e-mails Mario, not informed about her kidnapping, that he needs to search". Mentioning Mario being uninformed is unnecessary.
Tweaked
"Mario is given special abilities under a curse". Change to "as a result of a curse". Also, if the curse is important to the plot, I would include it in the story summary above.
Tweaked
"such as folding into a paper airplane and gliding, or folding into a boat". The abilities of the plane is given, but not those of the boat. If the abilities are obvious (gliding and floating), I recommend removing "gliding".
Fair
Trimmed to remove repeated use of "folding into a[...].
"Contrarily, audience members will leave if Mario performs poorly". Does this affect the amount of items he receives?
Shuffled a bit
"battles take place in the overworld in real-time, and upon victory Mario is awarded XP". Would replace the comma with a semi-colon and then a comma after "victory".
Done
"In combat, Mario prepares his actions using the stickers". Not keen on the wording. I would change to something like "In combat, Mario's abilities depend on the stickers obtained."
Changed, and put a semicolon in there while I was at it
"Other stickers, called "Thing Stickers", resemble real world objects that can either be used to solve puzzles in the overworld or be used as a powerful attack against enemies". How do they differ to the other stickers (e.g. the Jump sticker) used in combat, or are they treated equally? As this comes straight after the sentence on combat, I would mention their use as powerful attacks first, and then solving puzzles in the overworld after.
Organized
"where he lays down flat and reveals secrets not visible in the standard camera angle". I would remove the bit about the camera as it seems obvious secrets wouldn't be viewed normally in the default FOV. It's a bit vague though, so explain how they are seen.
Fiddled with
I looked at the source (the Gamespot review presumably, which should be linked direct) and they say "Paperizing causes Mario's three-dimensional papercraft surroundings to fall flat like a Polaroid", but you've written it's Mario that's the one falling flat?
Oof, how did that one that slip through?
Seems like a misinterpretation of the source. Would like to say that I myself have only played one of these six games.
"After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing". Who is Huey? Also I would remove the colon and change to "they speak to Huey, who explains that the six Big Paint Stars[...}".
Hm, I think the colon is there by accident. That's odd.
I've changed the "why" to "that" because it's giving the scattered Stars as the reason for the color-draining.
"when he hits something in the overworld, an uncolored object is colored and rewards items such as coins. Since paint is needed to use the hammer, containers of red, yellow, and blue paint can be found by hitting objects with the hammer". As the sequence of events is getting the paint first before colouring objects, I would switch these around and change to something like the following: "hitting certain items in the overworld grants him containers of red, yellow, and blue paint. Paint can then be used to hit other uncolored objects, coloring them and rewarding Mario with items such as coins."
Reorganized
"To engage in combat, Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target". Mentioning Sticker Star before the bit about planning combat reads better in my opinion.
Fiddled with
"Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, which they quickly discover to be abandoned. When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly." "Quickly" is redundant. Rephrase "When they enter Peach's Castle" to "At Peach's Castle".
Changed
"Unlike Sticker Star and Color Splash, the game reintroduces some RPG elements. For example, the game reintroduces allies". Repetitive use of "reintroduces".
Oops
"albeit in a stripped-down role". "A simplified role" sounds better.
Simplified
"Additionally, he is given a bag of confetti". Change to "possesess a bag of confetti".
Possessed
"knocks over a book that inside contains the Paper Mario universe". "Inside" is redundant.
Unredundanted
"Paper Jam is more geared toward gameplay than that of the Mario & Luigi series". Elaborate, as this is a bit vague.
Elaborated
"The player simultaneously controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat. Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack." First sentence is too lengthy. Re-phrase the two to something like the following: "The player simultaneously controls Mario and Luigi, who use their usual abilities, and Paper Mario, whose actions are paper-inspired; these include folding into a shuriken in combat, and performing a high-damage attack through stacking multiple copies of himself."
Shortened
There's quite a few repetitive "In the game" before describing the plot of each. Switch up the wording for some.
K
Development and history
"Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro on his own after he was hired". "On his own" is redundant. I would also include the year the company was founded.
Fixed
"Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series". Include "such as titles in the" as the wording seems to conflate "games" and "series".
Fixed
"was the first Mario RPG game". As this is the first mention in a new section, per other examples, use the full term of "role-playing".
Done
"Although Nintendo wanted Square to create another RPG game, Square later signed a deal with Sony Interactive Entertainment to create Final Fantasy VII on the original PlayStation, so Nintendo instead had Intelligent Systems create an RPG for their newest console, the Nintendo 64." Sentence is excessively long. Suggest replacing the comma and "so" with a semi-colon.
Done
"Development on the game began shortly after the release of the console in Japan." Again, a year should be cited of when development started.
Done
"and used a similar graphics style to the previous game." Replace "the previous game" to "its predecessor".
Done
"announced the direct sequel". Change "the" to "a" as we're describing the events as they happened.
Done
"released at varying times". Change to "varying dates" as time could effectively means different hours of a day for example.
Done
"The game is known as Paper Mario RPG in Japan." I would remove this sentence and combine it with the mention of its other title earlier in the paragraph, to read: "titled The Thousand-Year Door worldwide and Paper Mario RPG in Japan."
Done
"By the time the game released, a new series of Mario RPGs". Change to "another series" as some readers might think it's still talking about Paper Mario.
Done
"a new series of Mario RPGs was created for Nintendo's handheld consoles; developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series". Move the mention of the series' name Mario & Luigi so it reads as follows: "a new series of Mario RPGs, Mario & Luigi, was created for Nintendo's handheld consoles; developer Alphadream developed the first game in the series[...]"
Done
"releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance". Change "on" to "for".
Done
"Risa Tabata drew inspiration". This first mention of Rita doesn't give her role, but later in the section it does. Include her job title here and subsequently remove it from her second mention.
Done
I've seen examples like this before, but as the placement of the logos are side-by-side shouldn't they should be labelled as "(left)" and "(right)" not "(up)" and "(down)"?
Either that was me copy and pasting the double image template code from another article (probably The Last of Us, or me just forgetting to replace it after I switched the images around. Either way, done.
"being able to switch through 2D and 3D". Change to "alternatively switch from 2D to 3D".
Done
"When he approved". Use Tanabe's name instead of "he" for clarity. Also, "despite the changes, he asked the writers"; is this Kawade or Tanabe?
Done
"Since the game was intended to be played on a GameCube controller, when it was switched over to the Wii it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls." "When it was switched over to the Wii" can easily be taken out to keep the length down.
Done
"As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers did not create any new characters or allies and instead used pre-existing characters already defined in the Mario franchise". Should be "use"; "used" would be referring to the developers' future actions. Also, sentence is lengthy. I would take out mention of allies, as these fall under characters, and re-word the end to "established pre-existing characters".
Done
Replaced the latter use of "characters" with "ones".
"Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door". Change to "Miyamoto also asked that the combat differed from The Thousand-Year Door".
Ctrl C Ctrl V'd
"the series transformed to try and reach a new audience". Replace with "underwent changes in an attempt to reach a new audience" as to me this seems a bit more neutral. "Transformed" in particular seems a bit inflated.
AH! WP:NPOV! BAN HIM BAN HIM BAN HIM
Remove "Since Sticker Star" as the previous sentence it's carrying on from already says "Starting with Sticker Star".
Done
"Nintendo's Intellectual Property team prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise". The paragraph already mentions Miyamoto's same request previously so the two sentences should be condensed and either come straight after the other or merged together.
Done
"and they naturally saw Paper Mario". Remove "they naturally" as redundant.
Done
"Every game in the series from Color Splash onward has a white paper outline around Mario; the developers of Paper Jam needed to differentiate the characters from the separate series." Others might disagree, but to me this reads better with a comma and "as" in place of the semi-colon.
"followed by two remakes of old games". Are these older Mario & Luigi installments (if so mention this) or other unrelated games?
Done
"because the developers found the motion controls fun to use". To me "as" sounds better than "because".
Done
"Following which, the game received negative reception". Having "Following which" to open a sentence seems gramatically incorrect to me. Using "Following this" can work.
I don't understand why my mind defaults to using the word "which" so often.
Panini! Do you agree with changing it as it's been left? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've changed it to your suggestion. Panini!🥪 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Risa Tabata further noted". "Further" is an additive term that should only be used when absolutely necessary. It can be removed in this context.
Done
"the Paper Mario series would rather focus on non-RPG elements". Wording makes it seem the series is making its own conscientious decision here, not the developers. Change to "would focus more on".
Done
"in early September, but was instead announced in mid-May". Give both years here.
Done
"Despite the return of some iconic characters from the series, critics were still disappointed in their lack of functionality". Can you elaborate further? Is this referring to their roles in the plot?
Elaborated
"The game also featured large overworlds". If they still do, change tense to "features".
Sometimes I have difficulty with determining what type of tense to use. Let me do that L trick with my hands real quick.
"Tanabe reaffirmed that he does pay attention to the general criticism, but still makes sure that he does not ignore "the casual players" and new fans of the series". Change to "Tanabe reaffirmed that while he does make note of general criticisms, he makes sure not to ignore "casual players" and new fans of the series."
Done
The last paragraph needs a few changes.
Let me at em'
"He stated how he could not satisfy every fan amidst the core veteran fans and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts,". There should be a semi-colon in place of the first comma.
Semicoloned
Change correct tense of "he instead attempts" to "attempted", and "how the game's writing is kept surreal" to "was".
Past-tensed
Replace "which is why" with "hence why".
Henced
"He stated how he could not [...] He also explained how the game's writing". Replace these examples of "he" with "Tanabe" as there's too many in the paragraph.
Tanabe'd
The game's writing is mentioned as being kept "surreal". Can you elaborate further?
Elaborated
Panini! You've included "and mixed", but I'm still not sure what this is indicating? Sorry. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"understood by other ages and nations". I would change "nations" to something like "cultures" or "ethnicities", something that's more of a demonination like age is.
Cultured
"He has also since kept away from a complicated plot due to how it "led the game away from the Mario universe"; he instead created a story where different locales would be tied to specific memorable events". To further limit the use of "he", for this example replace the semi-colon and "he" with a comma and a "and". Also, I read the related portion in the source and I couldn't see where he mentioned anything about using locales for memorable experiences?
Yeah, cited the wrong source there it seems. I've added one in there that covers the concept.
Reception and legacy
"Paper Mario received critical acclaim in 2000." This is the only game in this section that mentions the release year so I would remove it if it's not being used for the others.
Changed
"and elements from the Mario franchise". Change to "existing elements".
Done
"Additionally, it was praised for its writing and characters". Re-phrase to "Its writing and characters received additional praise".
Dine
"listed the game among one of the best games". Change the first use of "the game" to "it" to avoid repetition.
Done
"in Nintendo Power's "Top 200 Games", released in 2006". The comma and "released in" can be removed.
Done
"The Thousand-Year Door is considered the best game in the series according to fans and critics". Owing to how this is sourced, and to be more neutral and treating it less like a factual statement, I would suggest re-phrasing to something like "The Thousand-Year Door is often ranked as one of the best games in the series."
Done
"with comments on the story being whimsical in tone". Change to "with the story being considered whimsical in tone."
Done
"Despite changing the RPG style, Super Paper Mario was still met with generally positive reviews. The concept of changing dimensions received positive reception". Change "positive reception" to "praise" to switch up the wording a bit as "positive reviews" is written in the previous sentence. Also change "from" to "for".
Done
"Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated, but most reviewers praised". Remove "reviewers" as repeated twice in sentence.
Whoops
"Sticker Star received more criticism than the prior games. Although critics enjoyed the graphics, worldbuilding, and characters, the game's reception was mainly mixed". "Predecessors" sounds better in my opinion than "prior games". The game's reception is highlighted twice here; I would replace the "more criticism" bit at the beginning with it receiving "a more mixed reception".
Done
"with stickers specifically being criticized for being the center gameplay mechanic". Remove "being" and replace "center" with "central".
Done
"Although some critics praised". Too similar to the opening of the prior sentence. Suggest varying wording to "While some praised".
Done
"Reviewers called the Thing Stickers one of the game's biggest weaknesses". Additional mention of "critics"/"reviewers"; change to "the Thing Stickers were called one of the game's biggest weaknesses".
Wow, looks like I used those terms a lot by accident, huh? Done
"Upon reveal, fans criticized Color Splash." Include "Upon it's reveal".
Its'd
"continuing the trend of action-adventure games". Change to "action-adventure installments" to better specify this is referring to the series.
Done
"and a Change.org petition was created calling for the game's cancellation." Change "the game's" to "it's" as the beginning of the next sentence repeats the use of "the game".
Done
"but received generally positive reviews after release". Change to "upon release" to indicate there was no changes of opinion in the time after it came out.
Done
"Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins". Change "realized" to "noted" as this implies his knowledge of the mechanic changed throughout playing, which the review doesn't mention.
Done
"as it re-added beloved RPG elements". Are the RPG elements beloved as a whole, or just certain examples? Regardless however, "beloved" seems a but too glorified; I would replace with "favored" or maybe even "cherished" at a push.
Yeah, it was a skeptical word that Whillbb when they were copyediting. Done
"The three games since Sticker Star were greatly criticized for the removal of elements that made the games RPGs. The games were often criticized for the removal of an XP system". Second sentence opening is repetitive of the first. Change the former to "These included the removal of an XP system[...]".
Done
Side-note: I noticed this whilst looking through Paper Mario: The Origami King, but there seems to be a discrepancy in that The Origami King says the game was criticized for dropping its staple RPG-elements, whilst (unless I'm misinterpreting the wording) Paper Mario says The Origami King was praised for re-adding "beloved" RPG elements. Which is correct?
Elaborated a little further.
Sales
"and sold over 1.3 million copies since 2007 and is the thirteenth best-selling game on the Nintendo GameCube." Split this into a seperate sentence for the GameCube prose to keep the length down.
Done
"the game had sold about 2.3 million units worldwide". Change "about" to "around".
Done
"As of 2019, the game has sold". Change tense to "had" if we're talking about a previous year. This goes for the other mentions of "the game has" for other years.
Done
"Sticker Star had sold about 400,000 copies". Again, change to "around", and remove unnecessary "had".
Done
"the game has made close to 2.5 million sales". Too definitive; if the benchmark wasn't reached, put "had reached almost".
Done
"Although the number of sales of Color Splash are unknown, Japan sales". Include "worldwide" before "sales".
Done
"and the series' best launch sales". Remove "sales"; "launch" works on its own just as well.
Done
In other media
"The most prominent of which is the "Paper Mario" stage". Remove unnecessary "of which".
Done
The use of "also" is almost always unnecessary in prose; see Tony1's guide. There are quite a few examples throughout the article.
Removed a lot of its instances
  • This feels like a ten-pound dumbbell to the head.
  • I'm joking of course. I'll work on improvements soon! Panini!🥪 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2021 [24].

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bring back here this women's football match article, after a few reviewers were so kind to do a Peer Review. I believe it is in line with the football articles that recently got promoted to FA (1987 FA Cup Final, 2019 FA Cup Final), at least in terms of level of understanding to a non-expert. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and your support. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I supported at the previous nomination. I already left comments that were addressed there. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few more tweaks:

Two corner kicks for the home team quickly followed, but were unsuccessful ===>>> Two corner kicks for the home team quickly followed, but neither led to a goal. (The kicks themselves were not unsuccessful.)
Arsenal had made thirty-four shots <<<=== I think just "Arsenal had thirty-four shots" or "Arsenal had taken thirty-four shots"?
South-Korean <<<=== there shouldn't be a dash
allowing Manchester City to take the lead ===>>> allowing Manchester City to take the top position. ("the lead" sounds more like the lead in a game)
They achieved a further win ===>>> They achieved a second win

That's it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Sportsfan77777, for taking time again to go over the article. Much appreciated. I have made the improvements you suggested. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hmlarson (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hmlarson for your support. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

I commented on the peer review. Below are some additional comments based on a prose review. Please note: I am a non-expert.

I removed the "used his new signings and" bit, as indeed it does not warrant a mention that these new signings were actually used.
I changed it so that the opening sentence of this paragraph says that round 1 of the season took place in Sep. That should make the meaning of round eight obvious.
Done
Done
Done

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, for taking the time again to look at the article. Much appreciated. I hope I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support based on prose. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Done
It summarises the first 3 sentences of the Aftermath section
Is the table position based solely on goal difference? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, I now see what you mean. No, it is based on points first, then goal difference. I removed the detail about goal difference from the lead, and just stick to the main point: The result put Arsenal top of the league.
Good catch. All consistent now.
There is no retrieval date when there is an archive date. I had missed a few and have just cleaned this up to be consistent.
This still isn't consistent - for example FN16 has both. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I have them all now. I added a bunch of archive links as well.
Done
Done. All newspapers now in italics.
This applies to all work titles, not just newspapers - eg Kicker. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thx!
Fixed. Good catch. Thanks very much for checking, Nikkimaria. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed them all now. Thx. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, is this GTG? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2021 [25].

Patrick Francis Healy[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Francis Healy led a remarkable and fascinating life. He achieved many firsts for black Americans, yet never considered himself one. The historiography of this fact is most interesting and discussed in this article. He also transformed Georgetown University into a modern institution along the way. Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

So far, I am leaning Weak Oppose for the following concerns of incompleteness and problems with prose:

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, HumanxAnthro. I believed I responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the work, and thanks for responding to the comments. I'll admit I misread some things, and some of my comments were from a skimthrough, so I'll re-read it again. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: Have you had a chance to take another look at the article? Ergo Sum 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. My work on editing and reviewing other articles got in the way. I'm reading it now. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro I don't mean to pester. Just want to see if you've gotten a chance to give this a second look. Ergo Sum 00:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

SupportComments from Coffeeandcrumbs[edit]

[To be continued] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Without a coordinating conjunction, this is a run-on sentence. This should be two sentences or add "but" or "however" etc. before "none was ever sought...".

[Apologies for the sporadic pace. I have little free time these days.] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Patrickneil[edit]

Comments Support from Modussiccandi[edit]

Early life

Education

Racial identity

Georgetown University

Presidency

Later years

An interesting and well-built article on what seems to be an important person in the history of American higher education whom I had never heard of before. I'm happy to support in principle. Have a look at my (nitpicky) comments, Ergo Sum, and let me know if I'm way off on something. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will reply shortly. Ergo Sum 13:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough feedback, Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing these. Don't worry about the image captions. I've been affected by this myself numerous times. I'm quite happy with the explanation of the one-drop rule, too. I will switch to support now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Citations:

Sources:

Further reading:

Reviewed as of this version. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, Usernameunique. Ergo Sum 20:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks about ready to close but will await Usernameunique's response re. the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild, Ian Rose, & Ergo Sum, they look good. I've added a few comments above, and one question for Ergo Sum. But I don't think there's anything that should hold up promotion if the article is otherwise good to go. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed the above comments. Ergo Sum 14:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2021 [26].

