Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Ealdgyth—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article review (FAR) Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Mentoring for FAC Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Disambig links External links Alt text Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Loveday, 1458

Coming back in with the medieval masters, as they say. This time, King Henry VI tries to save the world as we he knew it, drawing together warring factions within his own government. "Did it work? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and 15th-century Britain fell deeper into depression". Not surprising really when he was trying to persuade people to hold hands and make up—literally—while each had a small army at his back! It was really Henry's last throw of the dice when it came to wearing the trousers; after his failed initiative, his wife became all the more powerful and war was right around the corner. Usual stuff. Anyway, if anyone wants to comment or suggest stuff, go ahead and welcome. Cheers everyone, ——SN54129 20:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I will do a little copy editing, then get on with a proper review. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that one, or anything, can be "easily malleable". (Note 1.)
• "and eternal masses were paid for the souls of all who had died" Should that be 'paid for for ... '?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The House of Lords chose the Duke of York—as the King's closest adult relative—to command" "to command" is not, IMO, readily understandable as what you want it to mean. Can I suggest 'as Protector'?
• Note 3: If you are going to use a word like "ecclesiast", could you link it?
• Note 4: "Salisbury's "reckoning" of all the damage caused to his estates during the course of the feud". "the feud", what feud?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bill Kibby

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bill Kibby is the latest in my series on South Australian service personnel awarded the Victoria and George Crosses. He performed three separate actions during the prolonged Second Battle of El Alamein of the WWII North African campaign, the last of which cost him his life. The article has gone through GAN and Milhist ACR, so hopefully most of the rough edges have been filed off. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

NB. It is my intention to claim points for this review for the WikiCup. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

• Any chance of replacing one of the "inspirational"s in the second paragraph of the lead?

• removed one as unnecessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "accompanied him on an occasional sketching trip" Is that one trip, or several?

• clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "after his commander had been killed" I am not sure if "his" → 'its' might not work better.

• quite right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "several times under intense fire. On 30–31 October, the platoon came under intense machine gun and mortar fire." Optional: rplace one of the "intense"s.

• done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Most of them were killed or wounded" If you are going to use "them", the previous sentence needs something like 'the men of the platoon'. Alternatively, 'Most of the members of the platoon were killed or wounded'.

• done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "At one point during the last night". "the last night"? 'his last night'? Or 'the night of 30–31 October'?

• clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And that's all I can find. A fine little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Aegates

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War. It was the battle which decided the war (*spoiler alert*) - the Romans won. Interestingly (I think its interesting) archeological remains have been found on the seabed just where the primary sources said they would be. And recovered and examined. I am indebted to JennyOz, CPA-5 and Buidhe for their sterling efforts in removing so many of my foibles, faults and flaws. It is now, I hope, ready for your examination. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• All images are free, correctly licensed, correctly sourced, and relevant to the article. buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Source checks

• Curry—no issues with the content. However, the article is written by "Andrew Curry".
• Tipps—
  • #4 Quote from source: "Most extant treatments of the battle by ancient authors are disappointingly brief, but an extensive and meticulously detailed account - the most elaborate, indeed, of any naval action of the war - survives intact in the first book of Polybius, our best authority for the First Punic War as a whole." Compare to article: "he is best known for The Histories, written sometime after 167 BC, or about a century after the Battle of the Aegates". I don't see how this supports the article content, although perhaps the other source does.
  • Otherwise no issues
• Dart and Vervaet—no issues

buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Since I did the sources review at ACR, I think this could use some fresh eyes in that area. buidhe 00:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Note—this article is currently undergoing an A-class review. AFAIK, that's allowed though. buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well no, actually -- I realise ACR isn't explicitly listed with PR and GAN in the FAC instructions, but we've traditionally treated simultaneous ACRs the same way, so one will need to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I had a vague recollection of that; but querying MilHist it was suggested otherwise. ACR now closed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Was gonna comment at the ACR but you're here now so what the hell. All in all, looking excellent. Just a few minor quibbles.

• The link on artefact feels like overlinking.

Unlinked.

• Ditto "ramming".

Unlinked.

• The link to Roman navy on "fleet" is an Easter egg.

Unlinked.

• Ditto naval boarding.

I don't see this one. If one clicks on "board enemy ships", why should one be surprised to see an article on naval boarding?

I wouldn't normally expect to see a phrase like that linked, and I guess I expected the link to take me somewhere less "ordinary".

• Ditto crucifixion

Umm. Are we talking at cross purposes here?

Sorry. Should have listed that under "overlinking". I would expect the average reader to know what crucifixion was.

• And "traditional tactic".

Unlinked.

• And Hellenistic-era warships.

Unlinked.

• And "following" (also the link is about sea state, not wind direction).

I don't see why linking "following wind" to following sea creates an Easter egg. Any chance that you could explain that one in simple words for me Harry?

The first sentence of the main article (ie, not the lead) of following sea reads "Sailors use this term synonymously with the points of sail below a beam reach, since the wind direction is generally the same as the sea direction"

I'm not sure the link is necessary, but I won't push it if you want to keep it.

• Rome had recently unified mainland Italy south of the River Arno under its control is a little confusing. You could just insert a "the" before "recently unified", which would make it clearer that the recently unified mainland Italy south of the River Arno is a noun phrase, but I think we could also stand to lose the detail and go with "most of mainland Italy" or similar.

I prefer to keep the detail. How about 'Mainland Italy south of the River Arno had recently been unified under Roman control'?

That works well.

• in the actual battle is probably redundant and I dislike this use of "actual" in formal prose.

I dislike it too, and it's a bit embarrassing that it slipped through. Thanks. Fixed.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harry and many thanks for your time and effort. Your points above all addressed, some with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A few replies above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Didn't leave much time for the cliffhanger before the series continued! Marking my spot, will review soon (if I don't succumb to Corona virus in the meantime). FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The plan is to end the mini-series abruptly and unsatisfactorily; follow up with a sequel; then recap with a director's cut; which will spawn a multitude of spinoff articles of variable quality. "Always leave 'em wanting more."

• Roman legion appears to be duplinked.

Not sure how that got through the duplink highlighter. Thanks. Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment by CPA-5

I won't do a review for now mate. I didn't really support the ARC but most of my comments were addressed though I think there were some points I wanted to talk about or it was about the First Punic War one or another. Anyway I won't do this one, 'cause just heard the news, we'll get a lockdown tomorrow noon and everything's changing rapidly. Even schools are closed since Monday and normally I had a deadline in mid-April at our project (which is after the break and Easter) but they changed it to 25 March which is month lost thanks a lot corona. I won't be that much online until I don't know 26th? Who knows I'd still be online and minor edit here and there but I don't really have time to reply to them. It's really sad because now I barely can visit my dad for like a month or even longer 'cause he has asthma and could be dangerous for his health. :/ Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Spacewar!

Nominator(s): PresN 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The history of video games in many references begins with the first commercial products in 1972, but they're predated by a much more robust game a decade prior: Spacewar!. Appearing out of almost whole cloth, it leapt past prior "tic-tac-toe" or "20 questions" games played by a handful of people as a multiplayer real-time space combat game that led to the first detached controllers and first game tournament. It was the first game known to be played at more than one computer installation, and in fact spread to nearly every possible mainframe installation as the most popular game of the 60s. It directly inspired both of the first two arcade video games, as well as games for years after, and was included as one of the first 10 games of the game canon at the Library of Congress in 2007.

I wrote this article in 2016 as part of a series on the early history of video games, but was stymied from taking it to FAC because one of the major sources was the online research notes of an in-progress book. That 600-page history book finally came out a few months ago, tightening up the sourcing story, so after some additional polishing I'm bringing it to FAC, hopefully as the first of several. Thank you for reviewing! --PresN 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - citations 14 and 17 have different date formatting than the rest. GamerPro64 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• @GamerPro64: Whoops, missed that when I switched them all last night. --PresN 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comments by David Fuchs—I will endeavor to give a full review to this, but initial bits n' bobs:
  • Media:
    • File:Spacewar1.svg links back to File:Spacewar1.png, but the latter could use information from the former (the link clearing it as public domain is dead in the latter.)
    • File:PDP-12 VCF 2001.jpg has a inoperative source link, making it impossible to verify the license.
      • Fixed the first, dropped the second- an internet archive link for the source shows that, while (presumably they) uploaded the image as CC-3.0, the actual website makes no mention of that. --PresN 18:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • References:
    • I'm not entirely sure what referencing scheme is being used in the article, nor when a citation uses a short ref versus full citation info in the "Sources" section. I feel like aggregating the references into a single section and using {{rp}} for the page numbers where necessary might be a more consistent and elegant solution.
      • On the same note, I'm a bit uneasy about the size of the page ranges for some citations; it's not easily verifiable where materials come from if you're giving a dozen or more pages for the content. Splitting references into smaller, discrete page citations would be better.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• The referencing style is "use cite x templates", + "put books in their own section so as not to repeat that information over and over." It's the same as WP:CITESHORT, though I could change it to use last name instead of title if you want. I don't like Rp as it splits the page number away from the work being cited.
• The largest page groupings for books were 9 and 12, which I've now chopped apart; any other "large" page groupings are magazine articles, and the only one that's noticeably long is the Byte source and most of that is printed source code. --PresN 18:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Okay. I'd recommend using the last name versus title since that's more standard for short referencing. You could also create anchors so they link directly to the source being discussed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs: Okay, done. --PresN 13:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Brilliant topic. How have I never heard of this?