Tecumseh[edit]

Nominator(s): Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 14 years since I've submitted a Featured Article candidate, but winter and COVID conspired to bring me back. This article is, I believe, an important one. Two centuries after Tecumseh's death, he is still widely admired and studied, and places continue to honor him with new memorials. The internet is filled with old myths about Tecumseh, long since corrected in scholarly sources. This article can now serve as a source of reliable information that's hard to find online. Thank you for your time and attention. Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • {u|SandyGeorgia)), source review complete. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog the Mild headed home from cabin, can do review tomorrow, hard to review from hotspot on iPad. On my list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC). Oops, I see I already supported, will re-read tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, these have been fixed, thanks! Kevin1776 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll take a look at this in the coming days. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 06:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because we've been having issues with a lot of stuff being transcluded onto individual FAC pages and then causing issues where not all of the FAC page will show, I'll be leaving my comments on the talk page of this FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments have been posted. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow See talk page

Your changes look good, Support on prose. I've moved my comments to the talk page as there is an issue with the length of the FAC listings page - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phonology of Shawnee name

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for over a month and has only picked up one general support. Unless there is considerably more indication that a consensus to promote is starting to form over the next two or three days, I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I will look in, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought and hoped that you might. Thanks Sandy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This corroborates tekomthé as the best approximation.[28] Also it seems a source that could be incorporated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not sure if a newspaper column is the type of source we want to cite, but fortunately the pronunciation it gives (Tecumthé) is already cited in our article. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Tecumthé" is a problematic spelling, I think it should be complemented with a phonetic representation as [tekom'θe]. C is a ambiguous consonant with no geneally agreed upon pronunciation, and the vowel u is wrong since there is no u sound in Shawnee either. So in phonetic rendering it must be tekomthé (In english the u is often used to represent short o). I also think the Shawnee name should appear in the definition sentence - since this must be considered his real name. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your knowledge on the ipa rendering, I just don't know how to cite it without straying into original research. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use this source (already cited in the article) and have Maunus render the IPA, or does the IPA need a source? Victoria (tk) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We generally do not require sources for IPA renderings, only for the pronunciations that they render, requiring for the transcription itself would leave most articles without them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Maunus[edit]

I am not talking about altering the definition in policy, but about how that definition can be applied in articles about different topics. There is nothing in policy that says a testimony in Indian Country Today is not a reliable source per definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only that it was recently made available on that website. If there is a lot of discussion about the sources and circumstances regarding his death, then I think the article should reflect that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I think the article might want to mention Ruddell as a source of information about Tecumseh then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ruddell was just one of many informants. Others include Anthony Shane, John Johnston, John Richardson, and a host of others. We can't mention them all. Ruddell and a couple others will likely be mentioned in the spin-off article Family of Tecumseh at some point, but I don't think we need to name-check him here. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Montanabw[edit]

Ping me at my talkpage if you want me to take another run. I’m not on WP a ton, but I’ve got my settings so TP messages shoot me an email Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Ben "that's Chief to you" Barnes, current chief of the Shawnee Tribe (who's cited in the article), and Glenna Wallace, current chief of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe (author of "Chiefs of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe") might be surprised to learn from Wikipedia that they have "white man's" titles. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass[edit]

Spot checks not done. Version reviewed

Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal, I'll get to these and other comments this weekend. Thanks! Kevin1776 (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments. I believe they have all (finally) been addressed. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I will pass this source review. Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2021 [32].

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An American primetime television series from 1989 with no article until March 2021?! That's the case with One of the Boys (1989 TV series), which I have created and expanded to hopefully becoming a featured article. It is currently a GA and underwent a beneficial peer review by Aoba47. I welcome any comments and look forward to addressing them. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • File:One of the Boys 1989 title card.png has an appropriate FUR
  • Given how only one season aired, it wouldn't hurt to include the overall episode count in the lead. I would also expand that to include more production details.
    • Edited.
  • "they wed by the fifth episode"..... in the fifth episode
    • Amended.
  • Is "unsuccessful" pertaining to critical reception, viewership ratings, or both for I Married Dora?
    • Specified with additional Los Angeles Times reference.
  • "better" from "could receive better movie roles afterward" is POV
    • Changed to "thought she could receive better movie roles afterward".
  • When did filming conclude?
    • I was unable to find a source.
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, I'd try to find a ref to back up the general assessment of "Critics deemed the show unremarkable". Don't make presumptions solely based on reviews already included within Wikipedia pages.
    • I could not find any overall assessments or retrospective comments.
  • Is five reviews all you can find?
    • That's pretty much all there is on Newspapers.com, NewspaperArchive, ProQuest, Gale, and Google News Archive. I believe the fact there was no preview shown to television critics before the premiere has something to do with such little reviews. As you can see from Live-In or even The Masked Singer (American TV series), I do not hesitate to add reviews when they are available.

While this is rather short compared to many other TV show pages (which I suspect is at least partially because it only lasted for six episodes), it mostly seems comprehensive. Just get through these as well as Buidhe's concern on a reference error. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I have responded above. Heartfox (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking better. Just two more things: remove the synth, and we may as well mention Clohessy (along with his character) by name given how the show's overarching plot focuses on him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now offer my support, and the image review passes as well. Very good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SNUGGUMS: I have added an additional image to the article and would like to inform you as you previously conducted an image review. Heartfox (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the FUR for File:One of the Boys 1989 cast.png is A-OK. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

I have been waiting for you to nominate something. Given the great quality of your source reviews, I doubt a lot of work will be required but I will give it a look later.--NØ 05:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I am not that familiar with these type of articles, so I randomly read the FAs Kampung Boy (TV series) and House (TV series) as examples. I may use them as a reference for the review.
I don't doubt that you have done the best possible with the information available, but the article is still rather small. Critical commentary is limited and some structural issues hinder it from being a compelling and gripping read as of yet. I am regretfully leaning towards oppose.--NØ 03:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Thank you for your comments and reviewing something unfamiliar. I have responded above and done my best to address them. Heartfox (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the article does look better after the changes made.
While I initially thought the coverage received was limited, it seems the article really could be expanded more using even just the sources already included in it. Episodes could be directly used as references to expand on the plot. A picture of the cast or this picture of Navarro could be added so there is some visual demonstration of the people involved. At the moment the article is barely establishing the series's notability, it does not constitute the prose standard that unfamiliar-with-the-topic people coming to it from being featured on the main page will find engaging. I am going to refrain from formally voting but some concerns with regards to criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, and 3, still remain. Regards.--NØ 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Thank you for your time reviewing the article and leaving further comments; I've responded above. Where do you suggest an image of Alonso be added? It would cause sandwiching issues next to the infobox and leaves a huge white space in the critical reception section because ((clear)) has to be used. There were no images of the full cast I came across. I would note the article has already passed an image review. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an image of the cast via the opening sequence. Heartfox (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, it has almost been a week and I was wondering if you would like to follow up on your comments/my responses/edits. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I have been busy with an internship I am pursuing currently. The addition of the cast's picture alone (seems to have) improved the article a lot, though I don't have the time to read it again. Will request the closing coord to ping me before archiving the discussion in case I have time then.--NØ 15:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved
  • I am uncertain about this sentence, One of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s, the show received inconsistent Nielsen ratings and was not renewed for a second season by NBC., from the lead. It has two different ideas linked together, when I think it may be more beneficial to represent them separately.
    • Moved to the start of the second sentence.
  • I think it would have been better to keep this part later in the lead and just make it into a separate sentence. I do not see a real benefit of adding it to the start of the second sentence as it is just taking a sentence that was already long and dense with information and adding more to it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the last sentence work better? Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better to me. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance as this is super nitpick-y, but I think the word features sounds a little off in this part, The sitcom One of the Boys features Maria Conchita Navarro. I think saying is about would be sound better. For some reason, something about the word features in the context of a plot summary just seems off to me, but it could just be me.
    • Changed to "follows".
  • That works for me. I was actually going to recommend that as an option. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase musical efforts in this part, for her musical efforts, seems odd and unnecessarily vague to me. When I looked at Alonso's Wikipedia article, it seems like she received these nominations for albums so I think it would be much clearer to say that instead.
    • The source (Walstad) refers to one album and one single.
  • Thank you for the clarification. Then why not just shorten the part, she had received two Grammy Award nominations for her musical efforts, to she had received two Grammy Award nominations as most people associate the Grammys with music (although they of course give out some awards for non-music ventures like narration). I think the musical efforts part just throws me off. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my only comments and they are very nitpick-y. You have done a very good job with this article, considering how there is so little information out there about this series. I am always happy to see something super obscure like this be brought into the FAC space. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments; don't worry about nitpicks. I've responded above :) Heartfox (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

Well, time to look at another short article for FA. The cite formatting is perfect, so nothing to say there.

I also will remind reviewers once again that an article being short doesn't make it incomplete. There's a lot of major network shows like this that get coverage only in the moment, and they're so forgotten there's not even any Buzzfeed list to remember them as "all-time classics" (and that cringey blog considers Jimmy Eat World albums and preschool shows classic, for crying out loud!). Trust me, searches for academic literature gave me nothing no matter what keyword tricks I tried. I also don't blame the critical reception section for being so short. All sorts of these shows from the 1980s and 1990s (and even still in the 2000s and 2010s) don't get that many significant opinions on the series themselves, and when they do, it's always for the first two episodes. Heck, good luck finding any newspaper reviews of later seasons of even some of the most-known TV series (I can say this as someone who's worked on Everybody Loves Raymond articles). The point is is that this is as complete as the article's gonna get, so it meets 1b in that regard. I do have some comments:

Thank you for your perspective. Yes, and it is even worse with this series because no preview was shown to television writers before the first episode aired. Since that's when most reviews would have been written, a lot less reviews are available to include in this article than even another six-episode one.

👨x🐱 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at ways to reorganize the sentence structure in these sections, but changes will inevitably be limited as there's not any new content that's going to be added.

@HumanxAnthro: Thank you for your comments. I have left some preliminary responses above and will edit the article in depth tomorrow. Heartfox (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I believe I have addressed your comments with recent edits to the article. Let me know what you think and thanks again for your time, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: It's been a week since you last left comments and I was wondering what you think of the article now. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good except for one thing. You can't have text between an image and an infobox per MOS:SANDWICH. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: I've moved it to the right using the stack template which I've seen on a few other articles. Is that okay? Heartfox (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
Reliability
Verifiability

@Aza24: thanks so much for the source review. I'm open to addressing everything I just have some responses/questions above. Heartfox (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2021 [33].

Fort Concho[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Fort Concho, is a former US Army installation located almost literally in the middle of Texas. It is in fact the best-preserved 19th century US Army installation anywhere in the country, let alone Texas. For that reason, it has the distinction of being a National Historic Landmark. Just as with my previous FA, this is the labor of two years, which I hope to just need one FAC for this time. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Concho/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Looked at this during the peer review, so I may not find a whole bunch of new stuff. Will try to review this here over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and thank you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I caught some stuff this time I missed in the PR. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Epicgenius[edit]

Here are some of my initial comments.

Lead:

Operation by the US military:

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Construction:

Base of the 4th Cavalry

Base of the 10th Cavalry

Post-Texas Indian Wars and deactivation

Relationship with San Angelo, Texas

Preservation

Involvement in the YFZ ranch raid

I'll finish this off later. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds and architecture

@Vami IV: That's it for me. Looks pretty good from my view. Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

This is a really good article. I've reviewed up to the "Relationship with San Angelo, Texas" section now, more to follow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and mighty kind compliment. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Grounds and architecture". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last set:

That's the end of my review, phew eh? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 May 2021 [35].

National Union of Freedom Fighters[edit]

Nominator(s): Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a revolutionary group in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1970s. Because most of their leadership was killed, their story was largely untold until after 2000. When I created this article in 2005 the two sentence summary was all I knew, and almost all the attention they received in most sources. Times have changed, and I think this is an episode in our history that's worth documenting. It's been a long time since I've nominated a FAC, but I think it's a viable, and interesting candidate. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Moisejp[edit]

I'm going to review this. The article's short length is manageable for my current schedule. Moisejp (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First read-through:

Lead:

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background and formation:

  • Great, I'll try to look at your changes and continue with the review soon, hopefully this weekend. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

Ideology:

Second read-through:

  • Guettarda seems to have made this change. Moisejp (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty of making this change myself. If it's not precise and needs tweaking, I would strongly urge you to at least include comparable attribution, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Moisejp. I've been looking for a better source that discusses this, but I haven't found a good source yet. Guettarda (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have finished my second read-through. When the last points above are addressed I'm expecting to support. I still am not 100% sure there is no small unintended bias towards NUFF as the good guys and Williams as the bad guy, but that's just a vague uncertainty, and I can't put my finger on exactly what would make it so; if no other reviewers think so, I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. (I actually don't have much experience reviewing such political uprising kind of articles, and am not sure what is a normal balance of details when describing insurgencies by an oppressed group.) Moisejp (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I agree with you about the bias. The problem is that the sources tend to see NUFF sympathetically (seeing them as misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal) and Williams less so. Samaroo was active in the Black Power movement, while Meeks arrived in Trinidad just after, and seems to have known NUFF activists. Johnson is probably the most openly partisan of the three of my main sources, seeing NUFF through an anti-imperialist and pro-feminist lens (and Burroughs/Williams/mainstream middle class as the opposite). So while Williams has his admirers, and remains a revered figure among the supporters of the party he founded, broadly speaking, he isn't as well loved among the intellectuals and academics who have chose to write about the period. The problem is that it gets into the "verifiability, not truth" scope of things. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm mostly happy to trust your judgment, and that of any other reviewers who may or may not choose to chime in on this issue. A couple of ideas you could consider before shutting the book on this question: (1) Are there any sources you can add, or citations from existing sources, that present Williams more positively, to present a more balanced picture? The sources maybe wouldn't even need to touch on this particular uprising, but could perhaps just generally talk about his style of governance, or the positive changes he brought about to the country and its people; (2) Without contradicting the existing sources, are there any places in the text where the wording can be tweaked to add neutrality to way details are presented? For the second idea, I have no particular places to suggest, but am just saying that you who are familiar with the content and the sources, may or may not be able to find opportunities for this. Moisejp (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more idea: About what you said about the sources believing NUFF to be "misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal", I did get just a glimpse of that in the Legacy section, but I wonder whether it might be valid and beneficial to highlight this point more, maybe even in the lead (i.e., that sympathy historians have had for NUFF has not necessarily included a full support for the degree of violence)? I think if this could be highlighted more, it would bring more balance to the article as a whole. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I couldn't find sources to back up my conclusions. I'm eagerly awaiting the publication of Eric Williams' final book, which thanks to Samaroo will finally see the light of day later this year. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm prepared to support at this time, thanks. I still hope you can look at my final comments above to see if there are any ideas in them that it makes sense to use. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say they are definitely needed, but please consider them. Moisejp (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passed, as per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Approaching three weeks in and this nomination has picked up no general supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to support developing over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. So far I'm expecting to support on prose, but I can't promise really until I've done a second thorough read-through to see if any big issues I might have missed the first time around jump out at me. I'm currently 3/4 the way through my first read-through. It hasn't been going speedily, but I can try to pick up the pace as much as I can if it makes any difference for you keeping the nomination open. If I make it through the first read-through finding no big issues, chances are fairly high I won't find any the second read-through. Anyway, I'm not sure if that's enough for you to keep the nomination open a little bit longer, but that's where I'm at with my review. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have now finished my first read-through. I can try to work more quickly through my second read-through if it makes a difference for keeping the nomination open longer. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to review this soonish too, but not being familiar with the topic, I was hoping to wait until another review was completed first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask for this to be kept open longer, I'd like to take a swing at reviewing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the experienced reviewers queuing up to have a look at this, consider Damocles' sword to have been removed. Reviewers, feel free to take your time - within reason - and come to a considered opinion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serail Number 54129[edit]

Parking my tank on the presidential lawn, as it were. ——Serial 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes SN, but will you be opening fire anytime soon...? If not you might have to wait for the next battle... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'm firing blanks, Ian Rose?! Sorry about the delay, am on the. ——Serial 12:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Back. & for.
Guer. camp.
Amath
Ideo.
  1. Into revolutionary thinking, not towards it! What's the point in entering the door, Vladimir, if you do not open it?
  2. "Believing that revolution as imminent": think you're missing a "w". But notwithstanding, suggest "believing revolution to be imminent"
Leg.
Notes
Bloody good article, thanks for doing so much work on it, it's an extremely interesting—and unsurprisingly rarely discussed—slice of history. ——Serial 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A busy time at work and other demands (Spring, my garden) slowed this down a bit, but I think I've gotten to everything here Serial Number 54129. Thanks so much for this extremely detailed and helpful review. Guettarda (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

This is maybe something worth explaining in the article for context? If the relevant sources do, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added some to that effect. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to expand on this. There's more I could add, of course (and one day I hope to create "race and ethnicity in Trinidad and Tobago"). I'm concerned that adding too much more might start to get into WEIGHT problems. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you've added should be enough, and is great for understanding the context. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few unanswered points left I'm waiting for. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

That's all I have on a first read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 8 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [36].

MAX Orange Line[edit]

Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review hoping to make it the third MAX Light Rail-related article to achieve FA after the Red Line and the Yellow Line. Hoping the process is a little smoother this time using the two FAs as models. The Orange Line is Portland's newest MAX extension, having opened in 2015. Its was built following two decades of failed attempts to expand light rail between Portland and Clackamas County. Part of the project saw the construction of Portland's newest Willamette River crossing, Tilikum Bridge, which is notably the country's first major "car-free" bridge (it only allows peds, bikes, and transit). This article has been extensively copy edited and reviewed and would make a great addition to WP's FAs. truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Accessibility review

Thanks for the accessibility review, Heartfox. I've addressed all but one, which I'll need more time for. --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can add the row headers (!) and keep the same colour with style="background-color:#F8F9FA" I believe. The key table also needs scopes/row headers. You haven't added ((down-arrow|alt=)) yet. Heartfox (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox I just used the subst template suggested in the down-arrow template page, and when you save it it reverts to the icon only (shrug). --truflip99 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review, and reserving a place. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Done
Omitted
Clarified
Reworded
Reworded
Clarified
WP articles for transit stations in the west lowercase "station" as it is often not part of the formal name/train announcement.
Reworded as "transit mall tracks"
Through train, rail term that means a train changes name mid-operation
This article is a child of the parent MAX Light Rail; I moved the stock param to the main, but I think some of the technical params are quintessential items that railfans look for. These params do not necessarily need to be expanded upon in the body of a child article, since they the same across all other lines for American light rail systems. The same cannot be said for other transit systems in other countries however.
My US Eng is usually passable, but I don't understand most of that. Is it in RAILvar? ;-) Regardless, the MOS requires that anything in the infobox needs to also be in the main article. Is this now the case?
Yes, omitted.
History
Done
Reworded
Omitted
Reworded differently
Split
Expanded
Omitted
Introductory clause for the first one; nonrestrictive clause for the second (and third) one
My bad - comma after introductory time period. Those look so odd to me that I just didn't realise that that was what it was. Apologies.
Reworded to "formally"
Omitted
How so? I don't see any more to it other than they voted and said no..
The concept of an electorate voting on a specific and detailed proposal such as this is alien to most of the democratic English-speaking world. Most of it elects politicians to make those decisions. Hence a word or two explaining that things are different there will be a great enlightenment for many readers.
@Gog the Mild: I've rewritten it, hopefully to better explain that the proposed funding sources for the project in question needed voter approval (not the project itself). I can't speak for similar projects in other parts of the US, however, so I will refrain from generalizing local plebiscites in the US.
That works nicely, IMO.
Done
Omitted
by "eliminating its North Portland and Clark County segments"; reworded a bit
Omitted
Reworded
Done
Reworded
Reworded; "placed on the ballot" is a term we often use
Beyond the scope of this article, it's when a politician's seat is vacated and needs to be filled
Writing the article in generally understood English is not beyond its scope. Either don't use specialist/parochial terms or explain them in line. So an anti-light rail initiative was placed on a ballot to fill a vacant political seat? You what?
I've omitted special elections to avoid confusion and did some rewording. But whenever an election occurs in the US, you can include proposed legislation in the ballot.
Fixed
Deleted
Reworded
Fixed
Yes
Fixed
light rail vehicles
Whoops
Done
Reworded
I believe 'the' is correct, at least in US Eng.
I believe 'the' is correct too. Does that mean that you are going to include it?
Sorry, I meant to say incorrect. Saying "the regular operating speed" would suggest that that specific speed was established prior to this phrase, which it wasn't.

I am going to pause here to allow the comments above to be addressed. I also strongly recommend a copy edit of the remaining sections prior to my coming back to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the thorough review thus far. I've addressed everything requested and did another CE of the following sections. I had this reviewed by GOCE... not sure what happened there. --truflip99 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at your responses yet, I'll do that once I have finished the rest of the article. GoCE is usually pretty good - but I've copy edited half a million words for them, so I guess that I would say that - but can be patchy, depending on who you get as a copy editor. Still, some of what seems to have been missed is disappointing. I shall try to get the rest done tomorrow, and review your responses by the end of the week. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route
Changed
Changed
Just to say it isn't a schematic map as is often associated with transit. But I can get rid of it.
Ah. OK. No, that makes sense.

And that would seem to be all. Could you ping me once these last three issues are addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Again, really appreciate you taking the time. Sorry it took me a minute with your nom as I've been rather busy lately. --truflip99 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. However, the coordinators may be watching the clock so it would be best to keep this moving along. For example, you may wish to prompt Sounder Bruce. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sterling work is addressing my comments. A few responses from me above. If I haven't responded you can assume that I am happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you! I've responded to your responses. --truflip99 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good and detailed article. Looks to me to meet the criteria. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I'll leave comments within a few hours. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

@Epicgenius: Thanks for remembering! --truflip99 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

Done
Done
Done
Done. It does run in the median along the MAX Red Line segment!
Expanded
I think it's fine, just a compound sentence.
Just timeline wording to say that they disputed afterwards
Good call
Clarified
Done
Done
Reworded
Reworded
Reworded
Clarified
Reworded
Yes and yes
Done
Done
Used "around"
This is probably to clarify that it was the first train to carry the public along the extension. I changed it to "public train ride".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, Epicgenius! Comments addressed. --truflip99 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route

It is not a distinct idea actually
Done
Yes, nice catch
Done
I could not think of that word for the life of me. Thank you!
Done

Service

Done
That's TriMet for you.

@Truflip99: These are all the comments I have. Once these are addressed I will most likely support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have been addressed. Thanks again, Epicgenius! --truflip99 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I support this article for promotion as a featured article. I would also like to note that I will claim this review in exchange for points in the WikiCup. Epicgenius (talk)

HF[edit]

I'll also take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm thank you, I really appreciate it! --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c, and 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

These aren't necessarily part of the FA criteria, but I think these should be cleaned up while we're at it.

These are not mentioned in the article. Either they're significant and represent non-comprehensiveness of the article, they're mispointed, or they're just junk, in which case WP:RFD is needed. Hog Farm Talk 05:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These for now have been redirected elsewhere. Although I've never heard of the MAX Gold Line, I'll have to request a deletion for that. --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent MAX Gold Line to RFD. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Will conduct one in a bit, seeing as I still have access to the Multnomah Library's online resources. SounderBruce 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting notes:

Otherwise, the formatting is neat and I don't see anything that jumps out. I will do a spotcheck later today. SounderBruce 19:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SounderBruce. It's actually Portland State University for the first one. Anyway, I've addressed both. --truflip99 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SB were you still going to perform a spotcheck? If you could also consider source reliability that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do both as soon as I'm able to (likely over the weekend if my vaccination side effects aren't too bad). SounderBruce 07:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, the vaccine did have a bit of an effect on me.

Spotchecks (per this version): 3, 6, 15, 21, 35, 43, 52, 67, 74, 93, 108, and 113 all match the prose without close paraphrasing. Generally think this is good to go, aside from the issues I raised above. SounderBruce 04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SounderBruce, I've addressed all of these. Glad the vaccine ultimately went okay for you (it took me out as well). --truflip99 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Sources now meet the requirements in the FA criteria. SounderBruce 23:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

Comments soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, an excellent article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to some. Will finish later today. --truflip99 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still some left, sorry this is taking me a minute. Been a tad busy. --truflip99 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Take your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I believe I have addressed all of your points. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article! --truflip99 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good for me. To be honest I struggled to find much I didn't like about it first time round and now my minor issues have been addressed I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I think I've garnered everyone's support. May we move forward? --truflip99 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that TRM's review is complete, I think so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2021 [39].

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the single most valuable association football match in the world. It's out for a second trip to FAC, first time round it gained nine supports but there were some subjective issues over understandability of some of the prose. That kind of objection seems to have levelled off lately and common sense has somewhat prevailed on a good balance between being made to explain everything and using linking to help with such matters. As always, I'm more than happy to address any constructive criticism which will improve the article The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The terms leg and aggregate are blue linked, but could you be more descriptive on first instance. eg, I found this confusing until Andy Walker made it 2–2. With the scores level at 3–3 on aggregate at full time.
  • The lead is very stats and process heavy; can we minimise this as far as possible and give more to the flow of game itself
  • firm header - firm?
  • Sheffield United's opposition in the semi-finals was Ipswich Town. - played against Ipswich Town in the...
  • went ahead in the 40th minute through Jan Åge - "The home side's Jan Åge scored in the"..."went ahead" is a bit jargony, and "through" could be "when Jan Åge scored"
  • The image in the infobox is at a reduced size and puny.

Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about File:The old Wembley Stadium (cropped).jpg Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • last thing. Should the CRY V SHU Play Off Final 1997, 01:12:52 refs be combined into one; for eg we don't notarize on-line magazines into line 5, line 15, line 20. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that's counter intutative and could be made clearer in the text. Ceoil (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was he send off for - altercation seems very vague am left thinking thinking anything from kicking heads to pinching bottoms...kicked the feet from under / fouled ina nother way? I'm sure the commentators were not too dainty to say. Ceoil (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...pass into the box went across the faces picked up by Dyer, who under challenge from Carl Tiler went across the face of Sheffield United's goal and out for a throw-in. Can you rephrase "under challenge from" and "went across the face of" Ceoil (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil cheers for the support and the additional comments. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to note, all my points addressed. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
ChrisTheDude addressed other than where I've commented. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

@WP:FAC coordinators: since this nomination has four supports, can I nominate another please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, it looks to be ticking along nicely, but I would want to see a source review pass before allowing a second nomination. We would also want to see the nomination open for a decent period, to give an opportunity for all reviewers to notice and potentially comment on it. Three weeks is the rule of thumb, but there is some flexibility in this. (Eg see [40] and [41].) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source review and image review took place in the previous nomination and nothing not much has changed. Obviously there's no need to revisit that or wait for some arbitrary time period when this is now holding more support than is normally required for a promotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another source review on the additional refs passed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: Six supports and an updated source review now passed. Can you let me know, if not now, then when I can nominate another FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: any clues? I am somewhat on top of this.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2021 [43].

The 1975 (2019 song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One might expect The 1975's fourth song titled "The 1975" to be a difficult search term, but unlike the other three—which are about... um, oral sex—this one has the keyword "Greta Thunberg", who delivers this protest song about climate change. If promoted, this will be the first green plus from the nominated Good Topic Notes on a Conditional Form (for which all credit goes to (CA)Giacobbe) to turn into a gold star. I'm confident that the article is comprehensive and look forward to suggestions for further tweaks and improvements. — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, thanks for taking the time. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now, unless there is a big old issue someone else picks up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

A song named "The 1975" with Great Thunberg?... Oh, it's not about sex. Thank god. Otherwise, I would've sworn the song was about a sex doll of her....... I'm not kidding, that exists.

Great work on 1975 articles. I find they get bloated at points, but they're great nonetheless, although that's for another discussion. This article looks really well put together, as the prose is understandable and most of the sources are reliable. However, I have a few major issues:

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Are you feeling able to either oppose or support this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: All responded to. Thank you for the additional comments. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find fluff anywhere else? You sure you went beyond my examples? 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article again, top to bottom, here and made things as concise as I can without harming readability. — Bilorv (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Missed a ping—what do you think, HumanxAnthro?) — Bilorv (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good effort, but I still feel there are some things that could be improved?
  • Aren't Sean Lang and Laura Snipes' opinions equivalent? It seems like both have the same praise of the band allowing Thunberg to present herself fully without anything distracting it (whether it's through Healy speaking or the music being overpowered). Why state in two sentences their similar opinions? Seems repetitive
  • No, Lang's is about Healy not being egotistical or speaking on a topic he's not got specialist knowledge on. Snapes is about Healy not being sexist or mansplaining. The opinions are related, hence their consecutive placement and the connective, but not the same. I don't feel that fewer words can be used to describe the two opinions without violating synthesis, as none of the points enumerated are the same. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, OK. My apologies, I didn't catch that first. I do think you were trying to suggest Snapes' opinion was related to gender by using the phrase "highlight a woman's voice", but I don't imagine a casual reader getting this at first, especially since Greta was under 18 at the time of the song's release, not exactly a woman, ya know? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 27 July 2019, Consequence of Sound named the song their favourite of the week" As much as it's dumb when people do WP:WHOCARES arguments... Is this really needed? We're presenting the general consensus of all critics, and I don't think a random music blog giving a "song of the week" badge that other blogs do is that significant.
  • Consequence is one of the most significant indie publications worldwide (I gave evidence for this in the source review). It's not a blog and that it named it the song of the week is no less significant than a good proportion of the reception in this section. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Praise" is used five times in the "Critical reception" section.
  • Yep, this is a problem. Now three (no two in the same paragraph). — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the critical reception prose needs a copyedit because it's choppy and occasionally feels like a set of random short sentences. "Insider's Callie Ahlgrim lauded that "the effect is exquisite"" "Horner found the track inspiring and "brutally, rebelliously stark"." "Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine and The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack found it stirring". "At the Reading and Leeds Festivals, the song was followed by "Love It If We Made It". Adam White of The Independent found this continuation to bring "greater potency" to "The 1975".[60]"
  • "Matt Collar of AllMusic reviewed the song as a heartfelt start to the album." This is not an opinion on the song, it's a tone description. Plus, "reviewed [song] as heartfelt" just sounds awkward.

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I've addressed each point in turn. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work on a song article given the sources you had to work with. I've seen, even in reputable HQ sources, opinions of pop songs getting covered in very simplistic, non-analytical terms, so I understand if the only opinions to present in critical reception of pop songs like this aren't too substantial. I think the prose does the best job it could in presenting that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would think that either option would be appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, done a mixture in the end depending on what I think worked best. — Bilorv (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is the best way to address this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, but the FAC instructions discourage the use of the done graphic as it could "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives". Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "produced under" sounds better so that works with me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The separation of the citations behind each of the publications solves this problem for me at least so I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IABot can be quite temperamental at times so I understand that lol. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments are helpful. I have focused on the prose and will leave the sources, images, and media to other editors. Once everything is addressed, I will support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, absolutely they're helpful. One clarification requested and the rest I've made an attempt at addressing. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for address everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, enjoy your weekend too. :) — Bilorv (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Giacobbe[edit]

Great work on this article. It's a great read, informative, and meets all the FA criteria. I can't think of any issues that haven't already been addressed by the above posters, so it's a support from me! Giacobbe talk 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, (CA)Giacobbe, I appreciate it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tom[edit]

After reading the article several times, I think that the prose looks great, the references are very well organized, and the media is appropriately used throughout the article. The only thing I think is a little bit redundant and not directly related to the article itself, is the first paragraph of the 'Background and recording' section. It seems to be more appropriate for the album article. Nevertheless, I will Support, and leave the decision of removing or not removing the section to the nominator. — Tom(T2ME) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the second person to raise this, consider it done. However, I have moved the sentence saying it's the opening track of Notes on a Conditional Form to "Release and promotion" as I think it wouldn't make sense without it. Let me know if you think this change introduces any problems or confusion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I think the article is in great shape now. Congrats! This most definitely deserves the golden star. :) — Tom(T2ME) 12:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Not all images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the Spotify link with a magazine that uses the exact cover art (at a higher resolution than we do) and a permanent archive link. Not sure where the ALT text is missing—don't think the audio needs one (though it does have captions). — Bilorv (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is missing from File:The 1975 - The 1975 (2019 song).jpg. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: the current alt text for that image reads, Song cover: horizontal and vertical text reading The 1975 and Notes on a Conditional Form., no? As seen here. — Bilorv (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • I see nothing from the attributed ref supporting "the band had previously criticised their perceived convention of guest appearances in music being primarily intended to improve chart positioning", which sounds like a rather contentious claim.
    • Yep, that's because I'm getting confused between the two main Guardian sources used. It comes from this one: The 1975 have never done a feature before, and have criticised it as a shameless grab for chart positions. Now cited. Went through all the instances of Guardian sources and fixed one more case where I cited the wrong one.
  • "humankind is failing to solve the problem"..... I feel humans are would be a better choice of words
  • Don't try to hide how "Daily" is part of the name for The Daily Telegraph
  • "David T.C. Davies" should have a space between the initials
  • Two reviews alone doesn't seem like much to support the "A number of critics" portion of "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song"
    • This is meant to be a "topic clause", so to speak, so that the four references and quotes following—Gigwise, Elle, Atwood and The Big Issue—are evidence of the statement. There were other reviews which said a similar thing but I didn't want to ref bomb and I don't usually reference the statements which just summarise what is to follow. But if it's confusing, maybe I could add a note at this point with the references, "Critics who found it emotional include ...". — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the "stirring" bit is supposed to mean in this context, but I couldn't find Mitch Mosk here at all, only Malcolm Jack.
    • Just the literal meaning of the word "stirring"—that it brought about strong feelings—as both of the critics used that word. It's just missing the Atwood cite inline (the source is used elsewhere in the article), which I've added. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's looking pretty good, just needs some adjustments to be FA-worthy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied/fixed these. Let me know if any of them can be improved further. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the "felt emotional" bit, and this is now something I can support for FA following its improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Two fixes and two replies—thanks for your review. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced about that source, but am not opposing over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Yes, I had thoughts the first tie you pinged, and they haven't changed since. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2021 [44].

2021 Masters (snooker)[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the latest Masters championship from January this year. 20 year old Yan Bingtao won the event on his debut appearance. The Masters invites the 16 best snooker players in the world for a single-elimination bracket. I've spent a bit of time on this article, and gone through GAN earlier this year. Let me know what you think of the article. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Kickstarting this FAC with an assessment of its images:

Might come back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll put something on there (pictured) to show who is who. I don't feel that moving items to the left arbitrarily makes the article easier to read, personally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, MOS:IMAGELOCATION says It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. On another note, the caption for the Ronnie O'Sullivan picture still is ambiguous since two people are shown within it. You can use "(left)" and "(right)" to distinguish them from one another. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that also says that they should mostly be on the right. As much as having all of the images look at the text, I don't think this is particularly warranted; although happy to discuss. I have fixed the O'Sullivan image Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I may claim WikiCup points, if I consider my review to be substantial enough. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gog the Mild I'm happy that the article is a suitable length, with an appropriate range of sources, is well-structured, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable. I would like a view on the "subsidiary of" issue from others, and have a few more points, none fundamental. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

As promised.

Looks good. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Forthcoming, reserving a spot here. Epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I know it's only been three days, just wanted to check this one hadn't slipped your mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry about that. It did indeed slip my mind, since I recently had a midterm, but since I'm done with that now, I can take a look in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Sure, but there is a link just above this for the pandemic in the UK. Happy to add, but I'd rather we linked it the other way around -> COVID-19 -> Pandemic. If we linked COVID below, it's almost as if we had already defined it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I didn't see that. Whoops. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The top bit is WP:LEADALT, we could omit the "due to sponsorship", if you wanted but we should list official names in the lede. Having the sponsor higher in the lede would give it too much WP:WEIGHT in my opinion Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I guess the current wording works in that case.
The alternative is Yan won 10-8 to win... Which isn't better. "Completed a victory" is better wording, but if you have anything better let me know. I always assumed it was a WP:LIMITED dealio. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm going to leave this alone for now. I would consider something such as "Yan won his first Triple Crown tournament with a 10-8 victory". Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

Hm, I was clarifying that because he was defending champion, he was seeded first (which is how it works). It used to be that the world champion would be seeded second, and then the world rankings, but that changed a few years back (O'Sullivan is second in the world, seeded third but is the world champion). I have split this into two sentences to avoid run-on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
That works for me. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Done. I'm not a punctuation wizard I'm afraid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First round

Quarter-finals

Semi-finals

Final

@Lee Vilenski: That's it for prose. It looks pretty good to me, and it seems at the level of quality for an FA. On a related note, I was pretty surprised to hear Yan won the Masters at his age, on his debut. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BIG deal! He's unlike the other Chinese players, who are very attacking players, he's much more of a tactician. It looks more and more likely he'll be the first Chinese world champion, but he lost to Murphy at the worlds this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I'm actually interested to see where his career path takes him, since Yan is only a little bit younger than me. I'm happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make sure to keep you up to date. ;). He also won the World Cup (snooker) aged 15! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

That's all I have. Whoever did the GA review did a remarkable job... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - I've got a series of supports, but awaiting a source review. Any issues with opening a fresh nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not until it passes a source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to launch your next one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Passed[edit]

Reliability of sources and general queries: Sourcing mostly looks good at a high level. A few questions on specific sources:

Otherwise all look good. I'll look at individual formatting and spot checks after we've discussed the above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Spot checks (numbers pertain to this version):[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) 13 May 2021 [46].

Armenian Genocide denial[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organized, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate". Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the state of Turkey continues to reject the change of genocide against its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, and the ruling Committee of Union and Progress. Perhaps even more reprehensible than claiming that the events never occurred at all, as is typical of Holocaust deniers, it is often claimed that the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians was the "result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population".

I would like to thank Sturmvogel and Twofingered Typist for reviewing and copyediting the article respectively. (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus[edit]

I'll take this one on, though I've got quite a bit on my on- and off-wiki plate, so expect a full review by next Sunday. Thank you for working on such an important topic. For an idea of where I'm coming from: I know of the Armenian Genocide but little of its details, and nothing about its denial. Very interested to know more. I'll read up on it after I read this lead, but apologies if I ask strange—or insensitive—questions. Things I'll pay particular attention to include WP:FRINGE information, dispassionate but accurate WP:NPOV, and broad understandability.

(reviewing moved to talk per SandyGeorgia's advice)

Image review[edit]

I know this is kind of your specialty here at FAC so this might be a sort of image review review on your part ;)

Otherwise looks good. Best wishes, Ovinus (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'll review this in the next day or two, and add some comments. Please ping me if I don't follow up in due course. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see some comments below:
Fair enough, works for me then.
Thanks for checking. Best to leave it then; ideally there would be some clarity, but can only work with what we have.
Good, thanks for checking.
Like I said it was really more an off-hand remark in his book and not really expanded on, so not anything pressing here. Just thought I'd mention it anyways.
Nice, I'm happy to add my support to a well-done article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MaranoFan[edit]

The article is very informative and appears to be well-researched. I will be glad to support once these are addressed.--NØ 12:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to respond to these soon, buidhe?--NØ 06:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback and the ping. I must have too many things on my watchlist, I managed to miss your comment earlier. (t · c) buidhe 12:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got the time to read the remaining sections. Here are the comments:
I stand by my assessment that the article is very informative. I will note that I don't have access to any of the print media used, so I will leave the verification of that to the source reviewer. I do have an FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All About That Bass/archive2 which is also a pretty lengthy article, in case you feel interested to offer any feedback there. Thanks.--NØ 06:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your review! (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the changes made, I support promotion.--NØ 13:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

This doesn't answer the question: your first sentence says what you do; your second notes that another editor also does it. My question is why do you do it? (And referencing Jo-Jo doesn't help your case, I once source reviewed one of their FACs!)
I think it works best with the number of direct quotes required. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly in my personal opinion the splitting of works into three sections and then not even including some could be designed to make life difficult for a reader wishing to confirm a claim. It certainly did for me. However, the FAC criteria give a lot of leeway in this respect, so I will leave it at my personal preference.
Why does what you are using the source for excuse you from the FAC criterion "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"?
I would argue that Akçam is a high quality source as he is probably the single most well known and well regarded historian of the Armenian Genocide. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that this addresses the point. By that logic if Akcam were quoted in a blacklisted periodical notorious for fabricating quotes it would somehow become high quality. However, given who the interviewer is and that he is reporting on a public lecture, I think that we can accept that in this particular case the source is high quality.
The criterion in question does not allow for low quality RSs if the claims are not "extraordinary". (I am not claiming that Akcam CivilNet is low quality, just explaining that it seems - to me - straight forward that the criteria require all sources to be "high-quality".)
Civilnet.am is a well-respected Armenian news outlet and is cited in various academic papers such as [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] so I don't think it makes things up.
Fair enough.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- looking good but for a subject such as this I'd like to see another comprehensive review if possible, Gog how would you feel about doing that on top of your source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gog and TRM, I'll take another look at this soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

If a quotation is an opinion, the MoS requires in line attribution, no matter where in the text it is.
Done
Good point. And yes, I think that would be very helpful.
Added
Thanks for the introduction. "especially really doesn't work. I understand - in general terms - Talat's role in driving the deportations, but there must be plenty of other ways to express your point. "The leaders of the CUP ordered the deportations, with interior minister Talat Pasha, who knew he was sending the Armenians to their deaths, taking a leading role" for example?
OK, reworded according to the suggestion.
Then they weren't Armenian forces, they were Russian forces. A natural reading of the current text would be that forces of the (not yet extant) Armenian state were operating alongside those of Russia.
It's a bit more complicated than that since a lot of the atrocities were committed after the Russian withdrawal following the Russian revolution, not necessarily by the Armenian state but various irregular groups of Armenians that had formerly been part of the Allied forces.
Ah. OK. I missed that.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Optional: Consider mentioning one or two of these to give a reader an idea of what this meant in practice.
OK. I don't personally like it, but I see the dilemma.
This is as far as I have reviewed your responses. I hope to wrap up tomorrow. Various comments from me above. If I have not commented you can assume that I am content with your response and/or explanation. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign relations[edit]
Ho hum. OK, let's IAR.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to read it like that even now you have explained it, bur shall assume that that is just personal differences.