• "Ships are destroyed when hit by a torpedo, colliding with the star or colliding with each other." Tense shift? Tricky. Even if it's grammatically accurate (I'm not sure?) it's a little jarring.
• "to being executed in batches" Jargon?
• I've tweaked one sentence to become " These interactive graphical games were created by a community of programmers, many of them students and university employees affiliated with the Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC), led by Alan Kotok, Peter Samson, and Bob Saunders.". The ambiguity is whether the "community" or the TMRC was led by those three - as I've written it, it's the community. Previously, it was (I think) ambiguous.
• I know some people recommend against the use of the word brainstorm. I'm not going to insist on anything...
• "and in some versions there is an increasing probability of the ship exploding with each use" In the lead, it wasn't clear that this was only in some versions.
• I'm surprised that you drop the ! after first mention (excluding the very last!). Is there something in the MOS about this?
• If Expensive Planetarium and Expensive Typewriter are the names of specific pieces of software, shouldn't they be italicised?

That's what jumps out at me from a first read. Double-check my edits! (I'm taking part in the WikiCup.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: See more at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Early history of video games if you're interested!

• Tweaked
• Replaced with "on a schedule", and linked to batch processing
• That's correct, thank you
• Replaced with "pondering"
• Fixed
• I've gotten contradictory opinions on this before; I'm looking through the MOS now, though, and I can't find any guidance regarding punctuation in proper nouns outside of article titles. I'm going to go ahead an switch it to be Spacewar! universally, and see if any reviewers have a different opinion.
• My understanding, per MOS:ITALICTITLE, is that software programs that are not artistic works like a game are not italicized, e.g. Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Word are not italicized, but are capitalized as a proper name.

--PresN 21:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville

Nominator(s): Ruby2010 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I came across the subject of Lady Granville about six years ago, when reading about her very famous mother. I subsequently created her article and brought it to GA status in October 2014, but then forgot about it until last year, when I came across her again in a book about diplomatic wives. I've since almost entirely rewritten the article and have brought it here to you now. I hope you find her as interesting as I have! Ruby2010 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

• "After a difficult labour,[59] their eldest child Susan was born within a year of the wedding." This is a difficult sentence, because it has two temporal adverbial clauses. Perhaps you could split this into two short sentences?
• "With dread, she predicted the long hours and superficiality of social life in France." This sentence doesn't quite work for me. Can it be revisited?
• "Harriet's many letters "gives us remarkable" Singular/plural issue.

That's it - that's all I can see! A really good read. Please double-check my edits. (I'm taking part in the WikiCup.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Josh, thanks very much for taking a look! I made a few edits that hopefully resolve your points. For the final item, I found I slightly misquoted the author's grammar, so thank you for observing something was amiss. If you notice anything else, please post. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free. Despite the lack of freedom of panorama in France, the chateau is old enough to render that question moot. buidhe 03:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Buidhe! Ruby2010 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

BioShock 2: Minerva's Den

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Produced by a small team almost as an afterthought, Minerva's Den has been called one of the greatest video game expansions of all time, and served as a stepping stone to one of the most popular games in the "walking simulator" subgenre. Article recently passed GA and went through a GOCE edit, submitting for y'all's appraisal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I didn't play Minerva's Den, but did play Bioshock 2. Probably my least favourite of the three - though Infinite was one of the best games I ever played.

• " the city's supercomputer, the Thinker ... download a copy of the Thinker" Is The Thinker a computer or software? You can't download a supercomputer. (Can you?)
• "ideas he originated in his hiring interview" Is originated the best word, here?
• Some wikilinks for "free will" and "identity" would be helpful.
• "Both Porter and Wahl wanted to use the Thinker for their own ends" Why past tense? Is this no longer true by the time of the events of the game?
• "suggested the possibility technology from Rapture" I'd put a that there, but I know some people think I overuse the word.
• "Gaynor reasoned Rapture advanced using genetic technology, but the residents of Rapture explored other technological dead ends. Rapture citizens built areas devoted to robotics and automation in Minerva's Den" Again, I'd add a that, but, more importantly, I think these sentences could be better linked. The sentence following this passage, meanwhile, is on a completely different topic. The paragraph feels jumpy.
• "they also adjusted the order" I assume they is the designers, but this isn't clear.
• "In contrast with previous DLC releases for the game, Minerva's Den is the only expansion to offer new single-player experiences." Redundancy. I recommend the sentence is completely rewritten.
• "The game was updated to support Steam achievements, Big Picture mode and controllers. Minerva's Den was free for players who owned BioShock 2 before the patch." What are Steam achievements, Big Picture mode, and controllers? What patch?
• Ok, call it a pet peeve, but I really dislike the way you personify publications. Why attribute a view to The Daily Telegraph when you could attribute it to the particular reviewer? (Another example: "Reviews from GameSpot and Eurogamer". Why reviews when it would be much more natural to write reviewers?)
• "considered the expansion offers" Odd construction - is considered the right word, here?
• "GameSpot's Kevin VanOrd wrote the setup for the expansion is familiar to BioShock players—voices on the radio telling the player where to go—the appeal lies with its "personal nature" and Porter's character." Is this missing a word or two? while the setup?
• "perception of the meaning of make games" ??

Hope that's useful. Please double check my edits. (I'm taking part in the WikiCup.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey J. Thanks for the review. If the article has not convinced you, I'd recommend playing the game, even if you were down on BioShock 2 generally :P

I believe I've addressed most of the above concerns.

• I left Porter and Wahl wanted to use the Thinker as past tense, as Porter's goals have substantially changed and it matches the tense used for the description of Porter's past life. So I think it's the right choice.
• Regarding the personifying publication thing: this has been an issue on many an FAC, and I get conflicting advice constantly; some people like stripping out critic names entirely and just using publications, other people prefer the opposite. In my experience the former is quite common in film criticism, especially. I don't necessarily think either is wrong, in there are tradeoffs (it's easier for people to keep track of publications than names, especially in more dense reception sections, while I generally agree with you that people write reviews for publications, and not the personifications therein.) It's not something I've found useful feedback on in style guides. In this case, I tried to only mention names when they were being outright quoted. I guess I'll leave it open for any other reviewers to chime in on this case? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

These look like good fixes. On the past tense, maybe you could say something like "prior to the events of the game" or "after the Thinker was first created" or "while initially working alongside each other" or something to contextualise when this was the case. On the personification... I realise that there's some disagreement about this, and it's not the hill I want to die on, so I'm not going to make any demands. Happy to see what other reviewers think. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a good sift through Google Books and Google Scholar. To my surprise, I've only really come across one source worth citing. Page 115 of 'Videogames, Identity and Digital Subjectivity has this this nugget: "The Bioshock 2 expansion Minerva's Den, meanwhile, proves that games are capable of nuanced and thoughtful engagements with the history of AI and the questions it raises. An allohistorical narrative incorporating references to information theory, cybernets an the Turing test, Minerva's Den eschews lazy human/machine dichotomies to offer a gratifyingly complex account of how technology, gender, race, education and class factor into notions of 'the human'." (The context is simply that there are examples of AIs in scifi video games worthy of scholarly analysis, even though that's not the focus of the chapter.) Worth citing, I think, just so we have a nod to the scholarly literature, but only if you agree with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added a line using the source you mentioned; I've also swapped around the sentence ordering and added some wording to the above bit about tenses (it flowed a bit more logically regardless to mention Porter's background and then Porter and Wahl rather than digressing.) How's it look now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Minerva's_Den,_Title_Screen.png: FUR needs to be completed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Well that was a dumb oversight... adjusted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ice dance

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Ice dance, a discipline of the sport of figure skating. Ice dance is also one of the least familiar disciplines, so it's important that a high-quality article exists. We have less than two years to improve as many figure skating articles as possible before the 2022 Olympics, the only time many people pay attention to the sport. I believe this article is prepared for a FAC review, so thank you in advance. I look forward to any and all feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Tentative oppose by Buidhe

• The article focuses heavily on rules for the sport, citing the official manual. Passages such as:

  In ice dance, teams can lose one point for every fall by one partner, and two points if both partners fall. If there is an interruption while performing their program, ice dancers can lose one point if it lasts more than 10 seconds but not over 20 seconds. They can lose two points if the interruption lasts 20 seconds but not over 30 seconds, and three points if it lasts 30 seconds but not more than 40 seconds. They can lose five points if the interruption lasts three or more minutes.