That's it for now. I shall start working through your responses shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses reviewed and a couple commented on. Bar the quotations. Let me read through and see if any jump out for paraphrasing. And yes, I appreciate the relative brevity of most of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations[edit]

On a relatively swift skim, I think that the following could and should be paraphrased. I think that several would be improved, in context, by paraphrasing.

I feel that the quotes could be removed from:

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That all looks good to me. I tried to leave those quotes where I could see that using the original phrasing might add something for a reader. Obviously there are judgement calls on this at the margin. You have done a good job of sorting these out and I am now happy to support. Can I leave you with the thought that "receiving the reply that "the Porte has been forced ..." is not going to mean a lot to most readers. Perhaps 'receiving the reply that the Ottoman government "has been forced ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed that so it will be clearer. (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Support from TRM[edit]

What an excellent article on such a vital topic. Thank you for putting in so much work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent seminal piece of work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 May 2021 [55].

John Richard Clark Hall[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Richard Clark Hall was a barrister who once wrote an article on the recent effects of sanitary legislation. Thankfully, however, that's not why we're here. For when he wasn't doing whatever it is that the principal clerk of the Local Government Board does, Hall, apparently as a project of passion, became one of the preeminent Old English scholars of his time. His translation of Beowulf spent more than five decades as the standard introduction to this epic poem, and his A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary remains in print more than a century after its initial publication.

While every student of classics at Oxford may once have been familiar with what was simply called "Clark Hall", its namesake remains far less known. This article's main accomplishment is in finding the sources that tie together Hall the barrister, with Hall the scholar, with even the Hall who, in a third act shortly before his death, took to a Christian theme, with tracts such as Birth Control and Self-Control—as enlightening, no doubt, as his treatise on sanitary legislation. This article was given a thorough review by Chiswick Chap last year; since then, I've polished the article further, and tracked down some of Hall's more obscure works. There is little more to be said about Hall that is not already said here, which is why I am now nominating it to be a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New English Dictionary Comments

  • "A Town in Ashes" isn't attributed to Tingle in All the Year Round, so I was trying to find a place (that's not an obscure, century-old and out-of-print book held by only seven libraries) to attach his name to it. But you're right, it's a stretch here. I moved it to Drammen. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first page of the source (visible here) says that "I first made [Herbert Tingle's] acquaintance ... when his family came to live in the road in which mine were then residing, on the outskirts of Peckham. ... The road has long since lost its mild air of suburban gentility, and the houses it contains have become 'weekly property'." This suggests, without stating definitively, that Hall's house was "weekend property," so to speak. It's a borderline case though, and I can take it out if you think it's too close to speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem too speculative. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It suggests something of Hall's roots, and presumably he spent some time there. It's not a huge point, but we have so little about his background that we may as well keep it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, just touching base to see if you have further comments, or would be interested in weighing in on the nomination. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Support fromComments by Chiswick Chap[edit]

I reviewed this article to GA in June 2020. Since then the citations have been tidied, and some detail has been added, mainly on his early life; having written Translating Beowulf, I added a mention and example of that topic. A few small corrections have been made. I have accordingly not much to add to the earlier review, and I think it a fine article deserving of FA status. However, the following little details may be worth a moment's attention.

  • The way I understand it is that "Roman law" is one subject, and "constitutional law and legal history" is a second subject. Indeed, the source puts Hall's studies under the umbrella of "Roman Law and Constitutional Law and Legal History". Meanwhile, other students were placed under the umbrella of "Constitutional Law and Legal History". Perhaps it would be clearer if phrased studied both Roman law, and constitutional law and legal history? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Looks interesting. Here's what strikes me:

  • Done.
  • Those are true to the sources, except for "Ph.D.", which I have now changed to "PhD". Meanwhile, only the Dr./Dr Clark Hall are parts of quotations; I'd be happy to remove the other periods if you think that's better for British English.
Possibly other commenters will weigh in. I'm not certain if usage has changed over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reordered.

That's it. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Good point: expanded. I hadn't included it because Hall certainly isn't notable for it—those three works are quite obscure and hard to find—but given that it has its own section in the article, it should be in the lead also.
  • Done. Looks like there used to be one, but it got taken out with a trim here.
  • (Old version with numbering convention referred to above.) Taking these in turn:
1) Can't argue with you, and I've deleted it (see review above re: A Town in Ashes for how that footnote came to be).
2) There's a link between "the duty of kindness to animals" and the humorous "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Insects".
3) This is about the photo caption, which refers to "Folio 158r"; it is to clarify that "Folio 158r" is so-numbered under one convention, but has a different numbering under a previous convention. The footnote is modelled after that in the featured article Gevninge helmet fragment. Incidentally, Hall published a note on four lines which appear on this folio, which is why it's the folio shown here.
4) This is intended not as trivia, but to place a clarification somewhere so that the two John Hall's don't get confused.
5) Done.
6) I think this is pure footnote material. The privately published pamphlet is very likely to essentially be a short draft of the book published the next year.
7) This actually started off in the text, and was then expanded and put in a footnote (see review above noting "parochial comprehensiveness"). I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't want to elevate a one-paragraph letter to the editor above a 170-page book; such a letter is truly a footnote compared to such a book. On the other hand, it offers some useful tidbits into Hall's thinking on the subject.
  • There's a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • Done, and removed one other. The others are only where full sentences are quoted.
  • This is actually a regional paper called The Guardian, which was published at the same time as The Manchester Guardian. Presumably it stopped publication—and thus freed up the name—before The Manchester Guardian changed it's name to The Guardian. As noted in the good-article nomination, I've done some digging on the regional paper without finding out much more information.
  • My general rule of thumb is to introduce those who don't have Wikipedia articles, but not for those who do. Having an articles 1) implies relevance, and 2) gives an easy way to figure out who the person is, making the introduction less needed.
  • Done.
  • Looking at The Chicago Manual of Style on this point, it says that it is "generally permissible" to silently change capitalization as so (§ 13.7), but that "[i]n some legal writing, close textual analysis or commentary, and other contexts, it is considered obligatory to indicate any change in capitalization by brackets" (§ 13.21). To be fair, Wikipedia is probably a field closer to the former than the latter. Personally, however, I dislike unremarked changes and would never use them. As a compromise here, I've changed it to suggested that by "attempting...
  • Here, I think the alteration—which effectively combines two sentences—is significant enough that it needs the signal which the brackets provide.
  • Although four primary sources are cited, they almost exclusively sit under secondary sources in that section. For example, the information about Hall's marriage comes from this newspaper article; his death and probate information was published in The Scotsman; his son Cecil Hall's information is backed up by three secondary sources (most expressly by this book); and his son Wilfrid Hall's information is courtesy of Who Was Who. The main point of the primary sources is that they substantiate the secondary sources, and provide more information for anyone who wants to click over.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, thanks for the review! Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woops! Slipped off my radar. I'll try and get back tonight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel the footnotes are disproportionate to the length of the article but won't push the point. I do feel that the reference needs to be closer to the quote I pulled out above; end of sentence is usually fine but you have nearly another full sentence after the semicolon so I feel the reference belongs after the semicolon. I won't argue on the square brackets. And last, I feel the people need a short introduction and not just a link per MOS:LINKSTYLE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, HJ Mitchell. Added the introductions, and the citation. Normally I'm being told that I've added too many citations, so this is a nice change. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM[edit]

  • That word was way overused, at any rate. I've changed them accordingly, and where "standard" remains, it is now "standard work". --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a thin space here and for the others. It leads to such fun markup as "[[On Translating Beowulf|On Translating ((nobr|''Beowulf'' ]]")), but seems to work. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do, but I've always been in the habit of citing quotations in leads (after, I believe, being told repeatedly that I should do so). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine some form of court clerk, although I haven't been able to find a source that sheds much light on it; at this point, anything I could add would be speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golcar Hill seems to have been only a part of Golcar (example), but I'm unsure exactly how in relates. In the wake of that ambiguity, I figured I'd link just Golcar. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They all have some information that is available for those who click over. The first two give some personal details about the placement, the third gives the full list of candidates, and the fourth (from four months before the examination) provides background on what the examination actually entailed; it took a bit of digging to track the last one down. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just two: 1) "Roman law", and 2) "Constitutional law and legal history". See the comment above beginning with "The way I understand it" for a fuller discussion of the point. I could add quotation marks around them, if that would make it clearer. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly what I meant, glad you could tell. Hyphen added. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the thrust of that clause as saying just "the edition was Hall's work plus a supplement by someone else," but in any event I've added a description, red link, and cite to a bio, for Meritt. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes, I'm really not sure what I was thinking there. Removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe it or not, this is the third time this has come up. See comment above beginning with "This is actually a regional paper called The Guardian" --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't use it in my own writing, but it's a fun word to quote. "Something that is desired." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mostly transitional wording, but it is also used to relate back to its review of the first edition. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this one, at least, it's in the very title of the work; I'm inclined to let titles stay as they were written. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metrical" might be a shade technical, although I don't think it's jargon; if it is, the link to Metre (poetry) should clear it up. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added some info to the article ("professor of English and fellow Beowulf translator"). --Usernameunique (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article translating Beowulf is largely about the difficulties and challenges of translating the poem, so I think the placement of the link in Hall's article makes sense where it is directly talking about the difficulties of translating Beowulf. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "read it, [but] we are glad" to make it look less ugly. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenated the unhyphenated one. As for the rest, they're consistent; 10-digit or 13-digit ISBNs depending on what's printed on the copyright page. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what the source says: "It so happened that we were all in Switzerland when the late war broke out, and were unable to move or communicate with our friends for more than a fortnight." I'm sure what he meant is that they were unable to move from place to place. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadside is linked to broadside (printing), and while it has a distinct meaning (OED: "A sheet of paper printed on one side only, forming one large page"), it doesn't seem particularly jargoney. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1 is about his death and includes the address, #3 tells us that that address is a nursing home, and #2 is there to provide added information for anyone who clicks over. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The periods are in the source. I think it's probably clear enough, given that the acronym (which is also linked) is in the very next sentence after the full name is given. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the only article I could find discussing the concept. I'm not sure how else to handle it; this article already has a briefer explanation of what comprehensiveness entails. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same work, but the cover of each issue has a different title (Friday; Saturday). The full name of the Saturday issue is The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser, with "and West Yorkshire Advertiser" in smaller font. I imagine it reflects a weekday/weekend difference, where the Huddersfield Chronicle came out daily, but on weekends was combined with the West Yorkshire Advertiser. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Authors' and Journalists' Directory" is probably best described as a chapter, so—even though it's by far the longest in the book—it gets a specific page range. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went through again and added links where I could find them. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have from a first read. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The Rambling Man, I appreciate the review. I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nice piece of work, so I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • You're probably right, and thanks in particular for the useful Atherton reference. This is complicated slightly by Magoun's 1932 review, which claims that "In its new garb the Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is without rival in its field". Perhaps, however, "in its field" is a way of qualifying it against Bosworth-Toller. And in any event, Atherton (writing in 2014) agrees that Bosworth-Toller led the pack until the 1986 Dictionary of Old English. Let me know if you agree with the revisions to this section (namely the first paragraph). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, that's just all I was able to find about his personal life. He apparently found his time trapped in Switzerland worthy of note—it's one of the few things he wrote about himself in his book on Tingle—and apparently it considerably worried Tingle (and perhaps others) at the time. And the letter about the broadside is listed among Hall's works, but I don't think it bears discussion there, for two reasons. First, unlike his other writings, it is Hall soliciting information, not offering it. Second, it's origin—passed down from Hall's Yorkshire ancestors—speaks, albeit marginally, to his background. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. Responses above. Hall probably learned English at the University of London, given his BA followed by MA in English and French from the school. Unfortunately, however, I haven't been able to find out anything about his Ph.D.; in fact, the only evidence of it is his use of "Ph.D." as a post-nominal. But you've inspired me to send an email to a library at the University of London, so perhaps that will shed some more light on it. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles, further responses below. By the way, a librarian at the University of London responded, but was unable to locate records of Hall obtaining a Ph.D. from there; his details are listed on page 323 (324 of the PDF) here, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • It's slightly tangential, but worth noting where Hall's dictionary fit in. Several sources mention both Hall and Sweet, so I've added some information accordingly. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Probably wasting my time here. Comments refer to Old revision of John Richard Clark Hall

  • True that, it can make searching for him difficult (particularly searches for "Clark Hall"). --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 13–16 and 75, the whole work is being cited. Added pages for 106 and 106. 108 is an online source without page numbers. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye7. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good then. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@WP:FAC coordinators: No rush, but just a heads up that all the issues raised in this nomination have been resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [57].

R. A. B. Mynors[edit]

Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(The two week period between nominations was waived by a coordinator.) This article is about the Latinist Roger Mynors who wrote the standard editions of the Latin poets Vergil and Catullus. Though he's mostly known for those books, he did interesting work on manuscripts and catalogued several library collections. What's more, he is unique for having been the senior chair of Latin at both Oxford and Cambridge.

A recent nomination of this article was archived after it emerged that coverage of his publications needed to be expanded. Noswall59 and Llywrch generously helped me rectify these omissions at a peer review. These were the main obstacles at the last FAC and I believe the article is now in good shape. I will be grateful for any suggestions for improvement.

In addition to those above, I'm notifying all who commented on the last nomination: Gerda Arendt, Gen. Quon, Therapyisgood, SandyGeorgia, Caeciliusinhorto, Ergo Sum, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I happily threw in my support last go around, and I still think that it is up to FA standards.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • The commentary was written in retirement and published after his death. So I would say the body is correct. I have adjusted the lead section to better reflect this. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked the sources. They all just say 'he was knighted' without giving a reason. I have removed the unsourcable bit accordingly. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is Gotoff (1991) p. 311. I had forgotten to add Tarrant to the body but I've added him now. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These ISBNs are those under which the books are sold by Oxford University Press today. In his edition of Catullus (1958), which I purchased last year, the year is still given as 1958 and no subsequent editions seem to have been made. I assume they added ISBNs to their older publications once they were introduced. But I am by no means an expert on this. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I haven't heard of this being done - is it possible these were reprints? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They must be; the copy of the Catullus text I own was clearly printed very recently. Does this need to be reflected in the bibliography? Modussiccandi (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Is there a parameter in the "cite book" template? Or what is the best way to do this? My apologies for not pinging you sooner about this. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can use |edition=. Ideally it would be good to figure out the reprint date as well, but if that's not available just the reprint edition statement works. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources are newspaper articles which I consulted via the online database Factiva. No page numbers were given but I presume these articles were printed on one page. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe they don't. I've tried linking Factiva pages in an old version of an article I wrote but was asked to remove them when they turned out to be useless by a GA reviewer. See n. 1, 15, 17, 20 in the version linked. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren't permalinks - if they exist they should be somewhere in the Factiva interface on the pages for the articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks a lot for this. Please see my comment on ISBNs above. You may have a better idea than me about whether it's common practice to retroactively add ISBNs to older books. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil[edit]

Not withstanding Nikki's points above, which seem resolved, spent a very enjoyable half hour reading over this today. The article is impeccably written, the sources are of the first quality, and comparing it as it stands now to when the last nom was closed; am confident that the scholarship has been brought up to date. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ergo Sum[edit]

  • This seems to have crept in by accident. I couldn't resist fixing this right away. I'll attend to the rest later. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, calling him 'a scholar' denotes that he won a scholarship to go to Eton. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. My drive to eradicate 'also' may have gone a bit to far here. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • n. 17 only backs up the fact that she was a medical researcher. The rest of the sentences together with the next one comes from n. 18. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerald Bonner, whom this sentence describes, was a historian of the early church. That's why I chose the general 'Church' over anything more specific. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very fine article. Congratulations. I wholly intend to support, pending the resolution of the above comments. Ergo Sum 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Thank you for a set of really thorough comments! I have done my best to address them. Please don't hesitate to ask if you require more detail on any of my above replies. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite happy to support. Ergo Sum 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noswall59[edit]

As I said in the previous review, this is a very well-written, accessible overview of Mynors' life. It now also covers his contribution to scholarship in detail. I have read Winterbottom's 1993 obituary; I noticed that the article barely mentioned Mynors' edition of Cassiodorus's Institutiones, so I added it to the bibliography and a couple of sentences to the contributions to textual criticism. Otherwise, I'm satisfied that this is essentially comprehensive and further discussion of his textual criticism, if more can be said, belongs in the articles about the texts rather than here.

My final comment is therefore only a suggestion for the nominator. Having reviewed the article one more time, I wondered what they thought about a structural re-jigging as tested in my sandbox: User:Noswall59/sandbox5? I'm suggesting this because, to me, it now seems odd to have the bibliographic/palaeographic and Virgil paragraphs in the legacy section when they seem more at home in the scholarship one. And the mentions of the Festschrift and Balliol exhibition probably belong in the honours section. This is somewhat stylistic, and it doesn't seem to have bothered anyone else, but I actually think it makes more sense... What do you reckon Modussiccandi? There is nothing which makes me oppose this at present but I shall hold off on supporting pending your reply on the structural question. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: Thank you very much for your additions on Cassiodorus; they go way beyond the call of duty. I've also taken over your re-ordering. Since the "Contributions" section is rather long now, I've considered adding sub-headings. All but the last and first paragraphs are on his critical editions, so two sub-sections would only be one paragraph in length. I've added them in for now, do feel free to tinker with them. Be that as it may, I should like to thank you for your sustained interest in the article. I really appreciate your effort. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Modussiccandi. I'm happy with the article now and have gladly switched to support. A top-rate effort and a model for articles on similar scholars (hopefully the first of many!) I've added one further heading in the section, but I'm open to there being no headings or to you/someone else changing this. I've also red-linked W. S. Maguinness. He certainly seems notable enough for an article in the future. Thanks very much for your contribution and for your patience and adaptability! —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Image review[edit]

Only five images:

  1. File:Portrait photograph of Rogers Mynors.jpg Tagged for deletion as missing evidence of permission. Since subject is dead, recommend just adding a template:Non-free use rationale 2 template to the free image and be done with it.
  2. File:Treago-Castle-375001 13a17522-by-Tony-Bailey.jpg CC-by-SA 2.0 licence
  3. File:Cristoforo Majorana - Leaf from Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid - Walters W400118V - Open Reverse.jpg Has OTRS ticket.
  4. File:Beda Petersburgiensis f3v.jpg Published in 746. Copyright expired.
  5. File:Hereford Cathedral Exterior from NW, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg CC-by-3.0 licence.

One issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hawkeye7: Thanks for the image review. I have talked to the copyright owners (Balliol College, Oxford) and they've agreed to upload the image. Apparently they haven't provided enough verification. I'll talk to them again in the hope that they can clean this up. For the time being, I've added the template to the free image. Let me know if any more action is needed. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amitchell125[edit]

Great writing, I agree with all the positive comments given so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Z1720 - pass[edit]

Checked and verified: Bonner 133, Fuchs 89, Gaselee 189, Gotoff 310, 310-11, 311, Johnston, Levine 416, Maguinness 198, Sewter 105, Souter 195, Williams 89, Winterbottom 389, Hamblen 22, 6, 1. I could not access Harrison, Nisbet, and Trappes-Lomax. Below are some notes on other citations:

  • Changed the wording to remove the claim that his edition "was the first since". Modussiccandi (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says " Another engagement of his later years was translating the Letters of Erasmus for Toronto". I think it's common academic parlance to omit the word "press" in statements such as this. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I ctr+f'ed the wrong name. I couldn't verify, "In 1922, Mynors won the Domus exhibition", "In 1945, shortly after moving to Cambridge, he married Lavinia Alington, a medical researcher" (the year), "Most of his work as an editor of Latin texts took place during this second period at Oxford. Working for the Oxford Classical Texts series, he produced critical editions of the complete works of Catullus (1958) and Vergil (1969), and of Pliny the Younger's Epistulae (1963)."
  • 1) The Domus exhibition is mentioned in the first para. on p. 3. 2) year of marriage is now from Nisbet. 3) The source for the editions is now Gotoff p. 311. My placement of these refs was really off... Modussiccandi (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Hamblen 2 verified. 2) can't access Nisbet, but I see the reference has been added. 3) Gotoff 311 verified. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. index: the source says "The provision of an Index Norninum, lacking in Hirtzel, is greatly to be appreciated", index nominum being Latin for "index of personal names". Re. Catullus and Vergil: I replaced this statement with a quotation to a similar effect by Gotoff. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right; it's not in the source. That statement was derived from the publication dates of his books. Do you think this crosses the border to OR? Modussiccandi (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it does, I suggest putting the year of publication instead, or finding a source that says it was his second publication. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for this one. The source talks only about Pears. I have now sourced the dates from Nisbet and the rest from Winterbottom. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this, Z1720. Please see my comments on your observations above. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've addressed your new comments above. Thank you and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check - passed. I have verified all references I had access to, as stated above. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1[edit]

I saw this excellent article a while back and meant to comment then but subsequently overlooked it. You have already garnered a clutch of, well-deserved, Supports and I shall be pleased to add to them. Just a few queries/comments that struck me at the time.

Infobox
  • “Sir R. A. B. Mynors” - this blend of knighthood and initials strikes me as odd. Looking at the Knight Bachelor article, and other examples of Kt. infoboxes, I think the usual form is Sir Roger Aubrey ....
Early life
  • “Mynors was born Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, into a family of gentry in the south-west of England” - there are a couple of things here: first, it’s missing an “in”, between born and Langley Burrell. More critical, I don’t get the “in the south-west of England”. Is this referring to Langley Burrell or to his family? If, as I think, it’s the latter, then I don’t think it’s right. The Mynors were Herefordshire gentry, and Herefordshire isn’t in the south-west. Assuming it is the family that is being referenced, then something like, “Mynors was born in Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, into a family of gentry from the midlands of England/Herefordshire”?
  • “The Mynors family had owned the estate of Treago Castle since the 16th century...” - following on from the above, I’d tweak this a little. First, I think it would help to clarify that Treago is somewhere other than Wiltshire, which amending the previous sentence may do. Second, I think “family” is probably redundant. Last, I think 16th should be 15th. Brooks/Pevsner in the revised Herefordshire Pevsner (2012) gives 1470 as the date of Sir Richard Mynors building Treago. Similarly, the Historic England listing [58], states “been in the hands of the Mynors family since early C15.” Although I see they use “Mynors family”, so you could ignore my earlier comment on this. So something like, “The Mynors had owned the Treago Castle estate, at St Weonards 10 miles south of Hereford, since the 15th century”?
  • “He attended Summer Fields School in Oxford, and from 1916, attended Eton College” - could you replace the second “attended” with something else for variety, for example, “He attended Summer Fields School in Oxford and in 1916 entered Eton College as a scholar?
  • “His precocious interest in Latin literature and its transmission” - it may be that there is no other suitable term but “transmission” gave me pause, and I think it may trouble other lay readers. It is meaning “the ways in which classical texts were circulated and preserved prior to the invention of printing”. We don’t appear to have an article, which would have enabled a bluelink. If there is no other suitable word, I would recommend an explanation, either in the body or by way of a footnote.
Balliol
  • “Hertford (1924), Craven (1924), and Derby (1926) scholarships” - well out of my depth, and certainly go with the source, but is the Craven a Fellowship, rather than a scholarship?
  • “focussed on the poet Vergil” - again, it is certain that classical scholarship has moved on, and Vergil may now be the preferred spelling. I only note that our article has Virgil, with “Vergil” as a redirect.
  • I have a strong preference for Vergil in my work related writing. Since both are accepted within the discipline, I usually take the liberty of going for "Vergil". Modussiccandi (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “his being employed at the Exchange Control Department of Her Majesty's Treasury responsible for the administration of foreign currency exchange” - again, to avoid the duplicate, perhaps “the administration of foreign currency transactions”?
Apologies - have to break off now. Back shortly. KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pembroke College
  • “daughter of his former teacher and Eton headmaster, Alington” - while that may well have been Mynor’s mode of address, I think I’d also give him his forename, Cyril.
Retirement
  • “In addition to more leisurely pursuits, such as arboriculture and stamp collecting, his retirement saw work...” - Here, we disagree on the textual analysis. Aside from arboriculture not being a “leisurely” pursuit, the source describes it as ‘hard labour’, I don’t think it means “stamp collecting” in the “philately” sense. I think he and his wife jokingly called his arboretum, his “stamp collection”. I don’t think the text permits of any other meaning.
  • Well done for spotting a veritable mistake. I never noticed that stamp collection was in inverted commas. I have done away with "leisurely" and changed it to "an intense dedication to arboriculture", I think this is a fair representation of the source (if read correctly). Modussiccandi (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In 1980, the parish set up a fund in Mynors' name to be used on a collection of rare books” Two things. First, what parish? His parish of St Weonards, or the cathedral? And not sure of the meaning of “to be used on”. To buy a collection / preserve, restore it / catalogue it?
Critical editions
  • “Because of his reluctance to emend beyond the transmitted readings” - as with “transmission”, I think “emend” will confuse the lay reader. Here, we do have a redirect Emendation (textual), which takes you to the Process section of Textual criticism. I think this bluelink, perhaps with an explanation?, will assist the general reader. You link it two para.s down, but I’d given it on the first appearance.
  • “he rejected the traditional archaising orthography” - again, would a link, or explanation, or both, assist the reader?
  • I've opted for just a link. In this case, it's really only about an old fashioned way of spelling Latin. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on the Georgics
  • “the commentary fails to engage seriously with contemporary scholarship on the text, such as the tension between optimistic and pessimistic readings” - again, the lay reader, including me, will struggle here, [59]. Is a simple explanation, probably in a footnote, possible?

That’s me done. It’s a superb article. Is it your first FAC? If it is, my hearty congratulations. The prose, research and enthusiasm shine through. Shall be pleased to support when you’ve had an opportunity to consider the above. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much, KJP1, for your comments. They do particularly well to address accessibility issues which tend to be overlooked. I have agreed with most of them. This is indeed my first FAC but I've profited immensely from the many people who, like you, have taken the time to help polish this article. Do let me know if I haven't gone far enough to address your suggestions for improvement. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a great pleasure, and congratulations again on a superb article. Thank you for such a fast turnaround on the comments, which fully address the issues. I’m delighted to Support and look forward to seeing it on the front page. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding infobox image: The copyright holder's permission has been processed by OTRS and the image in the infobox is now free. I've removed the fair-use template recommended by Hawkeye7. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [60].

2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it's been a long long time since I nominated an article for FAC (FLC has been my main hang-out for many years), but after seeing the excellent work done by The Rambling Man with 1987 FA Cup Final, I decided to finally expand this article (which I got to GA in 2008 - heavens, was it really that long ago?) to a (hopefully) FA-worthy state. I have tried to write in a way which non-experts will be able to understand/follow (the use of some footballing terms is by definition unavoidable but hopefully I have kept it simple and avoided real jargon, but the odd bit might have slipped through, so feel free to pull me up on that). All comments will be most welcome and promptly acted upon. Disclaimer: I am a Gillingham fan and was at this game cheering them to victory, but I am confident that everything in the article is handled in a NPOV manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
@Buidhe: - replaced with a free image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

Hi Chris, nice to see you at FAC. This is a few points I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: - all done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, sorry I've been a bit limited for time recently and this slipped off my radar. Yes I'm happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Hi Chris, quite impressive to see you have been contributing to WP since at least 2008. I am happy to review, but I'm afraid it will be in stages and not all at once. From a quick first reading I expect very little to be able to contribute, as I find the text well-written and a pleasure to read.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: all done. Oh, and BTW I have actually been contributing to WP since 2005. I feel old now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a WP reader I say thank you for 16 years of contributions!

But enough with the niceties, on with the show :)

The context in the source is clear. Fine to say Gillingham in article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing example. Thanks for explaining to me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it was just an idea. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, I could not make any significant contributions, just nitpicking. Nice work. Once I have time I will look at the sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all fine. This weekend I will do a source review. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Spot check:

Yes that is the one. It works fine for me now too. Odd. Just noticed though that the dates are not right.

That's it. I'll watch some more of that game on YouTube now. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. To the best of my knowledge this article now meets all criteria for FA, so Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: - thanks for your support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, sorry for not being clear. Yes, it is pass for source review, spot check and prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

Consider this a mostly non-expert review.

That's it for my first readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [61].

Bajadasaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quite spectacular dinosaur, described only recently. I tried hard to make it as accessible as possible, and look forward to comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

Added some ambiguity, let me know if you think we need more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added a paragraph now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new inside it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider this as a high-quality reliable source, because it is obviously a book for children. I wonder what does @Nikkimaria: think about this; can this book be used as a source in Wikipedia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A major problem with these books is that they create a precise estimate, to the meter if not decimeter, for EVERYTHING. This includes isolated teeth, unguals, and the like. I seem to remember that their willingness to tooth-scale sauropods was one of our main reasons for deciding that these books weren't reliable sources (although they've unfortunately taken over much of the dinosaur size page, it seems). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using a children's book as a high-quality source is always going to be questioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gather this is a clear "no". Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took that into account, but there is barely any useful info inside there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta comments[edit]

This is a placeholder; I'll come back for a full review later. Some quick MoS-related comments:

Thanks for taking a look! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • lacking page numbers: Ref#2, #9
  • inconsistency with formatting of author initials; compare “Hallett, M.; Wedel, M.” to “Harris, JD; Dodson, P”
  • are book titles in title case or sentence case?
  • doi missing for Ref #8
  • specify language for Ref #15. Esculenta (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a general clean-up now. Hope I got everything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this; now that everyone else has had a look, I'm finding only small nitpicks: Esculenta (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now switched back to "in top view", as I had originally (and changed per reviewer suggestion), to avoid this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing those out. Done all except for the last; it is not a flagellum. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think we need to restrict ourselves to the peer-reviewed scientific articles when it comes to speculations like this. News articles are generally highly unreliable in such contexts, and this quote does not even make sense and seems to be highly oversimplified at best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the article meets the FA criteria. Esculenta (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Hmm … just removed that part, since I felt that it gets a bit off-topic.
  • Thanks, I generally don't know which terms are easy to understand for native speakers and which are not. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Google Scholar, "site of discovery" has 1.760 hits but "site of the discovery" only 1.100. But maybe that is science jargon? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either could be correct, depending on the rest of the context. Nevertheless, I am surprised at that ratio. Regardless, IMO, skipping the definite article is poor grammar.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, of course! I can't count it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • done.

That was a thoroughly good article and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that – thanks for reading, and the review! All of these are addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point above, but I don't see why that should hold up my support of this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Gog! That minor point is fixed now as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts[edit]

I stopped by to see why this was still on the list and am now kicking myself. The Rambling Man has identified some good points, several of which I read straight past, I assume because I understand them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:

There is obviously room to disagree over what constitutes "unnecessarily", “highly technical”, “appropriate”, “understand” and “sense”. But the general message seems clear.

TRM seems to have done a good job of picking out possible issues re this bit of the MoS; so far as I can see, the unresolved ones are:

There are more ways to skin a cat than putting it in parentheses. So purely as optional suggestions for your consideration I offer:

Here I wonder why an explanation is necessary in the first place. The word "braided" is not needed to understand the general meaning of the sentence, it is just an additional bit of information (specifying the type of river). I fear that a short explanation like this does not do it justice, and people will get a wrong picture into their heads (they have to understand that these are small, very shallow river channels diverging and uniting, not what you think of when you hear the word "river channel"). With your suggestion, we would also introduce an awkward repetition ("river channels" is repeated later in the sentence). To sum up, I would argue that the general reader does not need to understand this term, and those who want to are better served with the designated article on that topic that is linked. But I am also not strictly against adding an explanation, I'm just wondering if it is really the best solution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we add the word "stage" to this and other dinosaur FAs to achieve the opposite: To add a bit more context, indicating that Berriasian and Valanginian are some sort of time intervals. It is supposed to help the general reader. In a technical article, we can just simply omit such words. I am open to remove them, but I'm not quite convinced this would really improve the situation for a general reader (because Berriasian and Valanginian are left without this context). "Epoch", "period", "era" all have different definitions, and using them instead would simply be wrong. We could choose something like "time intervals" instead of "stage", but that seems awkward to me (especially because "Early Cretaceous", which follows, is also a time interval). Please let me know if you feel this word should be removed, but in this case, it could be that TRM will complain about the then unexplained terms "Berriasian" and "Valanginian". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of a term that is not needed to understand the sentence (as I also explained in the discussion with TRM below). Explaining it will suggest to the reader that this is something important that they need to know and remember in order to continue with the rest of the article, when in fact they can just ignore and forget this term. Explanations, therefore, can make reading articles more difficult; this is another reason why I have my personal issues with providing explanations that are not pertinent for the article. But to resolve this issue (and to illustrate my point), I just removed this term completely from the article. This, now, is no longer in-line with other dinosaur FAs and will only work as long as there is only a single specimen, but for now, at least, we got rid of one potentially confusing term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I agree that understanding this term will be important. I took your suggestion, which didn't came to my mind when I first pondered about it while addressing TRM's suggestions, so thanks for this. It might be true that people with a bit more knowledge about the topic might need to think a second to understand what we mean with this unfamiliar circumlocution, but then, again, I agree that our general audience should get priority. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what is, if I may ask, the practical advantage of a footnote over a wiki link? Both require a click. I now tried to solve this issue with a small fix: adding pronuspinax, to demonstrate that it refers to this part of the name. Do you think this makes it reasonably clear already? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clever. Given that the previous sentence starts "The specimen was formally described as a new genus and species, Bajadasaurus pronuspinax" yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But we already explain that it is a bone in the hind part of the lower jaw; what else would the reader need to know? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the unrecused coordinators will make of your not addressing these points, or only addressing some of them, but I am a fan of encyclopedia articles actually explaining their subjects to as broad a range of readers as reasonably possible. Any how, see what you think.Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog, and thanks for your suggestions. Like you, I also aim to explain terms as best as reasonably possible. You made some excellent suggestions I did not think about before, which I implemented. For the others, please see my detailed reasoning below your points. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not really the audience, that would be The Rambling Man. You would seem to have addressed all of the issues they raised, it is now over to them to decide if you have done so to their satisfaction. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, your comment re holotype now being inconsistent with other dino FAs. Ha, you should grumble! In my Featured Topic Crécy campaign, I don't think that any two are wholly consistent: the joys of having a different set of FAC reviewers each time. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • Changed to "extending from the neck" to give the hint, does that make it better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "Bajadasaurus sported elongated pairs of spines running along the nape, extending as far as 58 cm (1 ft 11 in) towards the head of the animal"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The foremost side", or "anterior". I thought "front" would be more accessible than "anterior". Is there another alternative? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. (I think that I was thinking that, but forgot to ask.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeling strongly about this. But newer is not necessarily better, and in this case, the 2020 paper includes some controversial taxa that influence the topology of the cladogram as a whole, but not everybody agrees that they belong within the group in the first place. I thought it might be nice to have the cladogram of the original description. But ok, will replace it later. And many thanks for the reviews, will get to those comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Dunkleosteus77, but I was asking an open question, not trying to hint that you had made the wrong choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both cladograms could be shown side by side, like in Elasmosaurus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added the second cladogram now. Unfortunately that will not last long, a new one may appear each year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about inches, but I just relied on the conversion template here (I didn't even specify inches, it prefers this unit, and converts to feet only at larger values). I think this issue should be fixed in the template directly if we want to have any consistency between articles. I refrain from changing it manually because it would be inconsistent to other articles that use the template. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistency among template inputs is not important, their primary purpose is accessibility, and 4 ft is more digestible than 48 inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the general rule we follow, I think we need to change the template accordingly, rather than fixing individual articles manually. I personally don't see any problem with using inches here, and if converting to feet gives me something like "19 ft 9 in" I really dislike it as it adds (in my eyes) unnecessary clutter. And I do feel that consistency between articles is very important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I switched to "58 cm (1.90 ft)" now instead of the mixed units (for which I don't even know how to tell the template to use them), is this acceptable as well? Another option would be to remove the conversion entirely, as it is not required for scientific articles according to WP:MOS. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all Americans can't understand metric system, me included. If you leave it as just 58 cm, then I don't know what you're saying. Also ft in is more understandable than decimal ft. It doesn't look cluttered to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you can certainly understand my annoyance and ignorance of a foreign unit system as well! Since we have only one such conversion in the article, I now think I could live with providing mixed units. However, after studying the template documentation for some time, I am not even sure the templates supports such a conversion? If you know how to do this, please feel free to change the conversion yourself. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel[edit]

I'm not sure if I'll have time for a comprehensive review, and I'm still getting the hang of FAC reviews, so I don't know how long this section will be. I do know that I added about a paragraph to this article once, but that was awhile ago, and it has been re-written and expanded since, so I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved with the article. Here are a few things that jump out at me:

I did search for it, and searched again today, but nothing about the non-dinosaur fauna appeared. This formation appears to be understudied, and only the dinosaurs got some limited attention so far, and only fossils from the type locality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if sources are lacking, I suppose that, unfortunately, there's not much we can do. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just added "epoch" to indicate to the reader that the Early Cretaceous is a time interval. "Period" would be technically incorrect since the period would be the Cretaceous as a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, perhaps we'll have to change the standard then! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Google Scholar tells me that both forms are in use for family names (I checked with Tyrannosauridae). Native speakers tend to prefer the "the" though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, fixed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add more about the article body over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the history section:

Done.
Good suggestion, done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now linked. I had added those following a reviewer suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get in something on description tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be located before "the pterygoid bones", although that does sound a bit clunky. The problem is, at the moment, "as well as" is being substituted for "and" in a list, something that I'm not sure is possible, and making it seem like the skull roof & braincase could be the pterygoids. Perhaps "The preserved skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, parts of the upper jaws, and the lower jaws, and and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date." might work? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
Linked. They are explained already I hope (saying "bone", and "of the hind part of the lower jaw")
Might be good to specify that the angular is the lower bone, though, and the surangular the upper. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot about this yesterday. Here are some notes on classification:

Corrected.
added.
I intentionally restricted myself to the genera recognized by the two studies discussed. Those two genera have been proposed as Dicraeosaurids by a single study but this does not seem to be widely accepted yet. I'm not sure if it will help the reader to include this detail that is not pertinent to the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, these two taxa are rather tenuous. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this was not indented. Reworded.

And palaeobiology:

Hmm, "soft-part anatomy" is the common term used in the field, and as long as readers can understand it, I would prefer to keep it.
Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They cite an upcoming paper, which has not been published yet. I adjusted the wording slightly, including the word "speculating".
Of course.
Added.
Changed.

Hopefully this is helpful! Palaenvironment will come either later today or tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is! Thanks for those throughout comments so far! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, linked.
Done.
Very good point. I don't think you can directly "date" a unconformity in the first place. I guess those dates were rough estimates. I think it is better to remove that date, and did so. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed.
done.