  seem too detailed for the general reader. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, it would be better to focus on what secondary sources say about the sport, which includes coverage of rules but maybe not as detailed as you have here.
• I'd like to give you an example of a featured article for a sport to use as a model, but the only one I could find was seriously deficient in terms of the criteria and will probably be delisted soon. buidhe 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Firstly, I disagree that this article focuses too heavily on rules; the "Rules and regulations" section is small compared to the "History" section. I suppose you could classify the "Competition segments" and "Competition elements" sections as being about rules, but I think it can be argued that they're necessary because they describe the sport's make-up and the requirements that ice dancers must follow in competitions. You wanted a sample of another FA; how about Baseball, which is a highly detailed and comprehensive article that also cites the rule books for both Little League and Major League Baseball. Yes, baseball is more well-known than ice dance, but I doubt that most baseball fans are interested in things like the names of the territories of a field. There's plenty in this article that will satisfy the non-initiated figure skating fan, but like other sports articles, the rules should be included in order for it to be comprehensive. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Changsha Kingdom

Nominator(s): Esiymbro (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a vassal kingdom of early Han dynasty China, notably the only one that is not ruled by the imperial clan. Changsha is one of the better known among the kingdoms, but overall, this is perhaps still a relatively overlooked topic in Chinese history. The article has recently passed GA review, and hopefully it is also up to FA standards now.

This is my first FAC nomination but the article's language and style have been much improved thanks to the DYK and GA reviews. I'll try my best to solve any remaining issue. All feedback is welcome! Esiymbro (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

NB, I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

I have done some

• "until Wu Zhu died without an heir." Could we have a date after this. Which will also tell a reader the duration of the kingdom, which ought to be early in a lead.
• Or add to the first sentence ', which existed 203 –157 BC, 157 BC – 9 AD and 26 – 33 AD'
  • Added several dates to the lead, including those of Wu Zhu's death and the second interruption of the kingdom.
• "was then still fertile lowlands" I think "still" is redundant.
  • Done.
• "he organized a mostly Baiyue army to rebel" To rebel against what he organized a mostly Baiyue army to rebel? And/or, to what end?
  • I've provided some background for this period, so that it is now clear that he was against the Qin.
• The infobox map legend. Optional: indicate which is the Changsha Kingdom. Eg 'Changsha Kingdom shown in light green, bottom centre'.
  • Done.
• "The capital was known as Linxiang". "was known as" seems to beg questions? Why not simply 'was'?
  • Indeed, removed the 'known as'.
• "survive the emperor's campaign" Upper case E, as you are referring to a specific emperor, per MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • Done.
• "was forced to rebel" Again this seems to beg a question. Perhaps briefly state why, or change to 'rebelled'?
  • Changed to 'rebelled' – I think its cause will be difficult to explain in one or two sentences, so I left it out.
• "the king of Changsha pretended to assist him" Upper case K.
  • Changed this and some other similar cases.
• "Wu Chen reigned for 8 years" "8" → 'eight', per MOS:NUMERAL. Other, similar, cases also need changing.
  • All changed.
• Link "enfeoffed" - Feoffment.
  • Done.

Looking pretty good so far. Nice work. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Zhao Tuo, King of Nanyue" In another case when you use this formulation ("Ying Bu, king of Huainan") you use a lower case k. There are arguments either way, but you should be consistent.
  • All changed to uppercase now.
• "but subtle differences remained" Remained from what?
  • It's from the imperial government. It is mentioned in the first sentence 'closely followed that of the Han central government', and I edited the following paragraph to make it clearer.

Yes, that works.

• "Citations" Several "p." should be 'pp.'.
  • All corrected.
• Hucker is in the bibliography, but is not cited.
  • This source is used mainly for the translation of Chinese terms, so there is no inline citations yet. How do you think should the citations be added, or should I remove this entry altogether?

• I have boldly moved it to "Further reading". If you don't like this, feel free to revert. Alternatively, you could add a sentence to this section explaining the book's role.

I see, that works well.

• Li Shisheng, Wu and Yi need identifiers.
  • These journals probably don't have DOIs. Will urls be sufficient? I've added the links.

Ho hum. OK, let's leave it for whoever does the source review.

• Loewe and Harper need page numbers.
  • Done.
• "All of the imperial Nine Ministers also" One of "All" or "also" is redundant.
  • Done.
• "Rice was the main staple food" One of "main" or "staple" is redundant.
  • Done.
• "domesticated animals including pigs, cattle, sheep, dogs, and chickens and game animals and fowl including deer, hares, wild geese, Mandarin ducks, wild ducks, bamboo partridges, cranes, doves, magpies, owls, and sparrows." You have "and" three times in that list, which reads a little clumsily. Also, are you sure that deer and hares are types of fowl?
  • Rewritten the sentence, added "game animals" to the list.

Nice.

• "A selection of beers, made from wheat, millet, and rice, was also available." This reads more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia entry. Could you consider rephrasing?
  • Changed 'available' to 'discovered', that probably sounds better.
• Link zither.
  • Done.
• "Science and Technology" section header. Lower case t per MOS:SECTIONCAPS.
  • Done.
• "Ironware had become available for agricultural and military application" What is "had become" alluding to? As opposed to, say, 'was'.
  • Done, changed to 'was'. It seems that was not a totally new development, so 'Ironware was available' will be better.

A cracking article. I enjoyed that. That's it from me for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Many thanks for taking the time to review! I've corrected most of the issues here, and replied to the others. Esiymbro (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I started to say above that I have done a little copy editing, and that you should let me know if you are unhappy with any of my changes. But I only got part way through the sentence. Apologies. I have done a little more, and the same applies.

A fine article. Impressive on first reading and prompt and effective responses to my comments. Are you sure that this is your first FAC? Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Great to hear that :) Esiymbro (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Pierre Le Gros the Younger

Nominator(s): Gerbis (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the French baroque sculptor Pierre Le Gros (1666-1719) who lived and worked in Rome for most of his adult life and became one of the best known sculptors of his day in Europe.

Le Gros has been the object of my studies for more than 30 years (on and off, obviously) and much of this article is based on my own, published and peer reviewed research. I have updated this to include more recent studies by other scholars and have quoted and referenced others in preference to myself where possible. But I have tried to avoid unreliable populist opinions from online sources. While taking them seriously and drilling down into their references (if given), I have found most to be wrong or ultimately based on my own published material.

In parallel, editing this article and cross-referencing it has lead me to numerous small updates of related articles and a couple of complete rewrites, so there was a lot of collateral work involved.

I have been digging deep into wikimedia, flickr and other non-commercial image sites to establish as complete a list of images of Le Gros' work as possible and found many of them - proving that there are other people out there who find his work interesting, not just me. I also uploaded some of my own images which, as it turned out, weren't always the best quality or were copyrighted, so I couldn't upload them. But I tried my best.

The writing style I adopted is factual but, I hope, not too dry and easily digestible. I have also tried to avoid jargon except for some relatively broadly known specialist words but at the same time linked them to other wikipedia articles to clarify what they mean. The translations of quotes from other languages, particularly French, are my own, and I'm happy to listen to suggestions to improve them if they're found wanting.

All in all, I hope you like what I produced... Gerbis (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• How does the gallery used here meet WP:GALLERY?

This is a gallery of works by the article's subject who worked in the field of visual arts. Such arts are nothing if they are not visible. The works are mentioned in the text but the images can't practically follow the text flow, so they are at the end. This approach is equivalent to listing the published books of a writer. To remove the gallery would mean you'd send the reader to a haphazard structure in wikimedia in which all emphasis and chronology will be lost. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size per WP:IMGSIZE

Ok, done. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Pierre_Le_Gros_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag

Done. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• File:Véturie_by_Pierre_Legros_the_Younger,_Tuileries_Garden,_Paris_September_2010.jpg: since France does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original sculpture. Same with File:Triumph_of_Faith_over_Idolatry_Theodon.jpg, File:Religion_Overthrowing_Heresy_and_Hatred_Legros.jpg, File:Clement_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Stanislaus_Kostka_Legros_n1.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_san_tommaso,_entro_nicchia_disegnata_dal_borromini,_02.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_monumento_a_gregorio_XV_e_al_cardinale_ludovico_ludovisi,_1709-1717,_02.jpg, File:Cappella_Antamori.jpg, File:Card._Ludovico_Ludovisi.jpg, File:S._Ignatius_Le_Gros_Gesu_Rome.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_gloria_di_san_luigi_gonzaga,_1697-99,_03.jpg, File:Pius_V_Tomb.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_sepolcro_del_cardinale_girolamo_casanate,_1707_cropped.jpg, File:Duc_de_Bouillon_in_Battle.jpg, File:St_Dominic_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Sant'andrea_al_quirinale,_stanze_del_convento,_cappella_di_san_stanislao_kostka,_statua_del_santo_di_pierre_legros_00.JPG, File:St_Francis_Xavier_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Duc_de_Bouillon.jpg, File:Éléonore_Duchesse_de_Bouillon.jpg, File:San_Pietro_in_Vincoli_-_Tomba_del_Card._Cinzio_Passeri_Aldobrandini_1.jpg, File:Biblioteca_Casanatense_cropped.jpg, File:Heinrich_II_Montecassino.jpg, File:Chiesa_San_Giacomo_in_Augusta_18.jpg, File:Rom,_die_Kirche_San_Giacomo_in_Augusta,_Kapelle,_Bild_1.JPG, File:Bartholomaeus_San_Giovanni_in_Laterano_2006-09-07.jpg, File:Duomo_di_Torino_4.JPG, File:St_Agnese_in_Agone_Rome_interior_06_cropped.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

These are mostly found images on wikimedia. I can't see it being my task to update everybody's uploads. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Only those that you want to use in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Ian

Recusing from coord duties, tks for bringing this article to FAC, but on a quick run-through I have serious concerns:

• A good deal of the article appears unreferenced. At least a dozen paragraphs don't end with citations, which they should, even if citations in the following paragraph cover the last statements in the one preceding. This applies particularly with claims such as During their lifetime however, they were regarded throughout Europe as outstanding figures, valued as exemplary by generations of young artists.
• Spotchecking the language while scanning for citations suggests an essay rather than an encyclopedic article, for example:
  • It is astonishing that one of the first things a first time visitor mentions is that Kostka looks so lifelike when, in fact, the statue couldn't be more artificial.
  • Alas, none of this highly original concept was ever to have any influence on the development of monumental funerary sculpture.
  • While Le Gros was put in his place, he was not down and out.
  • An impartial look shows Le Gros as a driving force in an international environment.

If only one these issues was present I mightn't recommend withdrawal but taken together I think it'd be preferable to work on the article away from FAC and bring it back for another go later. Note that the above is not an exhaustive list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by KJP1

I'm afraid I will have to second the above Oppose, and for mostly the same reasons.

Prose

The article is engagingly written and finely illustrated, but it does read as an essay, rather than an article drawing on reliable secondary sources. Ian gives some examples above, but there are plenty more; e.g.

• "lost his long battle for artistic dominance to a prevailing classicist tendency against which he fought in vain";
• "At the same time, La Teulière could not help being a little proud of his protégé who managed to beat the cream of sculptors in Rome";
• "The sheer panache and virtuosity of this group launched Le Gros' career";
• "Alas, none of this highly original concept was ever to have any influence on the development of monumental funerary sculpture";
• "have now been given their rightful place in the pantheon of artistic geniuses".

Other concerns

• The article is rather cite-lite for an FA, with many paragraphs uncited, as are almost all of the notes;
• I don't know the etiquette for an editor citing their own works, as you have done here extensively. There may well be no issue here, I'm just not sure, but I'd certainly want other views. Two examples, among many: "The importance of Le Gros for European art in the 18th century is, therefore, beyond question.[1]" "All of Le Gros' work is characterised by a dynamic of far and near view. It is worth getting close up to even his most heroic-scale figures"- these statements asserting Le Gros' notability/importance are both cited to your own book;
• The lead is rather too short.

It is a very interesting article, for which many thanks, but stylistically I think it is some way off meeting the FA criteria. KJP1 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On looking back at it, I'm agreeing with your suggestion to withdraw. I think, language got the better of me the longer I worked on this. I will revise when I have the time. Gerbis (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Buidhe

• When citing sources, you have to give the page number or narrow enough range that the information can be verified. Preferably this is one or two pages, certainly not more than ten as I see in some cases.
• Some of the notes are not cited, such as "Both, [sic] composition and flatness are very reminiscent of Germain Pilon's famous gisant of Valentine Balbiani (c. 1583)." Is that original research? If not, cite.
• Since you've withdrawn the nomination I suggest incorporating these suggestions before renominating. Hope to see you again here! buidhe 19:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I had a quick look at the article and I don't see anything insurmountable in terms of prose and referencing. It needs a lick of polish, which is where a GA nomination or peer review would have come in handy before FAC, but assuming all the information in the article can be supported by the sources—in which case it's just a case of finding page numbers and adding a few ref tags here and there—it shouldn't need a huge effort to bring it up to standard. I made one little edit earlier and i'll make a few more little copy edits. Hopefully these are helpful but feel free to revert if not. I'd be happy to do a proper review when you renominate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bath School disaster

Nominator(s): Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Note on closing—listed at WP:FFA, if promoted, move to re-promoted at FFA, and increment re-promoted tally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the school bombing, farm bombing, and truck bombing, in and around the village of Bath, Michigan all of which were perpetrated by one man on May 18, 1927. A total of forty-five people died in what is generally known as the Bath School disaster. I have been working on and off on the article for over 7 years. I think I initially came upon it in the wake of Sandy Hook in December 2012 when the article looked like this. I have felt a responsibility to history as I have worked on this article, to the victims, the people of Bath Township, the rescuers, the heroes, even the perpetrator...that the verifiable truth should be told about the worst school attack in American history.
Bath School disaster is a former featured article, it was promoted in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster and then demoted in 2010 (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bath School disaster/archive1). I worked to get the article to Good Article status and it was promoted in 2013, (see Talk:Bath School disaster/GA1).
I have asked for help in various Wiki-venues from many hardworking editors and they have all been wonderfully forthcoming on what needed to be fixed/adjusted/deleted/better-sourced/edited and just generally improved. These discussions can be found at:

• User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch107#Bath School disaster.... Peer review(January 2020) from SandyGeorgia
• Talk:Bath School disaster#Copy edit comments and queries. Another peer review (January-February 2020), comments mostly by Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia.
• Talk:Bath School disaster#Copy edit/pre-FAC comments. Again (March 2020), by Gog the Mild.
• Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/March#Need some help finding actual sources of images. Discussion (February-March 2020) about the images - especially copyrights & sourcing of the images - with wonderful help from Clindberg and SusunW. I know this particular discussion will roll off the main Media copyright question page to an archive and I will update the link then.

I am looking forward to everyone's feedback. Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

[Above^^] Updated the link to the discussion about the article's images at the Media copyright questions noticeboard (that's now been archived). Shearonink (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

General note: Depending on how the FAC goes (yay or nay) I do hope to someday nominate Bath School disaster as the Wikipedia FA on its anniversary date of May 18. Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

• school board treasurer At least one of those should be delinked per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.

Done. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto to Clinton County, Michigan board of supervisors and other similar such consecutive links

Done. I think I caught all of them. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Dates such as April 5, 1926, etc., need to be followed by a comma unless followed by other punctuation per the MoS, even when none is otherwise warranted.

Well ok...I had thought that it was the "April 5, 1926 township clerk election" not the "April 5, 1926, township clerk election" but yeah MoS etc. I think I've fixed all the comma-less dates now. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• thirty-one square miles ... an area of some five hundred and sixty-six square miles should be turned into numbers per the MoS.

I'm not sure how to do that using the Template:convert but I'll work on it. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Have been trying to fix this but am having trouble figuring out how to not make the template spell out the numbers... Will come back to this later today. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson DONE. I figured it out - Yay!!! Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

We want to keep all numbers within a list of numbers consistent, so this. We wouldn't write out thirty-one, so we switch them all, including the ten, to digits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that times such as "8:45 a.m.", etc., should have conversions to UTC as well, but I might very well be mistaken in that regard. There probably isn't per further discussion.

The following are just comments on my end and do not affect the promotability of this article:

• Consider moving the book sources in the References to a separate "Bibliography" or "Works cited" section and shortening the footnotes.

Oh. Wow. I hadn't thought of doing that...I'll consider it, but am interested in why you think the footnotes should be shortened. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Readability mostly. It's fine without them, but the footnotes are easier to read if you do shorten them. (See Michael Kenna for an example with {{sfn}}, or 1927 Chicago mayoral election for one without.)

• Why aren't the "Further Reading" entries used as sources? Such sections aren't generally used in FAs, and this doesn't seem like that niche a topic to warrant one.

Actually the book version of "Mayday" is used as a source but "Mayday" is also very rare & out of print. Keeping accessibility and verifiability in mind the only way most people will be able to read it is through the Internet Archive so a link to the complete online copy made sense to me. I would hate to lose the scrapbook ref but it is a link to one of the few copies available at a library not to a complete online copy - you really think it should go? Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. While most FAs don't have the sections, there's nothing against them so if you feel they are warranted I have no concerns either way.

Otherwise this looks good so far. I'll try to look into this some more and may or may not take WikiCup points for this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts John M Wolfson. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

UTC conversions are for ITN, not FAC

IF there is really a requirement to turn times into UTC, I haven't seen it, hope I never do see it, and suggest ignoring it. I can find nothing of that sort at WP:MOS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC) That's fair enough, I've just seen such things in articles on disasters and wrecks (something like "8:00 a.m. local time (14:00 UTC)") and thought that there was some sort of MoS requirement for it. Feel free to ignore it, then. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I"m guessing you are seeing that on current events, in the news sort of stuff ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC) That's precisely where I see it most often, which makes me think further that it's not FA material. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

More comments:

• and kill a generation of the area's schoolchildren. I don't doubt this, but it's not brought up explicitly in the body.