And that's all from me! It's mostly just issues with links for this section. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, you found a lot of ugly errors. All done now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I forgot about this! My only remaining criticism is that it could be made clear the angular's the upper hind mandibular bone and the surangular is the lower, but other than that, I have no qualms. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Slate Weasel. Having thought about the remaining point, I would prefer to keep the explanation as concise as possible. The situation is actually a bit more complex; the angular overlaps the surangular, so it is not really "the lower" of these bones, it only looks like this in side view. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know. I'll support then. (I've never actually supported an FAC before, so hopefully this is the correct way to do it!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TRM[edit]

Found just one, which I fixed. Note that there are a lot of dublicates just because of the cladograms.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Puh, this would be quite a tedious effort, and after moving sections around we would have to do the same again. In principle, this is something that the wiki software should take care of, if we want it. I usually order them so that the most important (which the reader should look up first) comes first. I find this more practical than the alphabetical order, whose benefits seem to be limited to aesthetics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any initials that are separated by spaces, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, G. S. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I could miss that. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Reading through now, please feel free to revert and discuss any copyedits. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The plaster is indeed applied before extraction. You first dig around the block to separate it from surrounding rock as best as possible, and then you apply plaster to the top and sides of the block. When it is hard, the block can be heaved up (and separated from the basement) with heavy equipment, and the plaster will make sure it won't break apart. I reworded to make this a bit clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I scaled it up. However, I would argue that with default thumb size, images in Wikipedia are almost never legible, you always have to click to read something (the other images in this article included). Splitting them up, maybe yes, but then they will take more space and I'm not sure where to put them! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel very strongly about it; most figures in science articles try to cram a lot into a small space, which is often not ideal for WP. Here, it's not enough of a problem for me to make a deal of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried that without "locality" it will be confused with the rock unit "Bajada Colorada Formation", so keeping "locality" improves clarity I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable explanation. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it up, hope it is better know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removed to avoid excessive amounts of glosses; Wiktionary link should do the job. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Top view" is some awkward term we "invented" to avoid the actual technical term, which is "dorsal view". I took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this sentence unclear? I don't see the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I intended to comment on this sentence and then fixed it myself, but neglected to remove this comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because in paleontology, we usually work with genera as the terminal taxa. In dinosaurs, species can rarely differentiated, and are almost always somewhat controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that makes sense; thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually speaking of the halves (plural) of the spine (singular). Reworded now to make that clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added one more introductory sentence to make this clear. The number of genera varies from study to study, and in Gallina's study, its eight genera which they think belong with the group. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that either actually, took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source specifically says this. And Bajadasaurus is indeed more basal in the second cladogram I think, as it is basal to Suuwassea and Lingwulong, unlike in the first cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely a misreading on my part, apologies; I thought I had carefully compared the taxa used in each, but I did not, evidently. This is fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing more to add, but we can shorten of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could look into shortening where possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one sentence for now that could be regarded excessive detail unrelated to Bajadasaurus. I'm reluctant to remove more, because 1) I think the general information helps the reader as it provides background, and 2) a reviewer above requested that I add even more such stuff, which I declined; it appears to me, therefore, that opinions differ here. Let's wait what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Took your wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me; I found this quite interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comprehensive review, and the copy edit (I adjusted a few of your edits, hope this is fine, if not lets discuss). Please let me know if there is anything else to do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support, all my comments have been addressed. Your adjustments look fine. I have one suggestion to consider going forward, about the classification section, but that doesn't preclude a support from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Added to the body now. This is simply a translation of "late Berriasian to Valanginian", for readers unfamiliar with the geological time scale. The official numbers are published in a table [67], which we could cite, of course. However, we would need to cite that same source in literally every paleontology article, and I don't quite see the benefit. Please let me know what you think here; it will be easy for me to add this source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind; now found a direct source and added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, added. Thanks for the source review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll be taking a look. Might claim points for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not explicitly stated in the reliable sources (discounting the children's book mentioned by the first review above). The paper gives dimensions of individual skull bones, but not sure if that helps. Their skull diagram includes a scale bar (we have that figure in the article), but again, deriving an overall skull length measurement from that would already be WP:OR I think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Specified, it is the neural spine at a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, no other article about life forms does this as far as I know. Changing the templates (which then would affect hundreds of articles) is above my ability in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably adult given the fused neurocentral sutures, but not mentioned in the paper, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, it looks okay to me, although I'm very much a nonexpert. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Let me know if there is anything else I can improve. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, 1b seems to be met from a nonexpert's perspective as well. Didn't check for the other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment - @FunkMonk, Esculenta, The Rambling Man, Nikkimaria, and Dunkleosteus77: Anything further to add? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the GA review, so I refrained from doing a full FAC review, but I think the article looks better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crispclear[edit]

I didn't check the sources to see if they were accurately cited or if the article complied with the house style, but it is generally well-written, comprehensible to a lay reader, and seems about as comprehensive as it can be for a few old bones. It does track away to more general theorizing in places but I think that's helpful for context. Crispclear (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

TRM, I don't think your nomination established that technical words need to be explained with plain English dictionary definitions or that unexplained jargon should be avoided. If you didn't withdraw that nom, it could have very well passed without adhering to those "expectations", which would have suggested the opposite is the expectation. Similarly, if you strike your oppose for this article and it passes, it would help establish that the opposite is expected in FAs. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I disagree. The nomination had nine supports and one oppose based on that very issue. One of the coords refused to promote it because of one "actionable" oppose. It was not going to pass, especially when another reviewer came along asking to have terms like "equalise" explained. Funny how that attracted so much attention and the nine supports were completely ignored. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is getting silly. We can't split hairs forever in a single FAC if we think the general standards are inconsistent, or if we have been wronged in another FAC. That is pretty much WP:point. It needs to be a central discussion, not at a specific FAC. But in the end, it's a judgment call, and there will never be one way that everyone will agree on, leaving it up to the individual writers. I don't think we should be too rigid, and my impression is that TRM doesn't either, but feels it must be enforced elsewhere because it was demanded of him in one FAC, so now we're stuck in limbo until that is somehow resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really straightforward: I'm just looking for consistency. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wretchskull[edit]

I have kept an eye on the article since January. I have some concerns about the technicality of the topic, but with all the improvements that it has received, I believe it deserves to be a FA. Excellent job! Wretchskull (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: will this be closed soon? Therapyisgood (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

@Jens Lallensack:Regarding the technical terms that The Rambling Man commented about, perhaps would footnotes like these on Huaynaputina help when you can't explain the concept in-text w/o a long digression? Otherwise, going through WP:WIAFA top-to-bottom:

Thus a slightly conditional support from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Regarding the use of footnotes to address TRM's oppose, I have these thoughts:
  • Footnotes, like links, require a click to access the information. So I wonder if they would fulfill TRM requirements, as he complains about having to click on the link. And because of this reason, footnotes seem redundant unless you print the article out.
  • Footnotes may occasionally be useful, but are not suited to explain every term (which is what is demanded here). The lead of your example (Huaynaputina) has two terms explained with footnotes, but I count more than 10 additional unexplained terms. I think nobody wants a footnote list that might eventually rival the length of the main text of the article. For this reason I consider TRM's oppose simply not actionable (because what he demands is clearly not wanted, not even by himself). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said it a sufficient number of times I think, to be clear enough. I'm looking for consistency across candidates, I see no reason why a highly technical article should be given a free pass when one written in plain English was staunchly opposed to the extent that the nine supports counted for nothing. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This case is probably so exceptional that I'll take the liberty to ping the rest of the coordinators, Ian Rose and Ealdgyth. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking anyone to "admit" anything, I want consistency to be applied to each and every candidate. Simple. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any FA about a highly technical topic that explains all technical terms, as is demanded here. So far with your consistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the very definition of WP:point. "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.
Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.
Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics." FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't understand what you've said really. I noted a bunch of things I didn't understand and felt needed explanation within the article, just as was demanded of a highly non-technical article. I asked for exactly the same thing. I didn't ask for anyone to admit anything. I haven't read the battleship article yet, but if, as we have been required to do, jargon and technical terms needs to be explained within the article, then so be it. We can't just have people enforcing MOS selectively on one type of article and not another. And no, I can't get blocked for opposing a FAC. That's just stupid. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you only started on this crusade after Gog's oppose at this soccer FAC.[70] In that FAC, you said "I'm curious how this approach isn't being applied evenly across all FACs here, but never mind. I won't be adding a glossary of terms for basic English here". So you yourself refused to do the glossing, while complaining it wasn't done elsewhere, and withdrew the nom because you refused to gloss "away goals". Jump a few months forward, and now you're opposing for the exact same thing you withdrew for to prove a WP:point. Interestingly, I see you've nominated the withdrawn FAC again (1997 Football League First Division play-off Final) and "away goal" is still not glossed. So much for "consistency". If I was a total WP:dick, I'd go and oppose your nom right away for that reason alone, but hey, that would be silly and WP:pointy, right? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. You'd be the dick, as you said. By all means disrupt the place, I've got better things to do. And please, I suggest you stop bullying me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is bullying anyone, and I'm not going to oppose. But I'm simply asking for consistency from the guy who wrote "I'm not going to add footnotes for phrases which are wikilinked and are actually plain English" at this own FAC, and still refuses to explain the very term the last debacle revolved around... You very well know I have been cooperative when it came to your demands in the past, so these claims of "bullying" are just preposterous and uncalled for, you must know that. I have absolutely nothing against you or your article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're bullying me. It's clear and overt. Just stop it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I think we need some grown-ups in the room now. Coordinators? FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, someone to stop your incessant bullying. Talk about driving people away, good one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there seems to be a lull now, perhaps we could maintain the cease-fire while I wade through all the commentary above... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting something together, bear with me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your patience... From the top:
  • Do we have consensus to promote? Not as such, as we have a carefully considered oppose, which focusses on terms difficult to comprehend without using links.
  • Is the oppose actionable? Evidently it is in part, as much of it has already been actioned. Most of the remainder though I think is, if not non-actionable, then at least detrimental to the overall readability of the article if actioned. BTW, I note that the arguments against relying on links is that one has to click on them to get to the article in question, then return to the original article, which is disruptive to the reading experience. As someone who generally reads articles on a laptop and has Navigation Popups enabled in Preferences, I find I generally get all I need from hovering over the linked term, which is no disruption; granted, I'm not sure there is such a possibility when reading on a mobile device. Anyway, taking these terms one by one:
    • gracile -- actioned
    • Braided river -- I think based on context and the general term "braided" this should be okay
    • stage -- I don't see that the actual meaning is vital given the context
    • Holotype -- removed
    • phylogenetic analysis -- removed
    • specific name -- I think based on context this should be okay
    • braincase -- I really think this should be okay for most readers
    • prefrontal -- annoying that hovering doesn't take you direct to the link but I think context should do the trick, and if "orbit" is understandable, "prefrontal" shouldn't be so bad
    • flagellicaudatans -- actioned
    • surangular bone -- this just seems to be a particular bone with a particular odd-sounding name; even going to the linked definition doesn't say much more than that, I think context is sufficient here
    • features -- seems clear enough from the text now
  • Moving on to two other phrases that caused issue...
    • "Long bifurcated neural spines were a common feature of the group"... TRM is not the only reviewer concerned by "bifurcated", Gog raised it (and who said TRM and Gog would never agree on anything?!) as did Dunkleosteus, an editor well-versed in dinosaur articles. Jens I think you said you'd tweak this but it doesn't look like it has been unless I missed something. It happens that I know the term even as a non-expert, but only because it's used for some medical instruments I'm familiar with in RL -- I think TRM is justified in finding it a bit much for the lead, and would recommend using Gog's suggestion of "two-pronged" in its place. By all means keep "bifurcated" in the main body (perhaps with "two-pronged" in parentheses), you might also mention it and link it in the specimens image, so people can see what's meant as well.
    • "Cladogram by Gallina and colleagues"... No I wouldn't have a clue what cladogram means on its own either but given it's used as an introduction to a diagram I think it's fine, does it really matter what it actually means when we can see what it is?
  • So where does that leave us? If the "bifurcated" were actioned per above and as I think it should have been based on earlier responses, I would find TRM's oppose to have been dealt with in a reasonable manner and the article be ready for promotion (subject to my usual pre-closure checks on words to watch, duplinks, all paras ending in citations, etc, etc). I don't know if the aforementioned will satisfy TRM who, despite accusations of pointyness, is I think genuinely out for consistency, as evidenced by the fact that he's commented on many articles of late and been prepared to support most for promotion in the end, but at the same time I think FunkMonk is on the money when he suggests we have to move on, apply common sense and avoid being absolutely rigid, whether the subject is biology or sport. I'd expect us to look at TRM's re-nom of the article that kicked this off (pun unintended, honestly), and all other FACs for that matter, in the same light. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, thanks for picking this up. Regarding the issue with "bifurcated": Yes, I did explain it originally, but removed that explanation again when I got a counter from user:Varamonde (their review above) saying that this term should go without explanation. For my part, I am a non-native speaker, and for me, "bifurcated" is much more familiar than "two-pronged" (for which I needed a dictionary). We have many non-native readers, especially when it comes to dinosaur articles. But finally, I'm fine with any solution, and I just don't know what terms may be unfamiliar to native speakers. Note that user:Dunkleosteus was actually not concerned with the term if I understood correctly; he raised a different issue about the same sentence (which I fixed). So I did not have a consensus amongst reviewers I could act on. I now re-added "two-pronged" in brackets, but only in the lead, and hope that this will be acceptable to everybody. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that "surangular bone" is in fact explained by the phrase "In the hind part of the lower jaw". We can't easily get more precise than that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer who first raised the bifurcated issue, I am happy that my suggestion re its appearance in the lead has been adopted. I would prefer a similar treatment in the main body (' "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers'), but do not see this as a fatal flaw and so continue to support promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now added the explanation to the main body as well. I really don't care much about this, just trying to make everybody happy as best as possible. Hoping that we can conclude these discussions now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I also need to add that I didn't understood that TRM was concerned with "bifurcated" in the first place (I thought he was more concerned with "neural spines"). So apologies for not taking this one seriously enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all Jens, I might be wrong about where the main concern was -- I considered "neural spine" too but I think we hear things like "neural pathways" on TV occasionally so I think we could leave that alone, whereas "bifurcated" seems very specialised even though I knew the term myself. Anyway now that you've acted on the suggestions above, I'll try to get on with my final checks soonish. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2021 [71].

Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some have described this as one of, if not the, biggest upset in English "soccer". Top-division Coventry "Sky Blues" City, riding high in the First Division and winners of the oldest soccer football cup in the world just two years before were quite literally humbled by a bunch of "bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks" playing for non-League club Sutton "Amber and Chocolates" United. A hard one for my co-nom (a Cov fan) to swallow but a pleasure for the footballing world who love this kind of "David beats Goliath" story. And it's true too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments and for helping out with the kit! I've tried to address your comments, but of course, please do let me know if anything is unsatisfactory or you spot anything else you'd like to see fixed! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Four weeks in and this nomination shows little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless there is more activity here over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I'll take a look at these comments presently. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I think I've addressed/responded to everything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I hope to have something soon. Epicgenius (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Epicgenius: and I hope you're well. Just wondering if you're likely to have time for a review on this one soon? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I will definitely have a look today. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me, mostly minor stuff. I will note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all your points addressed for now, @Epicgenius:. Thanks again for the review and please let us know of anything else you find!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I have looked and can't find any further substantive issues. I'm happy to support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

Not much I can really complain about and the points above are generally very minor. I reviewed this for GA and since then it's had further improvements at this FAC so I'm happy with the article overall. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack I've only gone and fixed all those up, thanks so much (both for this review and the GAN), much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Modussicandi[edit]

These points are obviously minute. I'm happy to support but let me know what you think about the above. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi thanks very much for your comments, all have been incorporated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Changing to support now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 thanks, I've responded, perhaps you could clarify? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 cheers, done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this has sufficient support and source/image reviews, can I raise another collaborative FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2021 [77].

Lisa Nowak[edit]

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about astronaut Lisa Nowak. As an astronaut, she is noteworthy, and her tabloid history makes her prominent in the public consciousness. Also, Hawkeye7 consistently does excellent work. Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

More later. ~ HAL333 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. :) ~ HAL333 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about that. I'm happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a full review for this, but I have three quick questions about the "In popular culture" section.

Apologies for the drive-by comments. These are just a few questions I had about a specific section. I am glad to see this in the FAC space as it is such a huge part of pop culture and recent history. And I'm a native Floridian so something about reading about NASA-related subjects is oddly nostalgic for me. Anyway, I hope this is somewhat helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise! Short reviews are always welcome! Especially from editors who aren't part of the usual suspects. (They deserve a break,) To address the issues you raised:
  • I originally did have the section in prose. MOS:PROSE: Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain. However, WP:TRIVIA says: This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format but MOS:POPCULT says: If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. In any case, it was changed to a bulletted list by PCPLUM118 with this edit
  • Thank you for the links to the different areas in the Manual of Style. I always enjoy learning more about different areas of Wikipedia, and I appreciate that you took the time to add in the links. I will leave the prose/list part to your judgement. I wanted to ask as it was something that drew my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't finished watching Lucy in the Sky; the Saints game was on. Lucy was disturbing to me, as several of the things presented in the show would have prevented the real-life incident from ever taking place. Like being interviewed by the shrink after a flight. In fact, the last time any of Nowak's class fronted a shrink was for the job interview ten years before. (The film made $55,000 from 37 theatres in its opening weekend, which was described as "terrible".)
  • It is certainly a very odd film and I am honestly quite confused on how the film was trying to handle its connection with Nowak or its tone n general. I was just curious if you think it would be helpful to add a sentence or two to expand on how the film was a loose adaption to provide some context to this. But since the other parts of this section are only one sentence each, it may put undue weight on this one pop culture reference. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short answer to your third point is that other editors thought them worthy of mention. I hate Popular Culture sections, and will ruthlessly purge anything that is not properly referenced. For more commentary on them , see WP:POPCULTURE and xkcd

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough. I think this is a point that still generates a good deal of discussion. Since the citations are from third-party, reliable sources, then I think this part should be okay. Thank you for the explanations for each of my points. That clears it up for me at least, and I think the section should be fine as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article looks good to me. I support the article for promotion as it looks ready to me and HAL's support above also encourages me to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the end but shall have to look at the sources another time. I found the article interesting and easy to read. Well-written and informative. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: a few questions:

Otherwise sources seem ok. I hope to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources spot check: I don't have access to the Fanning and Moore books, so I just picked a few other random ones:

OK. I checked the whole second paragraph in Altercation. All fine. Also checked #77,#104,#120. All ok. Spotcheck passed. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lawrence Khoo[edit]