It's not? It's mentioned in the article that hundreds of pounds of unexploded dynamite & pyrotol and various explosive contraptions were found all over the school's basement - the perp intended to 1)destroy the entire building and 2)to kill everyone who in the building. I've adjusted the sentence - maybe it now is a little clearer. Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)\

The "generation" stuff wasn't, now it's to my satisfaction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is the road crew O. H. Bush the same as the fireman O. H. Bush? If so, you can just refer to him as "Bush" in his subsequent mentions.

I removed the descriptions of him as "road crew" or "fireman" but I think the 2 mentions of Bush are too separated to have the first mention be "OH Bush" and the subsequent mention be "Bush". Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• You're misusing {{Inflation}}; set a specific end year and use |fmt=c instead of the magic word and parser expression. If you absolutely must have an auto-updating latest year use {{Inflation/year}}, which currently goes to 2019 for the US.

I don't understand all the niceties of this template but I'll try to fix it. Give me a day or two...I have to sign off for now, Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading the template documentation will tell you what you need to know. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Template:Inflation issue has been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson - What other items need to be edited/adjusted/fixed/deleted/sourced better/etc? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Looking through this again I find that I can support this article for promotion. The FAR (which was from a decade ago) was based on insufficient citations, which has since been dealt with. While I didn't look too far into each individual image, the media seems appropriately licensed. The prose seems good, and there are no further coding or linking issues on my end. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks John M Wolfson. Appreciate all your comments & help. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Kees08 comments

Drive by comments, probably will not perform a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• There are a lot more external links that is typical for a FA; could any of them be incorporated into the citations, and are all of them appropriate for the section? The answer could be that they are fine, just want to make sure you look into it.

Thanks Kees08. Yes, I am aware that there are perhaps more external links than the usual complement but in this case I think it it absolutely necessary. This subject, sadly, gets a lot of attention every time there's a school attack anywhere in the world but especially in the US - ranging from people who are simply interested to the vilest of trolls. The links to the good/great/verifiable sources about the event, the video & print interviews with survivors, that one newsreel (the only film of the destroyed building I am aware of), the online copies of the rare/out-of-print books (if you can even find a copy they're $300-$400 and if there are copies in libraries they're in rare book rooms etc.), the complete copy of the coroner's inquest (found on a website that was overseen by James Daggy from Michigan State) ...all the additional info that isn't used as a direct source in the article...the only way I know to preserve it is to include it here for safekeeping. Much of the info about the disaster was initially posted online on websites that have since gone defunct but whose information is preserved in the Wayback Machine. I ran down all the reliable sources I could find beyond the websites to use as direct references but overall I feel a responsibility to history to, in a way, preserve the chain of custody of the information. Hope that all explains my thoughts on the subject. Let me know if you'd like further discussion about it - Shearonink (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as reasons for exceptions to the WP:EL guideline and WP:NOTLINKFARM policy are reasonable, and the section is formatted and annotated per WP:ELMAYBE (Unusually large pages or ones that include file formats that will require plug-ins should be annotated as such.)(and other sections of the guideline), then it is fine. I trust that you can read and follow the guideline/policies linked there, just wanted to highlight them in case you need to make any changes. Specifically regarding ...the only way I know to preserve it is to include it here for safekeeping, as long as it follows the WP:NOTLINKFARM policy of Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files then it is fine.I leave it to you to make that analysis and decision. Kees08 (Talk) 21:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Kees08 I have removed 3 of the links, do you think that additional editing needs to be done to that section? I'm not sure if your opinion is a Support or not... Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Davey2010

Unfortunately I never comment or work on FACs so am clueless as to the expectations but from here It looks a perfect article, Well written and very well detailed,
Shearonink you've done an amazing job with this article and should be proud of it, I'd support this being a featured article, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from 7&6=thirteen

Great article on one of the first acts of domestic (US) terrorism. I copy edited it, FWIW.
Interesting that you use the formatting you do. I would want to put in a bibliography, and use WP:SFN. See for example, S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes. But under WP:CITEVAR that is your decision.
Other than that, I think this is a worthy candidate on an important subject. It should be a Wikipedia FA, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This copyedit introduced multiple problems, and changed the tone. I fixed some,[1] but there is more. There is also overlinking. My suggestion is to revert (and to remind editors to take care when ceing an article at FAC, as this is moving in the wrong direction ... most of these changes were personal preference, and some are not an improvement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

They were suggestions. I chose to be WP:Bold. Some will stay; some will go. Reasonable minds may differ. YMMV. Thanks for fixing those two typos. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Support from MarnetteD

I too find it well written and thorough. Shearonink is there more info about the 2011 documentary available? Specifically the the title and whether it was shown in theaters or aired on TV network like PBS or even a streaming service. Thanks for your and others for your work on this article. MarnetteD|Talk 21:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2011/2012 Matt/Matthew Martyn Bath School Disaster documentary had a screening at the 2012 Capital City Film Festival in Lansing, Michigan: [2], [3], & [4]., but the documentary is not listed on IMDb and I have been unable to find any other distribution. Mr. Martyn is a co-founder/co-owner of a film production business HQ'ed in the Chicago area.. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info S. If any of these details can be used in the article that might help a reader who has the same questions that I did. OTOH if it is too sketchy to pass muster than things can be left as they are. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Did MarnetteD read the version before the grammatical errors were introduced (above) or after? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I read this version. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review from Grapple X

Sampling sources randomly; I'm checking these for close paraphrasing too—if I don't raise an issue with paraphrasing then I'm happy it's not a problem.

• Ref 10: Both instances accurate to source. 10a supports "He complained about his taxes being too high" which is a little close to source's "Mr Kehoe began to complain about his taxes being so high"; it's only a minor piece of text but worth looking at.

Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 16: No issues
• Ref 30: Used for an embedded quote, speaks for itself
• Ref 60: Accurate both times used.
• Ref 67: Doesn't mention the statue being displayed anywhere--it's a perfectly valid source for the existence of the museum in the middle school, which it's also used for, but there's no mention of its contents. Could we back this up with another source on the statue or reword the section accordingly?

Not a problem - Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 70: Going only on the quote provided; seems fine. Source says only "most" are named, is there an omission we should clarify or am I misreading this?
• Ref 73: Used accurately in both instances.

By and large happy with sourcing here—have had to assume good faith on a lot of book sources as even the Google Books links were unavailable here. Reference formatting is perhaps unusual but is valid and uniform so no issues there; however there are just a few points to address above. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the refs Grapple X - greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk)

Qualified support from The Huhsz

I read it through and made some trifling edits, one of which was reverted. I am perfectly fine with this; on reflection I think it is ok to state in a footnote that a certain spelling is used "in this article". I am unhappy with the long sidebar list of the dead; what is the encyclopedic purpose of this? If we must have it, could it be collapsible? At present it slightly dominates and clutters the article. But that doesn't lead me to oppose. The article tells the story well and comprehensively, is well-written and well sourced. Nice work. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I suggest the list is distracting and should be collapsed. I tried to do that, but apparently put it somewhere in the wrong spot, and inflicted unintended collateral damage. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Remembering the dead is a large part of the Bath School disaster's history. With all the Wikipedia space that's devoted to the perpetrator - both in this article and in his own article, it doesn't seem untoward to also have a plainly-seen list of the people he killed in the article, the people whose deaths made him notable. All of the sources I have consulted go into detail about the victims...Hazel Weatherby the teacher who was found with a child under each arm, Cleo Clayton the boy who survived the school blast but was then killed by the truck explosion, etc. Monty Ellsworth, in Bath School Disaster (the first book written about the events), devoted a whole section to listing out the dead with paragraphs or even pages about each person, Grant Parker in his book Mayday listed out the dead and the injured and so did Arnie Bernstein in his book Bath Massacre. The Village of Bath put up a memorial stone with all the victim's names listed and the aftermath section in the article itself is about the deaths of the victims (and recovering survivors).

A plainly-seen list of the dead has been present in the article since 2006, I would be loath to hide it. Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Midland Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been away for a while with real life keeping me busy. I'm still busy, but I've decided it's time I moved Wikipedia and my war memorials project back up my priority list. Just bear with me if it takes me a day or two to reply! :) This particular war memorial is in the English Midlands city of Derby (barely 10 miles from where I used to live), which was largely built by the Midland Railway. The railways were the largest corporations ever seen at the turn of the 20th century, employing hundreds of thousands of people between them. The Midland alone released 23,000 men to the armed forces, 2,833 of whom never came back. Their names are listed on this grand, but sadly these days overlooked, memorial. The article passed an A-class review at MilHist just over a year ago and I think it's up to the standard required for a star but all feedback is welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb. I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Putting down a marker.

• No alt text.
  • I'm ambivalent on this, as I'm not sure what alt text would add that the caption doesn't but happy to take advice.

Personally I always include alt text, but it is optional. (In my view this is a disgrace, but there you go.) So if you don't see the point, you are fine.

• There are a couple of duplinks.
  • Sorted.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I kicked the tyres on this pretty thoroughly at ACR, so hopefully there is not a lot for me to pick at.

• "The cenotaph is surmounted by a recumbent effigy of a soldier—covered by a coat and resting on a catafalque—and is decorated with lion heads at the corners of the catafalque" It seems odd to have the catafalque mentioned within the dashed section and its decoration outwith.
  • I've tweaked it but I don't love the new version either (I was going for concision in the lead) so open to further tweaking.

How about working up from the bottom? 'On either side of the cenotaph is the Midland's coat of arms, enclosed in a laurel wreath. The cenotaph is surmounted by a catafalque with sculpted lion heads at the corners. On the catafalque is the recumbent effigy of a soldier, covered by a coat. Lutyens anonymises the soldier by lifting him high above eye level, allowing the viewer to believe it could be somebody they knew.'?

That seems sensible. Done, with some re-wording.

• "including Midland station" Should there be a definite article? Should it be 'Station'?
  • I don't think so. Convention is for "station" without a definite article and a lower-case "s"; see the station's article, for example (Derby railway station) or its historical name Derby Midland railway station.

I don't agree over the "the", but it's not a big deal. Put "derby midland station" into Google: in the first 50 results there were 48 "S"s to 2 "s"s.

"The station" would be correct, but not "the Midland station" in the same sense that "the Central station" would sound odd in the case of (eg) Southampton Central. As for the lower case "s", I don't give a monkey's personally but the WP convention is set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) (where, coincidentally, a Midland station is one of the examples given).

Well, well: if there is a policy, there is a policy. (But living within walking distance of the place, I can assure you that, sadly, nearly all local readers will doubt your grasp on English grammar. Eg, note how it is spelt in two foot high letters across the front of the place.)

I can see both sides of the argument, but it applies to every station (there are nearly 3,000 on the National Rail network alone!) and I can also see the advantage of consistency! :)

• "At the end of the war, 2,833 men from the Midland had been killed, their names listed on the war memorial." Would that be better as 'By the end of the war, 2,833 men from the Midland had been killed: their names are listed on the war memorial'?
  • If you prefer. :)
• "many based to a greater lesser degree on" → 'many based to a greater or lesser degree on'?
  • Done.
• "The artist Fabian Peake created a memorial there in 2018" Fabian Peake redirects to Mervyn Peake - who died in 1968.
  • I know. It's a silly redirect if you ask me but I'm guessing somebody thought it was better than a red link. I've never heard of him if I'm honest, but the Guardian piece makes him sound notable and he certainly has notable relatives.

Er, that doesn't explain why the article's link directs a reader to an entirely incorrect destination. It seems to me - I am open to persuasion - that either Fabian is notable enough to support an article, in which case he should be red linked in this article; or he isn't, in which case there shouldn't be a link.

I agree with you, but I don't have the subject knowledge or source material to draft an article. I had intended for it to be a red link, not realising it was a redirect. We could delete the redirect (in the hope that the red link would encourage somebody to write the article) or unlink it here, but I'm not sure if either leaves the reader better or worse off.

Red links are absolutely fine - my last two FAs and my current FAC all have red links. Delete the ridiculous and inappropriate redirect and we are fine.

Done. Hopefully it'll turn blue or somebody will decide he's not notable, but I agree a red link is probably more likely to encourage that.

• "treat the metal elements of war memorials with SmartWater" I assume that you mean all war memorials? I which case 'treat the metal elements of all war memorials with SmartWater' may add clarity.
  • I don't know about all war memorials. To treat every war memorial even just in England would be quite an undertaking! It refers to war memorials in general.

As you have written it, the first clause of the final sentence comes across as really vague, but maybe that is me. Leave it be.

If you think of a more elegant form of words I'd welcome suggestions, or feel free to just be bold if you prefer.

Ah - me and my big keyboard! Referring to the source, how about 'The theft prompted an initiative to treat the metal elements of all Derbyshire war memorials with SmartWater, a product which allows metal to be identified with an ultraviolet light'?

That works. Done.

That's all I could find that I haven't already picked at. A cracking little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gog! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

My further penny's worth. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Once more, Gog! :) 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Unto the breach. Two text suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear friend, once more! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Or close the wall up with our English dead. A nice piece of work. Good example of being concise while still covering everything. Supporting. But do keep your eyes open for a RS with different plan measurements to HE's. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Gerbis

You are very right to say that this is a sadly overlooked cenotaph. This is a remarkable work and deserves that you brought it to our attention. Thank you for that. You also presented many interesting historical facts particularly around the unveiling and the involvement of the families, and I find it interesting that the names of the fallen are given without rank. With the generalities about listing and conservation area you’re going a bit overboard, imho, also the later company fusions are a bit borderline but you rescued it by referring to other memorials. All in all, with surrounding data you’re doing alright.

But you are leaving large gaps in other very important areas:

• How did Lutyens get involved?
• Was there a competition?
• What did the railways want Lutyens to do, i.e. what was the brief?
• Was this particular shape established from the outset or did the design go through stages?
• Do preliminary drawings or models exist? They must have been produced but are they now lost?
• "reminiscent of classical architecture" is a bit vague.

There are also quite a few factual errors. I can see that you know a fair bit about railway companies but I fear that you don’t fully understand what a cenotaph is – and that is your topic here.

Even if it incorporates a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or another real body buried at the site, all war memorials are cenotaphs to all the people remembered but not buried at the site. This has nothing to do with their shape or a figure of a soldier being depicted. To create a cenotaph in purely abstract, architectural forms is the great achievement of Lutyens at Whitehall. Up to that moment, cenotaphs usually had some figurative element or symbol like the Christian cross if they went beyond mere inscriptions. So, if you say "Although generally described as such, the memorial is not strictly a cenotaph as the sculpture at the top is a human figure rather than an empty tomb" you’re wrong, and if you read that in Amery as your reference suggests, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

A few more things:

• You mention a number of facts in the introduction which you simply repeat in the main text without any further detail.
  • Can you give examples? It's inevitable to a certain extent but I've tried to cut out straight repetition.
• The second paragraph in the chapter "Architect" ("London's Cenotaph was...") is close to a tautology.
  • I've reworded it a little to make it clearer.
• What does the small step have to do with children? I doubt that it has, but if it does you need to reference it. I'd rather expect that the stepped up area is where you place wreaths.
  • That's straight from the source (and supported by others).
• "ecumenical shapes" – I have no idea what that’s supposed to be.
  • I thought it was fairly self-explanatory: shapes and designs that don't relate to any particular religion or sect (eg no Christian cross or Jewish star. But leave it with me and I'll think about spelling it out.

Please do. This is not clear at all. If you just put what you wrote here in reply it would already be much better.

Done.

• "Lutyens also uses it to draw attention to the details on the pylon, connecting the beauty of the structure to the memory of the dead soldier." – no idea what you mean by that.
  • Could probably do with some rewording. Leave it with me; might need to go back to the source.

yes, please

Done.

Finally, purely for readability, I would like to see the publication year in shortened references as it makes a difference to know if you’re referring to a contemporary source of the period of construction or later publications.

Sorry this all sounds pretty ruthless but these are things I’d like to know about this memorial and you’re not saying. I think that you have done some good work here but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the required quality for a featured article. Gerbis (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The disadvantage we have with company war memorials, rather than public works, is that some of the detail you're after either wasn't recorded at the time (because nobody thought it was important) or has been lost in the intervening century, bearing in mind that the company has been amalgamated, nationalised, then broken up and privatised in that time. You'll note that I've cited works on architecture, biographies of the architect, and histories of the town and the company so it's not a lack of research. In some cases we get chapter and verse on how Lutyens was appointed; in others we get next to nothing. Lutyens was the architect of his day for war memorials and everyone wanted him but unless you had some prior connection (like a lot of the small villages he did memorials for), you had to have a healthy budget—something the major railway companies certainly had. For this one's closest sibling all we get is that they approached Lutyens because he was the "fashionable architect" and that's only because the board managed the project themselves instead of delegating it and their minutes survived. As for "cenotaph", I don't think that's a factual error. It's sourced direct to a distinguished architectural historian writing for the Arts Council of Great Britain (because Amery explicitly makes the connection to this memorial in particular, whereas others discuss it in general terms), and the literal meaning of the term is "empty tomb". Your definition is much broader, but even if we go that, this particular war memorial is not an "empty tomb" (unlike the one in London, for example, which has a coffin at the top, as opposed to an effigy). Other replies inline. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining a few things. I absolutely understand that there might not be any documentation about Lutyens' involvement and I'm certainly not accusing you of not doing enough research. You should, however, preempt questions like mine by saying from the outset that there is no documentation and no previous design stages are known. That makes it clear.