Nowak is notable as an astronaut, although if she were not, she may have still been as a test pilot or naval officer. These are noteworthy and covered at length in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since all these roles are covered in the lead, I think they should stay. However, I think she's most notable as an astronaut, so I would put that role first. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment I was asked to take a look at this but as the matter appears resolved will not opine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Would you be willing to do a quick review? The review has lots of comments but only one formal support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, all we have is that she works in the private sector. Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LK (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still having problems with the lead sentence. If I understand correctly, "naval flight officer" and "test pilot" were roles she held as United States Navy captain. As written, it implies that those are 3 different careers. Suggest something like "... is an American aeronautical engineer, former NASA astronaut, and United States Navy captain, working as naval flight officer and test pilot." LK (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed different careers. She never actually performed them while she was a captain because she was promoted to that rank after she became an astronaut. Still trying to think of a wording that works. Note that the rank is different from the USAF one. I would have written "US Air Force Capitan" but then we have the problem of three blue links in a row again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I feel she is best described as a "former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain", as those other roles were undertaken as part an parcel of being NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain. The other roles can be expanded on subsequently. Something like "... is a former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain, who worked as aeronautical engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." How's that sound? I think it's best to avoid making it seem like she had 5 different careers. LK (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clumsy, but it may work. Changed as suggested. As long as it is understood that she did have five different careers: naval flight officer, test pilot, astronaut, navy captain and aeronautical engineer, in that order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's correct to say that she had five careers. For example, if a person only ever held one job, such as Professor of Sociology at a public university, but as part of her job, she wrote academic papers, authored books, sat on administrative committees, and lectured classes, one would not say that the person had multiple careers. One should not state that the person was a Professor of Sociology, a writer, an author, an administrator, and a lecturer. See WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on this.
I'd note that for the Nowak article, the article body currently divides her career into two sections, Naval and NASA. Since the lead should reflect the content in the body, I think it's appropriate for the lead sentence to imply that she has had two careers. LK (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is the right place to hash it out, but the current lead sentence is a mess. If I understand the situation correctly, she has only ever had two employers, the US Navy and NASA. The Navy employed her as an aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot. NASA employed her as a flight controller (not notable) and astronaut. She was fired from both jobs, and will not return to those roles. Her post discharge career is not notable, so we needn't mention it in the lead paragraph. The question is, how to accurately reflect that in one sentence. My preference would be for "... is a former NASA astronaut and former US Navy captain, who worked as aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." Alternatively, she can be described as "... a former astronaut, aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot, who was NASA mission specialist and US Navy Captain." This implies that she had four notable careers, and notes the two highest ranks she held. LK (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA did not employ Nowak as a flight controller; it employed her husband as a flight controller. She was only seconded to NASA and remained a naval officer the entire time. The Navy did not employ her as an aerospace engineer; that has been her post-Navy career. It is not notable (ie worthy of an article in its own right) but it is noteworthy, and another editor argued strongly for its inclusion. As noted already, Nowak is not a former aerospace engineer; she is currently one. The Navy employed her as a naval flight officer and then as a test pilot. This is not part an parcel of being a naval officer; few naval officers pursue these career paths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, would it be accurate to state that "Lisa Marie Nowak ... is a aerospace engineer, and former NASA astronaut and US Navy captain. While in the Navy, Nowak worked as naval flight officer and test pilot. ..." Is that correct? I'll edit the article to show you what I mean, feel free to change as necessary. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
US Air Force doesn't need to be linked. In fact, looking at it, the lead is a little overlinked. Per MOS:OVERLINK, words that most English speakers would understand usually should not be linked. LK (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly "captain" is not one of them, so changed to "U.S. Air Force captain" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not applies here. As noted elsewhere on this page, I wrote it in prose with flowing text, and it was rewritten into its current point form by another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be rewritten as prose? Since FA's are held to a higher standard, I believe they should not include sections formatted in a way that MOS advises against. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7: Any response to LK's comment immediately above? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I waited until the issue below was resolved. Rewritten as prose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For BLP privacy reasons, I highly suggest that this article not be added to the today's featured article queue, even if promoted to FA. Since the subject of the article is no longer a public figure, it would not be appropriate to throw the spotlight on her again. LK (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and while attracting a reasonable amount of comment has only one support. I will add it to urgents, but it may be an idea for you to contact those who have commented so far to see if they are able to support promotion, or have further comments or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Perhaps given the limited length of Google previews, and the brief period many of our readers spend here, the opening paragraph should contain some hint of her notoriety for the circumstances that got her sacked as an astronaut, since that is what probably she is best known for. I do not wish it, of course, to overshadow a distinguished career in the service of the United States to that point.
    What do you suggest? Something like "Was dismissed from NASA after an incident in 2007"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing" was the landing televised? I thought what people saw was Armstrong walk on the Moon.
    Hmmm Looks like it was recorded on 16 mm. Changed to "Moon mission". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The STS-121 mission was originally scheduled for March or April 2005, but was postponed to July. During the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery for STS-114 in July 2005, debris had separated from the external tank, which previously had caused the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia." The timeline here feels a little unclear.
    Tweaked the wording a little. The chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was more challenging to operate than the one of the Space Shuttle, since it was larger and had an additional joint.[57]" I might change "of" to "on".
    Changed as suggested. I think I used "of" because it was not always carried. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early police reports claimed that she wore Maximum Absorbency Garments during the trip, but she later denied this.[69][70]" "Claimed" implies disbelief, and we only have Nowak's word. I would suggest "stated".
    Changed as suggested. Disbelief is indeed what I have, although I didn't write it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with concerns expressed about NASA's astronaut selection and screening process and planned 30-month missions to Mars.[88][89]" This is awkwardly phrased.
    Deleted the phrase about Mars to tighten the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Policies at NASA were changed in a variety of ways: flight surgeons would receive additional training in psychiatric evaluation, and although there was an unofficial code of conduct in place, an official "Code of Conduct" would be written up for employees.[94]" I'm rather surprised by this as according to the congressional hearings into the Apollo 15 covers incident, NASA promulgated Standards of Conduct applicable to all employees including astronauts on October 21, 1967.
    Doesn't match the source so rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plastic gloves, contacts, cash, an umbrella, and black sweats." Does contacts mean contact lenses?
    The source says "On 'Flight controller’s Log' note paper, Nowak listed more than two dozen items, such as black sneakers (8-9), plastic gloves, contacts, cash, umbrella and black sweats."
  • "On May 11, 2007, authorities released a surveillance video from the Orlando International Airport terminal purporting to show Nowak waiting for nearly an hour, standing near the baggage claim, then donning a trench coat and later following Shipman after she retrieved her bags.[100]" The underlying source does not say purporting. It identifies Nowak definitely.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nowak retired from the Navy with the rank of commander on September 1, 2011.[123]" I thought she was discharged other-than-honorable?
    Correct. Changed to "She retired from the Navy with an other than honorable discharge and the rank of commander" 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Hi Hawkeye7. "It is up to you to define what the editorial policies are at FAC." In this respect I suspect that you are thinking of FAC criterion 1c, which reads in part "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (emphasis added). It is for reviewers and nominators to agree between them that the FAC criteria are met. I would point you towards the first three reasons for archiving a nomination, which is where it is up to me to do anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added additional sources, the Boston Herald newspaper and Stereogum, which was listed as a reliable source on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#thatgrapejuice.net -and- stereogum.com. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Consensus at the RSN is that the sources are acceptable, although there is the perennial concern that Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content borders on trivia. I already pruned it of passing and insignificant mentions, leaving only works entirely about the subject. You have three choices:
    1. Leave the sources as they are
    2. Accept the additional sources and remove the old ones
    3. Delete the content.
    Your choice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing that discussion, I would suggest deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you intending to also removed Dazed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. Another editor promptly put it back again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lawrencekhoo: Did you have a rationale for why these ought to be considered high-quality sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, I don't think that every single source needs to be of the highest quality. For something like cultural references, I think it's OK to rely on Dazed, as there is no reason to believe that they would incorrectly report on this particular issue. In any case, it can be removed, as the Vice reference is good enough, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. LK (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lawrencekhoo: It's actually part of the FA criteria that the sources used be high-quality. What leads you to believe that Vice meets that standard? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed Vice too, although the WP:RSN felt that it was reliable. I note that you have failed to establish any case that it is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why Vice magazine, with a circulation of nearly a million, subsidiary of Vice Media, with revenue of over a billion a year, should be considered less than reliable. That a magazine covers entertainment news and not "serious" news does not make it unreliable. In any case, commenters at RSN have deemed Vice, and even Dazed reliable. LK (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you again, but given the assurances that any sources which have had their bone fides as high quality (being reliable is, obviously, a given) questioned are no longer used I wonder if you could run your eyes over this again. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM[edit]

There's plenty here to comment on but I'm wary that I'll be wasting my time if the "issue" around the sourcing above has not been resolved satisfactorily. If someone can let me know, I won't put my energy into it if it's about to be closed (just as the Accolade (company) FAC was closed within an hour of me spending a considerable amount of time reviewing it, even though it had already gained the support of a co-ord....) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, support by (recused) coords carry the same weight as any other review, no more. The length of time Accolade had been open with two recent sets of concerns (yours among them) made archiving the appropriate course; your commentary there is not wasted, the nominator can and should take them into account before another try at FAC. In this case I think the outstanding sourcing issue was minor and I've in fact dealt with it myself (unless I'm missing something, Nikki) and I was ready to promote until I saw your placeholder. So comment away here, the nom isn't going away yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found it troubling that someone charged with assessing suitability of nominations supported one which was summarily archived, that was bothersome. In any case, glad to know that (this time) I won't be wasting my time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that while the chances of the article has Buckley's hope being promoted, you won't be wasting your time. I will address any issues you have. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

subsequent mentions as long as it's not ambiguous to whom you refer.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 25 April 2021 (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) 3 May 2021 [78].

Battle of Heraklion[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crete, 1941; a brigade/regimental level combat. Fiercely fought, although ultimately it effected nothing. Both sides achieved/suffered Pyrrhic victories. Recently much expanded by me and put through GAN and ACR. The second Battle of Crete article from me, following on from the recent Battle of Rethymno. All suggestions for improvement gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria, I had completely missed that. Now paraphrased and cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

Gah! One removed.
I have added the Wikilink, but would prefer to keep the more straight forward description, rather than swap it for a less readily understood technical term.
That is a very good point. I have not seen anything, but I shall research it further. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misunderstood the query. The German air raids were more or less continuous from early May to when they overran the airfield. However, I have added, as the very final paragraph, some information on the airfield's role during the rest of the war and its use since.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle and thanks for your comments so far. All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I altered the cite on one of the airport factoids but everything else is good to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99[edit]

I offer my comments as a way to beg you to comment on my FAC c:

truflip99, many thanks for reviewing, although a request on my talk page is frequently sufficient to elicit a review. What is your current FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy reading your military articles anyway. It is MAX Orange Line. Thanks a million! --truflip99 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/Background

Oops. Done.
Fixed.
I had assumed that it would be pretty clear to a reader that it was by the country they had invaded. I have added "by the Greeks", although it looks a little "statement of the bleeding obvious" to me.
Only if one uses serial (aka Oxford) commas. I don't.
Not if the full stop is in the original. See MOS:INOROUT "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material".

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allies

Removed.

Germans

Cus that's how the sources handle it, and because this is the English language Wikipedia. But I can see the logic of reversing it, and will if you think that would read better.
Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, you are doing it correctly. But I'm just really torn on "Operation Mercury". It would seem appropriate to switch just this but I won't get hung up on it.
Why? It means that the cite is then after text which it doesn't support and causes anyone who wants to check the referencing or read more about that snippet to do twice as much work.
Wikipedia:Inline citation, but I see your point
I know. The earlier version was the verb, so I skipped it. Quite happy to link it instead of the noun if you feel that woould be better pracrice.
I have linked parachute assaults to "Airborne assault", so the currently linked "parachute" is the first unlinked mention.
Done.
I beklieve that "rifle" is common enough not to need linking, automatic firearm linked.
Done.

A bit slow to comb through this, promise I'll get there. --truflip99 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99, no worries, there is no rush and your input is much appreciated. Your points so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

I can. Done.
Expanded. At a possible risk of "going into unnecessary detail".
Sorry. I am possibly too close to it, but I really can't see in what way.
... says "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Is there some other part which overrides this?
Good spot. Thanks. Fixed.
Done.
Done.
Ah. The umlaut was removed at the request of an earlier reviewer and I didn't realise that changed the target. Thanks for spotting. Fixed.
OK.
Omitted.
Omitted.
Yes.
I have deliberately used different formulations to bring a bit of variation to the writing.
As above.
Rephrased.

Almost there. --truflip99 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that truflip99. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi truflip99, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, pardon the delay I thought I had already done this. Full support. --truflip99 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm really confused lol. I thought I had completed this one really. I'll keep my support but finish reviewing it now. Unlikely that I'll withdraw it. --truflip99 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda support[edit]

This is a completely new topic for me, but being German, I am curious. I'll skip the lead for now, needing more understanding first.

Background

Because "Luftwaffe" has been adopted into the language, and is considered an ordinary English word. (Like flak, stuka, or Gestapo.) See Wikt:Luftwaffe.

Germans

Moved to the right.
"Führer Directive" is used by nearly all of the sources. Bear in mind that "führer" is also an English word. Eg see Wikt:Führer.

Aftermath

Done.

That's it for now. Will look once more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt, many thanks for looking this over. Your points above all addressed and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses and changes. - The adoption of phrases is something I know from Latin where it's Requiem and Salve Regina, but italic when more unfamiliar. We can't help that it looks inconsistent when two of those appear close together, and it's also subject to change over time. - Right now I'm too tired for saying something useful, but will return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next bits:

Lead

I am unaware of any requirement for this. In fact if this were to be done I would have thought that it would break the policy at MOS:LEAD. I assume that we are discussing MOS:OPEN and/or MOS:FIRST, in which case it seems to me that the first paragraph meets both.

TOC

We may have to agree to disagree on this. The section headers seem to me to meet all of the requirements of MOS:HEAD. Specifically they seem "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". They - to me - accurately and adequately introduce the text they head. Reviewing them they seem fine to me; except for "Evacuation", which I have expanded to "Allied evacuation". Your comment has me puzzled. Perhaps you could indicate a header which you feel is unsatisfactory and suggest a better wording? Thanks.
It wasn't one specific header, but the impression that just from the headers, you couldn't tell the story. But see below. --GA

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those Gerda. Comments on two areas I have never had comments on before. Proof of the value of having not subject experts look at FACs. See what you think of my replies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for no response sooner. I was preoccupied with my FAC, death of a fellow editor (never wrote an obit before, but nobody else began ...) and other missing. I am happy to support, - military language seems just to be shorter than about a composer's who fought other battles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX[edit]

Hi Gog. Since you've reviewed 3 of my GANs and 1 FAC, I will do this one to return some favor.

Thanks AhmadLX, appreciated. (You write good articles.)
I am reluctant to conflate episodes more than three months apart in a single sentence. I have added some waffle to try and smooth over the perceived abruptness, see what you think.
Seems good to me.
Because the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment is a different unit from the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).
Very true. British battalions have unwieldy names. But I have to state the units involved on both sides somewhere, giving full names at first mention. Like many technical articles there are bits where the MoS - and common sense - restricts how digestible one can make some bits. That said, I would be grateful for any ideas as to how to make it less turgid.
I would suggest two things (disregard if you don't like them):
1. and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) → and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)
Good idea. Done.
2. Relegating the stuff inside brackets [(2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle), (2nd Black Watch; 867) etc. ] to footnotes.
I'm not sure that it appropriate to relegate fairly important information to footnotes. Let me think on't - I am aware that my view may be skewed by being relatively used to the convoluted names of British battalions and so the sentence reading more smoothly for me.
I have tried a couple of things: putting the complements in footnotes; pulling them out into a separate, subsequent sentence. Each has pros and cons, but on reflection, to me the present arrangement seems least bad.
Yes. Added. Could you check that it is not getting too repetitive.
Oops. Good spot. Fixed.
I would love to add something like "believing they were German positions". But the sources don't support it. Stating that the pilots were duped would, IMO, be OR. It may seem obvious to you and me, but if a source doesn't support this supposition, I don't see how it can be included. Ah ha, after searching around I have found a source saying the Allies were able "to confuse the pilots", so I have tweaked the sentence.
The cited source in fact says that the Britons fooled the Germans in bombing their own positions (Although I'm not sure if it is regarding this battle or a different one on Crete)
I believe that you are thinking of the Battle of Rethymno, also currently at FAC. The source cited for this incident, at Heraklion, is Beevor, p. 94:

They had learned, like their counterparts at Rethymno, to confuse the pilots of the transport planes and bombers. They laid out captured swastika flags on their positions, stopped shooting and, when the Germans fired green Very lights, they did the same. On a number of occasions, captured recognition strips produced containers with weapons, ammunition, rations and medical supplies. Sets of surgical implements were parachuted, with true German practicality, in containers shaped like coffins to provide a second use. Two outstanding examples of this military manna from heaven were a pair of motor-cycles with side-cars, one dropped to Major Sir Keith Dick-Cunyngham's company of the Black Watch and the other to the Australian battalion on the Charlies. The Australians found themselves so well provided with German weapons that large quantities could be handed over to the less fortunate Greek troops.

It obviously says that Heraklion dudes used captured flags to deceive them. Somewhere else, without naming battle, it also talks about Germans bombing their own boys, but since google version has no page numbers, I'm not sure if it refers to Heraklion or some other battle. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reread Beevor, and the only reference I can find to the Germans bombing their own men is during the Battle of Rethymno, and no mention of it happening during this battle.
Thanks. I suspect someone has been "helpfully" inserting them. Removed.
Done.
Fixed.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AhmadLX, and thanks for that. Good stuff. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Gah! It should have been to page 1. I can only imagine that a cut and paste was interrupted, or something equally silly. It is not as if there are not several thousand RSs from which I could have cited that. *rolly eyes*
I have no idea. I assume that I simply missed a source. It would never have been in Long, his is not that type of history, and I can't find anything in older versions of the article. As it is all uncontroversial, readily referenced stuff, I assume that my eyes just skimmed over it. I have cited it to Gilbert, as RS a general text as one is likely to get, and deleted the Ploiesti bit as duplicating the mention in the next paragraph and being a bit peripheral anyway.
Hitler did say that - but not in FD 28. I am kicking myself for conflating the two. I am a prize idiot. I have made more edits on this article than any other I have worked on and I think that I have gotten far too close to it.
Gog, I need response to this and "and the Ploiești oil fields" before I support. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AhmadLX and apologies for the very long delay. Your concerns above all addressed. Sourcing: I have checked a high proportion of the cites - over half but not all - and not found anything else I am unhappy with. Which is actually irritating, as it strains credibility that you could find several issues in the one section and the rest of the article is fine. With some trepidation I am passing it back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always used to do that, but got comments that FAs being "Wikipedia's very best work" then ISBNs should be presented in a consistent format. (And that cites should be in number order - another pet hate of mine.) Rather than have the discussion every other FAC - and some reviewers feel very strongly about this - it is easier to just pre-emptively standardise them. I even have 'run all articles through the hyphenator' on my pre-GAN checklist these days.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Hi Heartfox, alt text added for all images except for the map of Crete, where I don't feel that alt text would add anything to the caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template does provide an alt parameter; I think it could just be "refer to caption". Heartfox (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, done; although I note that MOS:ALT states "for an image that strictly repeats the information found in nearby text or in a caption ... a blank alt attribute is ideal." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing for me as well because it also says "Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption. Where nearby text in the article performs the same function, it can be |alt=refer to adjacent text."
It also says at the top of the page "However, the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked, which is rarely possible". Given MOS:ALT is not classified as a guideline, I would personally defer to WP:CAPTION which says alt text should be given regardless (unless an image is purely decorative, of which I don't think any image in an article would be anyways... so I don't really know why that's mentioned. Why would an image be in an article if it was only decorative?) Anyways, good luck with the nom! Heartfox (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine[edit]