My definition of a cenotaph isn't much broader, that's what the definition of a cenotaph is: "Cenotaph. A monument to a person or persons buried elsewhere." That is the full dictionary entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture by Fleming, Honour, Pevsner, 4th ed. 1994. Could you give me a quote of Amery's explanation why this is not a cenotaph in the true sense? As I said, even if there is one person buried there, it is still a cenotaph to all the others mentioned in the inscription and not buried there. A stone figure of a soldier is an effigy not a buried person.

Children: You have a source for it, that's great. Please reference it so you're safe. I still believe it's not a step but a plinth, given its height and the function of prolonging the pedestal's plinth - and one doesn't step on a plinth (n.b.: despite often being used interchangeably today, a plinth in architectural vocabulary is not the same as a pedestal but (Fleming, Honour, Pevsner again) "the projecting base of a wall or column pedestal" - Lutyens would have known that). But that's not an argument I need to have with you since you have a quotable source. I'd be curious if you could point me to the other sources that support this claim, just out of personal interest. We're looking at the 1920s when duty, discipline and decorum are the motivating factors, not a late 20th and 21st century sensibility which allows children to crawl around everywhere - and they couldn't step up in a dignified way because the step is way too high for small legs. It would be interesting if Lutyens really had an educational function for children in mind, i.e. an adult lifting up a child and pointing out names.

see also inline Gerbis (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

On "cenotaph": Amery says This is not a 'cenotaph' as it is not strictly speaking an empty tomb. Going through some of the other books, Alan Borg 's War Memorials discusses the use of cenotaphs in antiquity for about half a page in the context of an empty tomb, then comes close to your definition by saying In the 20th century, and especially after the construction of the Cenotaph in London, the word has become synonymous with any memorial that was not itself an actual sepulchre; Jay Winter in Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning says a cenotaph is, literally, an empty tomb, and by announcing its presence as the tomb of no one [Whitehall's] became the tomb of all who died in the war. Neither is cited here because neither has anything to say about this particular memorial but they're both sat on my shelf and have been used for previous articles in the series (this will be something like the 17th FA in the series). The child step is taken straight from the NHLE entry, otherwise I'd have agreed with you that it's a plinth for placing wreaths etc. More in the morning. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gerbis: I think I've addressed everything as best I can. I could go into more detail about ecumenicism and the "beautiful death" with Lutyens' agnosticism and the influence theosophy had on him, and his of use of classical-style architecture rather than graphic realism (the obvious contrast being the Royal Artillery Memorial) but I think that would be getting beyond the scope of the article and beyond the sources, which don't discuss it in great detail in relation to this particular memorial. If you think something's still wanting I'm happy to discuss further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I looked this over a year ago when it went through Milhist ACR, so don't have a lot to add. A few comments:

• link East Midlands in the lead
  • Done.
• in the lead, "within sight of the station" which station?
  • Clarified.
• "within sight of the railway station" again
  • And again.
• move to link to cenotaph to first mention
  • I know that one's a little weird. I want a link there because that's where it's directly relevant (it discusses the definition of the term, so a link to the relevant article is helpful). Would you suggest I put a link on the first mention as well, or instead?
    • instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• was/is it used for commemorative events?
  • Other than the dedication and re-dedication mentioned, I haven't found anything in the sources

That's all I could find to nitpick about. I'll add that I don't find the oppose convincing, particularly given Harry's response regarding the specifics. No sources have been provided for the assertions made, and it is not surprising that the information about the planning process for the memorial is sparse. That is also the case with memorials in Australia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Believe I've addressed everything. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Support by WereSpielChequers

Hi Harry, good to see you around again. Nicely written. Re Gerbis's points, if such things can be sourced then it would be good to add them, but if they can't be sourced then no matter. What I think could be done is some more detailed photos/crops of the unknown soldier, the lions and the wreath as mentioned in the text. Crops of File:Midland Railway War Memorial, Derby 10 (cropped).jpg might do the trick. A photo of the plaques would also be worthwhile, but the ones I zoomed in on had insufficient detail. ϢereSpielChequers 19:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Barren Island, Brooklyn

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a former island in Brooklyn, NYC, one of the "Outer Barrier" islands. Through the present day, it has been isolated from the rest of New York City, leading to its primary use as an industrial neighborhood in the 19th and early 20th centuries, complete with a small but thriving community of up to 1,500 residents. The island no longer exists because it was connected to the rest of Brooklyn in the 1920s to create the now-defunct Floyd Bennett Field.

This was promoted as a Good Article about two years ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man. After much-appreciated copy edits by Reidgreg and several others, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Shearonink

• This sentence doesn't quite make complete sense to me... "In 1910, developers began dredging ports within Jamaica Bay in an effort to develop a seaport district.[53][69] Although the city allowed several piers to be constructed in 1918, only one was built." I think I know what you meant, that permission was given for several piers but only 1 was actually built? but that's not quite what the sentence says...
• There isn't any alt-text for several of the images including File:Brooklyn, Vol. 3, Double Page Plate No. 39; Sub Plan from Plate 38; (Map bounded by Barren Island, Part of Ruffle Bar; Including Duck Point Marshes, Pumpkin Patch Meadows) NYPL1703808 (cropped).jpg, File:Barren Island factory.jpg, File:Brooklyn, Vol. 3, Double Page Plate No. 39; Sub Plan from Plate 38 (cropped).png. Was wondering why.
• There is no WP:Short description.

Just a few comments for now. Generally the article looks to be in very good shape - I'll re-read it a few more times and come back with any other possible issues. Shearonink (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Thanks for the comments. I have clarified the sentence about the piers (only one of them was built, despite the city giving the go-ahead), and added a short description and alts. epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

epicgenius I am going to read through the article a few more times over the next day or two, but unless something new comes to my attention?, at this time I intend to Support for FA. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ref check...pass

• References are a mix of Harv cites/sfn & cite news/web/etc. WP:FACR's 1.C requires consistent citations.
• All the NY Times refs need to be checked for "Subscription required" notices, for instance - Ref 88/"US Takes Airport Tract" has no subscription notice. Is the use of the separate {{subscription required}} template discouraged? I missed the fact that several of the refs have the embedded code because I clicked on them too quickly.
• Personal preference: Refs #92 & #93 both refer to the beachcombing or mudlarking that some folks are doing on the eroding landfill at Dead Horse Bay. That aspect of the articles is more interesting to me than "The coast contained many exposed broken glass bottles and other non-biodegradable material." Also, contained looks like it is the wrong tense, shouldn't it be "contains"? Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Shearonink: Thanks for more comments. I disagree that we need to have CS2 references & harv references to be separated, though - the FAC page only mentions using a consistent style of shortened footnote and/or full-length reference, rather than using exclusively shortened footnotes or exclusively inline references. Examples of FAs which use a mixture of both include Statue of Liberty and The Cloisters. I may be incorrect, though, and I am open to converting these in-line references to shortened footnotes if you think this is important.
  • As for the other issues: I have fixed the instances of NY Times references without subscriptions, and I added the mention of beachcombing to the article. epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"The coast contained many exposed broken glass bottles and other non-biodegradable material, and as such, the site was used for beachcombing." Is there a reason you used the past-tense? Shearonink (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I have fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• • • Never mind, I will convert these refs anyway. epicgenius (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh. I did go back and looked at the criteria and at the other two FAs you mentioned above, I was under the impression that all the refs had to be in stylistic agreement with each other but these other 2 FAs have a mixture... Shearonink (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I just saw this comment. I can go with either this version with only shortened footnotes, or this version with a mixture of both. epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius Oh ok, but if you don't mind, let me think about it...I'll go over the FA criteria a bit more etc. If it's not necessary for you to change things per the criteria I'd rather you wouldn't have to. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius I am fine with the 2 different styles. Shearonink (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #46/ "Barren Island Nuances..." has an incorrect title - it's "Nuisances" not "nuances". Shearonink (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Ref #22/Ross, Peter (1902). A History of Long Island, Vol. 1. Jazzybee Verlag. p. 37. Is that page # correct? On Archive.Org the info is on Page 28 - https://archive.org/details/historyoflongisl01ross/page/28/mode/2up/search/spicer . And, ummm, who/what is Jazzybee Verlag? Shearonink (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• I've tried to check all the refs for any possible issues and - other than what I mentioned above with #22 & #46 - everything in general looks good but I would really like another set of eyes looking over the refs to confirm my preliminary opinion that they are fine/ok/perfect/etc. Even just a spot-check of various refs would be quite helpful. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Shearonink: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed both of these issues. I really appreciate your attention to detail here. epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. The refs pass, my prose concerns were addressed, and I found no image issues. Shearonink (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Spot check - pass

Shearonink has sub-contracted the spot checking of the references to me, so here goes.