Claiming my place here. I will, as with Battle of Rethymno FAC, make use of the Hellenic Army History Directorate's Abridged History of the Greco-Italian and Greco-German War 1940–1941 to detect potential gaps. Constantine ✍ 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonald goes with "partisans". I reckon that this blurs into "armed civilians" with a lot of overlap, but I take your point and have changed both mentions.
Unit names amended. Could you please check. I could easily put the calibres in a footnote, but feel that that is getting a bit too detailed for any reader other than aficionados such as us. Let me know if you disagree.
Have made a small addition, see if you like it. On the calibres, agreed, I am happy with 'field guns'. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I have tweaked your tweak - [79].
I am seriously loath to get into this. I don't see it as relevant. Should I also discuss the short comings of the Commonwealth units' training, organisation, equipment, personnel, origins and prior combat experience and performance? Goodness knows that would make a long enough article. Similarly for the Greeks.
Only a minority of the Germans who fought at Heraklion were former policemen. Bräuer had been with the paratroopers for over five years, which seems long enough. To OR, of the four regimental landings his was arguably the most successful; admittedly against a low bar. And, to pluck two names from the air, both Student and Freyberg had immense experience - of the armed forces generally and of combat specifically; but both turned in performances which would have failed a first year military academy test.
I get your point. My only observation would be that while the shortcomings of the British and Greeks are generally acknowledged and discussed (also because they help explain why they were defeated) in English-language literature, the Fallschirmjägers' are not, at least not at the level of unit culture, training, etc. They are considered 'elite' and hence axiomatically competent, even if individual leaders come in for criticism. In this sense it would be a useful corrective, especially since these observations do not come from a historian, but from within the actual internal records of the German army. But I fully understand your reasons for not wanting to go into this. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I can understand that readers may bring preconceptions to the article, but I have carefully avoided describing the fallschirmjägers as elite, special, highly trained or similar.
I have moved some material up a section and added some linking phraseology. See what you think.
Looks good. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
We already have "Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to establish air superiority. The RAF rebased its surviving aircraft to Alexandria after 29 of their 35 Crete-based fighters were destroyed." You feel that this needs expanding?
No, that's enough, I missed that at the first read-through. My only nitpick here would be that bombing =/= air superiority; perhaps something like 'conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to soften up their targets and isolate the island from seaborne reinforcements, as well as to establish air superiority'? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no issue with that if I could find a source which explicitly stated it. Have you got anything. It is obvious, and I suspect that the sources treat it as obvious, but it would be OR without something specific. If nothing leaps out at you I shall re-trawl through my sources.
This is contradicted by English-language sources. Eg Long "For more than an hour the area was ceaselessly bombed and machine-gunned by aircraft which came so low that more than one flew below a strand of barbed wire which the troops had strung tautly between the two [hills]." I could include both PoVs, but given that all sources agree that the attack was militarily ineffective and that that is already covered I am not sure that it would help a reader.
Agreed, it is a minor issue either way. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No other source gives even a regiment by regiment breakdown of German casualties, never mind for individual battalions. How confident are you that those are accurate?
I rather find it surprising that they don't. It is an official military history, using other official military histories, so I'd rate it as reliable. The breakdown is 12 officers and 300 OR killed, 8 officers and 100 OR wounded. Such level of detail must have come from some source, after all. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Official History give a source? I hate to sound sniffy about it, but I must have read 6 or 7 detailed analyses or the German casualties, right down to separating aircrew casualties from the fallschirmjäger, but there is no suggestion that anything is available below division level. Several comment on the remarkably high proportion of killed. It feels a little like cherry picking sources - much as I would love to add that level of detail. Note my second paragraph in Aftermath.
I managed two typos in the one word. Corrected. (Schulz.)
According to my sources, not until later; as the area was thinly populated. For the night of 20/21 I already have " the II/2 Battalion, but this unit had heard that its missing components had been diverted to Maleme and, facing large bands of armed Cretan civilians".
I already have "Schulz, to the west of Heraklion, was out of contact with Bräuer, but could hear heavy firing from the east". Do we need to go into details of things which didn't happen?
Information on the walls added.
Imformation on the 21st was already there, but I have expanded it a little.
Approximately 3,000 German airborne troops were killed during the Battle of Crete. To OR, it seems unlikely that more than 40% of these were at Heraklion and within two days. Especially as both Rethymno and Prison Valley were greater debacles.
I have incorporated most of the other information.
Added.
Added.
The last half sentence is contradicted by other sources. (And by the fact that it didn't happen.) And (ORing) it seems improbable: why throw lifes away attacking a dug in opponent when tanks and artillery are only a few miles away and heading your way?
"On the night of 24/25, the Greek units withdrew to the area of Knossos"; "During the night of 25/26, the 3rd Greek Regiment also withdrew to Archanes." If the 3rd didn't withdraw on the 24/25th, which your first statement would suggest they did, could you clarify which units did withdraw? Thanks.
According to some accounts he didn't tell some of the Commonwealth outposts either.
Do you know where the Greek units were on the 30th? According to MacDonald they were disbursed and acting as a guerrilla force.
Date amended.
Details of the surrender and captivity added.
Were all of these Greek PoWs released by November?
I/1 dropped at Goumes. See the text.
The map matches Beevor. The most recent (1991) detailed source I could find with a decent map. Other maps and English-language text supports the landing area of the II/2 shown.
I am linking the Abridged History's map with my own translations of the unit names ([80]). I am pretty sure the Greek history's map is more accurate, both on the II/2 and the I/1 drop zones. Especially the latter is missing entirely from the map, don't you think that is odd? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re I/1 - no. I could literally give you ten sources without searching which state that it dropped 5 miles away at Gournes, alongside the regimental HQ. Most then go into considerable detail around what it did, capturing a radio station, assembling, being attacked by Creatans, Bräuer peeling off a platoon and force marching it to the airfield, the rest of the battalion marching in through the night and taking 200 casualties to Greek civilians, etc. That the I/1 landed well away from the area on the map is as nailed down as anything in the battle.
I have looked at the map and it it claims that is where the Germans landed it is in contradiction of every other RD on the topic. If it says that was the position it is getting much closer. (My Greek isn't up to that distinction.)
Not in my opinion.
No problem. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have grave doubts as to him being a " high-quality reliable source". I use him once, uncontroversially and redundantly, to indicate that I am aware of the work and have read it and to ward against possible accusations of not having met "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Then stay well away.
I haven't read the book, but suspected as much. In that case I would recommend relegating him to a 'further reading' section, unless the reference is truly crucial and can only be found there. By citing him, you implicitly consider him a RS. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's it. It reads really well, is quite exhaustive (apart from the days after the 21st) and tells the story very engagingly. An excellent piece of work, as usual. Constantine ✍ 19:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Constantine, from an old hand like yourself I appreciate that. I have, I think, addressed all of your points. Disagreeing with you in places, querying in others, but mostly gleefully incorporating the information. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just when I thought we were almost done, I found that I have access via the Vienna University Library, to the English translation of Golla's The German Fallschirmtruppe 1936-41. He is indeed exhaustively detailed. I will pause my responses to you until I've had a look at it, and will be back at it tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Constantine, I was looking to close this but if you have more to add I could hold off a little longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Not an area in which I have any expertise, but just a few minor points you may wish to consider. Otherwise looks great Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In context - that is, following on from the previous sentence - I think that the existing form works best, or, at least, least badly.
This would suggest that it only appeared improvised; the sources state that it was improvised.
Done.
From Truflip99 above '"The assaults were ill-coordinated" -- omit dash'. Perhaps the two of you could reach a consensus on this and on dug in/dug-in? Or I could toss a coin?
The sources don't state. But in the chaos of a night evacuation, and the relief of believing the danger was over, I don't imagine that a secluded compartment was too difficult to find.
@Buidhe: Has Jim cut and pasted the last comment in error? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild This was originally posted to my FAC Armenian Genocide denial—I noted that these comments did not apply to my FAC. So I believe Jim indeed meant to put it here. (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe.
Thanks Jim, much appreciated. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

Please consider this a non-expert prose review.

Done.
Done.
Done.
Moved to end of sentence.
Done.
Comma not added; sentence split, but not where you suggested.
Not done. It is fine as it is.
Your version switches the emphasis, so I prefer to not change this.
Done.

More to come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z1720, much appreciated. Your comments to date all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

IMO it reads fine as it is.
Done.
Done.
IMO it reads fine as it is.
Done.
Oops. Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, good detailed stuff there. All of your comments are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second readthrough

Done.
Oops. Very good point. I have gone with "By 29 April 47,000 Commonwealth troops of the defeated Allied expeditionary force were evacuated from mainland Greece. In the space of a week 27,000 of these arrived on Crete ..." Does that seem clear enough?
It's better, but one more quibble: "defeated Allied expeditionary force" In which campaign were they defeated? This is hinted at in this section, but there's no wikilink or explanation about the Allied defeat in Greece. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a second look, I realised that this was explained in the Background section. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That in turn doesn't quite work for me, but I take you point. I have changed to "The II/1 Battalion was dropped close to the airfield; its men who reached the ground alive..." Feel free to poke at this though.
The semi-colon solves the problem, imo. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the source says, and your suggestion is not necessarily the same as being wiped out. How would you feel about "had ceased to exist as a fighting unit"?
Why was it considered "ceased to exist"? Were they scattered too far away from each other to be considered a fighting unit? Were they too disorganised? Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say. I don't know. I could guess or hypothesise, but that would be OR. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it as-is then. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
It was. But only to a minor extent, cus I am unconvinced of its reliability. A prior reviewer - Constantine, see above - inclined, I think, to agree, and suggested that I not use it to source any of the article but include it in "Further reading" as it is the only book length work dealing solely with the Battle of Heraklion.
My thoughts are, if it is not reliable enough to be used as a source, and it is not a primary document, then I don't think we should be recommending that readers look up this source. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.

Those are all my comments.

Thanks again Z1720, well worth that second read through. Your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720: And addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed. I support based on prose. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2021 [81].

Johnny Owen[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Welsh boxer by the name of Johnny Owen. A shy youngster, he became noted for never drinking, smoking or even dating to focus on his career. He won several national and international bantamweight titles before getting his shot at the WBC world title in 1980. However, the fight ended in tragedy after he was knocked out in the 12th round and never regained consciousness, dying at the age of just 24. I nominated this around six months ago but the review attracted no attention and was subsequently archived. Hopefully another run now will gain some traction. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Licensing looks okay - FOP is fine in the UK (statue image), and since the other image looks to have first been published out of the USA before 1978 and was PD on the URAA date, it's fine. Just need a working source link. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review, I've replaced the link on that image with a working one now. Kosack (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am not an expert in boxing so please consider this a non-expert review. I will complete this in sections due to my time constraints.

Prose review - Lede and Early life

I will pause here and continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review - Amateur career

Professional career

British bantamweight title

I'll pause here. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks, I've carried out nearly all of the points with a couple of minor comments to review. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth bantamweight title

European bantamweight title

Rematch with Rodríguez

Final bout

Death

Fighting style

Legacy

That's the end of my prose review. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've finished up those last points. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yes, I cut and pasted the wrong editor name.Apologies to you both. Z1720? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely forgot about this. I will take a closer look later today. If I don't respond in 24 hours please post a note on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second prose readthrough

Just a few comments:

If I don't respond in 24 hours, please message my talk page. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments above have been addressed. I support this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll comment eventually... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now eventually. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Early life

Amateur

Professional

All done in this section. Kosack (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British

Commonwealth

European

Rematch

Final bout

Death

Fighting style

Legacy

Overall

I intend to support after these comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for taking up the review. I've implemented the majority of the points above with a couple of comments thrown in too. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipate supporting once these are cleared up. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review, I've replied to all of the comments above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability and formatting, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

Takes me to "British bantamweight title" section. Advanced warning, why is the results table in reverse chronological order? I know "that's how it's done on other articles" but MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL is looking for a "good reason". I can't think of a single other sporting BLP or article which presents similar information in reverse order (e.g. international goals, international centuries, Boat Race results etc...) so why is boxing special? More to come on the rest of the article... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Final bout". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, last few remarks:

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2021 [82].

Can't Get You Out of My Head[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a major hit by Kylie Minogue. They say third time is the charm, so let's see how this goes. Huge thanks to Baffle gab1978 for giving the prose an amazing and fresh look! — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility: Add captions to the tables per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, thanks for the review. i added captions. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 21:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I will try to get this within the week. Unfortunately, computer issues have been making editing rather difficult lately, but since I had participated in the first FAC and completely missed the second one, I want to try my best to help. That and I love this song. Please ping me if I have not posted any comments in the next week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thank you! Your feedback is always welcome! :) — Tom(T2ME) 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a quick question. I have done some minor edits to the article while reading through it. Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. Were there any negative reviews for the song? The article only has positive reviews, and while I believe that most critics responded positively to the song, I would be curious if you saw any negative reviews? Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47, actually I could not find any negative reviews haha :) except the one by Jude Rogers of The Quietus, who apparently did not like the orchestral reboot of the song. =) Also, thanks for the c/e, I really appreciate it! — Tom(T2ME) 09:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. It seems like even critics who gave mixed or negative reviews of the album still enjoyed this song. I was just curious about this when reading the article. Apologies for the delay with my review. Computer issues are quite annoying lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is in incredibly shape. As I had said in an above comment, I had participated in the first FAC and I supported it for promotion at the time. I still support for promotion now as my minor comment/question is not enough to hold me back from doing so. I hope to see more Kylie Minogue songs in the FAC space. I remember being instantly hooked by this song and being so impressed by the music video when I first heard and saw them (but as an American, I think I heard and saw both of them at least five years after their releases lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47! I really appreciate your comments and feedback! Hopefully this time we manage to bring the bronze star at the top of the article! PS. I added the information about Grace Jones ;) ! — Tom(T2ME) 17:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I hope that this time is successful as well. You have put a lot of work into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Have you contacted all of the editors who have commented on previous FAC nominations of this? Do you have any favours you can call in?
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild I have asked a couple of users to give their feedback on the FAC. Can you please do me a favor and try to hold this open for some time? Thanks in advance! — Tom(T2ME) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there are a couple of general reviews ongoing. So long as they move along in a reasonably timely fashion the nomination is unlikely to be archived for lack of comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, can I please get an update on the nomination? There are 4 supports and 0 opposes. So I think the future status of this article is pretty clear, I presume at least. — Tom(T2ME) 15:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

  • I don't think I understand your query here?
  • "Gold", not "gold", and "Platinum", not "platinum", etc.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obvious from the name of the lists that is critical inclusion, not commercial. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's optional. "All About that Bass" does not have that either. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline is at MOS:NBSP if you are interested in reading about it. Sure it is optional but it is recommended.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean it would be great to have a name too, but it is a BBC review, so I am pretty sure it is reliable. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been done a lot since the beginning. Did our best. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant to distinguish between her regular disco style and something different she did with The Abbey Road Sessions'.
  • That makes sense. But I still don't see the relevance of mentioning there are 16 tracks on it. This isn't the album's article.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please specify which ones? — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, it was the ARIA Charts one which has been removed now. I will try to read the article again at a later date to catch more.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing this but there is a Grammar issue now, since a sentence abruptly begins with "Calling".--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It received enormous media coverage in the UK back then. So I think it would not hurt anyone if that information stayed. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding two more sources after this sentence will help justify its inclusion, to prove it is not undue.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, 2001, a long time ago. Most of the sources are had to be found on the Internet nowadays. — Tom(T2ME) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is not. She performed this in 2002, and most of the sources from that time are dead. Same with the GMA performance. That's why I am citing the video. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was told to remove that link since MetroLyrics is not really a reliable source. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of efforts have clearly gone into the article. But I do take concern with the prose and there are some questionable sources used. A good source review will do wonders. Good luck.--NØ 13:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan. Thanks for your comments. I did most of them and also left some replies where I thought it was necessary to clarify things. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I will have to give it another read after the source review to see if I have any more comments. Good to see other reviewers will be posting feedback in the meantime.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figure there is no need for me to be nitpicky about the sourcing when someone who specializes in source reviews will take care of that anyway. Here are the final batch of comments before I support!

--NØ 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I now support. My final query, which does not hinder my support, is, why are the tour names being put in quotation marks? This seems to be discouraged by WP:TOURDAB. Everything else looks great!--NØ 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for supporting! Also, I removed the quotation marks. — Tom(T2ME) 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • Done all of the queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Lee Vilenski Could you help me with this (technically)? Honestly, I am not sure how to do it properly (oops!). — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back in the day there were a lot of single releases, and the label heavily promoted the song, so that is why there are a lot of track listings. Btw, resolved the other queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Can we not just cite the release rather than have a link to the product page on Amazon? It's not an RS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only used for a release format (namely downloads for some alternate mixes and a live performance). Amazon actually is fine for non-contentious details like that, distribution dates, and duration. Its customer reviews on the other hand should be avoided. While one is free to replace it with things like iTunes or Spotify, this is some food for thought. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Snuggums pointed out, Amazon is fine for formats and release dates. I don't think there is no need to be replaced with a link from Spotify or iTunes/Apple Music, since they are similar platforms as well. — Tom(T2ME) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

  • Will check them out soon! — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at this before, so hopefully get something up soon.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for the review! — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • From the lead, "notable" from "is notable for its 'la la la' hook" is inappropriate POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • Unlink "obsession" per WP:OVERLINK
  • The term "iconic" from "became an iconic fashion statement" is puffery
  • I don't feel "set lists of various of her concert tours" reads very well. Try "set lists of various concert tours" instead.
  • "has a more-noticeable musical arrangement"..... changed or altered would work better here
  • Much of the first paragraph from "Legacy" (except for the Rolling Stone bit) seems like it's better for critical reception when that seems to focus more on rankings and how much critics liked the song than it does impact, and same goes for awards.
  • Ref#9 and Ref#80 are missing thier release/publication dates (respectively 1 October 2001 and 8 January 2007)
  • Move the 28 December 2002 date from the title in Ref#171 to the "date" parameter
  • Don't italicize "Kylie.com" or News.com.au (which should have an uppercase "N" instead of a lowercase one)
  • While not the worst publication I've come across, I recommend using something stronger than Gigwise for the bit on "A Kylie Christmas".

Get through these (along with changing the caption for one image and using something else for the music video's jumpsuit), and it should be ready to become an FA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, Thanks for your comments! I resolved all of them with the exceptions of the last one. I really could not find a more reliable source than Gigwise to reference her performance of the song at the 'A Kylie Christmas' concert. It seemed to be under-reported honestly. PS. do you like the new MV screenshot? — Tom(T2ME) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! File:Can't Get You Out of My Head MV screenshot.png has much better lighting, so media review passes and I also support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv[edit]

Beginning one now! — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv Thanks a bunch! — Tom(T2ME) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1019520698.
  • Lacking a lot of linking consistency within references: either link the works/publishers on every occurrence, the first occurrence only, or none e.g. M Magazine is not linked on first occurrence but Sound on Sound is. (You might want to choose every occurrence because I think some of the certification templates will always link the publisher with no way to turn it off.) In ref #7, "[[Kylie Minogue|Kylie]].com" is not helpful as it doesn't link to information about the website.
  • "Ten Years Ago On 8Th September 2001" (ref #7) should have "8th" and "on" in lowercase (the latter per MOS:TITLECAPS).
  • Ref #15 should have en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-) between the parts of the title.
  • I don't see how ref #49's statements like ""Can't Get You Out of My Head" would be the first of a slew of Minogue songs that would top the dance charts over the next few years" actually support the claim "It is Minogue's strongest commercial breakthrough in the US, a region where she had previously achieved limited success", nor why it (biography.com) is reliable. Nor do I see ref #50 supporting this claim (it's talking about a potential "break" in the future, not saying one happened).
  • Is it possible to get any more specific on ref #57 – a unique identifier for the episode (e.g. series and number), ideally a timestamp or a link to an official clip from the show with a timestamp? Similar question with refs #70,71,82 (though they give an exact date, which is better).
  • Why is The Guardian (ref #84) marked as subscription required?
  • Ref #85 has the wrong URL (doesn't match the title name).
  • Refs #127,129 (Romanian and South African charts) need a publisher name.
  • Inconsistency in refs #140–142,162 over whether to say "Australian Recording Industry Association" or "ARIA".
  • Spotchecks on 10% of refs: 9, 22, 25, 40, 53, 63, 82, 84, 86, 96, 102, 103, 116, 126, 134, 146, 158, 167. Have to take the 3 liner notes references on good faith, and only issues with the rest are those below:
    • I don't think #40 cites what it's used for (it doesn't mention "Not Such an Innocent Girl"), but the other two refs for that statement do, so I'd recommend just removal of #40.
    • Ref #53(c)'s "... subtly distorting her face but retaining her glamour" sounds a bit close to the original to me: "In doing so, her face subtly distorts, yet remains glamorous." It's specifically the word "subtly", which you could drop or replace and then I think we're off the border line of clopping.
    • Ref #63: "In it, Morley "turned the lonely drive..."" could attribute the quote to Morley, just because I didn't know from reading the sentence whether this was a biographer/critic talking about Morley, or him talking. So just "In it, Morley said he "turned the lonely drive..."".
    • Ref #84: can't see how it (or #85) support the claim, "She also included "Can't Get You Out of My Head" on the Kylie Summer 2015 tour". It doesn't mention the song name in the article.
    • Ref #126 has some cruft in the URL "&q=billboard+january+2002", that highlights the search terms you entered ("billboard january 2002") and can be removed.
Overall, the majority of these issues are about formatting, and the article already has a well-researched reliable bibliography with thorough representation of all major aspects of the topic and few to no factual errors. So once these problems are fixed, I'll be happy to support. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2021 (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