• Bibliography: "JAMAICA BAY: A HISTORY" should be in title case.
• Cite 1 a - fine.
• Cites 92 and 93 - fine.
• Cite 31 c - I cannot find support for "though after the facility was destroyed by fire in 1861"

epicgenius - looks like the year is wrong, the year should be 1859 (see page 29/22 of the ref). Shearonink (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Cite 50 c - the text is supported, but why is Schneider a RS?
• Cite 61 a - fine.
• A lot of the links are dead -[5]

Gog the Mild & epicgenius - In this case the dispenser.info gadget ("A lot of the links are dead") is incorrect - All the New York Times refs that it is flagging as "dead" - (the first # is the dispenser.info #, second is the ref # in the article)#15/46, 16/49, 21/55, 22/57, 20/54, 24/63, 25/65, 26/66, 28/71, 31/82, 32/84, 34/88 - are valid, they are available through the NYTimes (subscribers only) or through the Times' archives (sometimes subscribers only, sometimes not) "Time Machine". Shearonink (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Shearonink. I confess that when I tried Blakemore in the Bibliography and both the link and the archive failed I then ran the link tool and just assumed that the others were also faulty. I'll let epicgenius run there eye over them and then actually click on each one. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That all seems fine. Except that for Blakemore neither the PDF link nor the archive of it will connect for me - still. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That's strange. This is a long 230-page PDF and the archive works fine for me. Maybe try this instead. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Even deader. Shearonink, does it work for you. If it does, I will AGF that there is some weird issue at my end. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both links work for me. Shame you can't see it, what a great resource. Maybe try a different browser? Could be the sheer size of the pdf is bollixing things up for anyone across the pond. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Clearly some technical issue at my end. Not one I have had before. Anyway, everything seems tickity boo with the sourcing, so I am passing the spot checks.

Nb. I wasn't intending to, but given how long this has grown, I intend tio claim points for this review for the WikiCup. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild. I haven't participated all that much at FAC and appreciate all your time & attention to checking the refs. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That's probably enough for now. I'll have another look when these have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thanks for the source check. For 31c, the relevant text is "The Cornell factory was burned in 1859 and the operations moved to Flatbush" (page 26) - I had the wrong year by accident. For cite 50, the New York Times is generally considered a reliable source for info relating to NYC history, unless I'm missing something, in which case I will remove it. For NY Times sources in general, TimesMachine is frequently marked by bots as a dead link, even though it is still visible to subscribers like me. I've also fixed the title case of the Black source. epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• I have clicked on each TimesMachine link and confirmed they all still work. Also added another source to back up the claim about no running water or fire department, which is supported by 50(c). epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Barren_Island_factory.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks, I have fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

• You don't link Dutch as in the place, but you do link Dutch as in the language. It's a little confusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lee Vilenski: Thanks, I have linked both. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not sure if there is a MOS for this, but I'd rather know about the geography before the name section. Could we swap them around? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
• By the late 1920s, industrial development on Barren Island's eastern side had transformed that area, with a small patch of dunes remaining. The western side of the island, containing dunes, woods, and wetlands, was largely untouched. The southern coast contained a tidal creek stretching into the center of the island, where the tidal wetlands remained mostly intact. The wetlands were abutted by the man-made Mill Basin to the north. Tidal creeks also stretched across the island's marshes, although one of these creeks was bisected by the construction of Flatbush Avenue in 1925. The water adjoining the northern and western coasts was heavily polluted.[16] All 1,300 acres (530 ha)[17] of the former island, now a peninsula, are occupied by Floyd Bennett Field,[18][19] which in turn is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area.[20] - could we source a bit more inline in this paragraph? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • All of this is sourced to the same reference. Anyhow, I have done this. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• According to another account, "only part of [the treasure] was recovered".[29 is a quote really necessary here... Doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed, and replaced with a more detailed description. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• An isolated settlement[30] on the island was developed in the late 19th century. - odd placement of ref. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Moved to the end of the sentence. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• A subsequent census in 1880 counted six "households" that were entirely composed of single men, as well as 17 families, - is households really needed as a quote? Seems like a regular word. It is only six people, is it particularly notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The only reason "households" is in quotes is that usually (in American contexts at least), the word "households" refers to families of 2 or more, and not necessary a single person. I removed it. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• $1 million - is this the right formatting for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed, using {{US$}}.
• these bills died because the governor and mayor opposed these actions.[56][54] - reforder. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• corpses in 12 days.[67][56] - reforder Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• upon which about 400 people still lived on the island.[67][59][54] - reforder Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for the extensive comments, Lee. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Support from me for the prose. I see someone above is working through the refs, but I'm happy to support this one, unless I see something further. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

John W. Beschter

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a Luxembourg Jesuit who became a missionary to the rural United States, and did a brief stint as president of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 15:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil

Sources are all high quality, their formatting is grand. Images are free. 1264 words, which is a bit short, but given the subject matter and the breath of sources used, seems very likely to be comprehensive. Note A needs a ref. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Doesn't it already have a ref? Ergo Sum 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ugg my eyesight isn't what it used to be. Anyway, have read through and made a few trivial tweaks...Support on prose and sources. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I will take a look at this. I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for the review.

• Beschter was the last Jesuit pastor of St. Mary's Church in Lancaster, as well as the pastor of St. John the Evangelist Church in Baltimore, in addition to being a priest at several other German-speaking churches in Pennsylvania. - Lancaster is in PA but Baltimore is in MD. I think the latter should be made clearer. Otherwise we get the impression that Baltimore is in PA, based on the end of that sentence.
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 19:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• His ministerial work was punctuated by a time as master of novices - so he served as a "master of novices" in between his ministerial work?
  • Yes. Ergo Sum 19:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• in the Duchy of Luxembourg,[a][4] of the Austrian Netherlands, a part of the Holy Roman Empire.[5] - this looks strange because of the number of commas in the sentence. I'd consider rewording this, but have no suggestions so far.
  • I've cleaned up the sentence a bit. Ergo Sum 20:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• while in Lancaster County.[5] - should it be specified that this is in PA?
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• His second-most immediate predecessor, Francis Fitzsimons, was an Irishman who could not speak German, which ruffled the German majority of parishioners. Fitzsimons was quickly replaced by Herman J. Stoecker, who was not proficient in English, to the consternation of the Irish congregants. - This is fine as is. However, I was thinking an optional way to present this info is to swap these two sentences, so it's clear that Stoecker's predecessor was Fitzsimons.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• By 1818, Beschter had fallen ill, and became involved in disagreements with Bishop Michael Egan of Philadelphia,[1] and so took up residence in Georgetown in Washington, D.C.[2] - I don't think the second comma (after "ill") is necessary
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 20:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Devitt1911, p. 243 - There should probably be a space between "Devitt 1911" in this reference, unless there's a good reason
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• He defended the Jesuit Superior General, Luigi Fortis', appointment of Polish-born Francis Dzierozynski in 1820 as socius, consultor, and admonitor to Charles Neale (the mission superior for the United States), which vested Dzierozynski with broad authority. - this is another strange wording. I would suggest "He defended Jesuit Superior General Luigi Fortis' appointment ...".
  • Removed the commas. Ergo Sum 20:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• His selection came as a surprise and was met with opposition by the Anglo-American laymen, who claimed Beschter was not fluent in speaking or writing in English[30] (despite the fact that he was competent enough to preach in English);[31] they further asserted that he had no knowledge of the operation of a college. - This is also technically fine, but normally I would suggest splitting it into different sentences.
  • Split up. Ergo Sum 20:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• and counted 45 enrolled students. - is this more than in the previous years?
  • The source suggests so, but without reading through the whole book, I can't find what it was prior to that. Ergo Sum 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That is all the commentary I have. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for your comments. Ergo Sum 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. Another great article, as always. Can I interest you in taking a look at my own Featured Article nomination? You don't have to do so if you don't want to. epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins (United States)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... space and coins, which are the two things I've been writing about recently. A bit different from the standard fare of 1930s municipal anniversaries. I wrote this over the course of the past year, as events happened.Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

• Why does the title include "(United States)"? Have other countries issued such coins, or will they in the future?

Yes, several have, including Spain, Canada and Australia. Originally we did not have such a parenthetical. It was moved in response to this discussion--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins were issued by the United States Mint in 2019, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon by Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. is a long sentence.

Yes, but it's mostly the long compound noun doing it. I suppose you could divide at the comma, but I'm not certain it's an improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• silver at Philadelphia is an awkward wikilink placement, IMO. Perhaps at Philadelphia or at the Philadelphia Mint can be used instead.

Even as part of proper nouns, I don't like to use the word "Mint" so often as that. I've adjusted the sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• concave (like the inside of a cup) and the reverse is convex (like its outside). I assume people would know "concave" and "convex"; if they don't, appropriate wikilinks can be placed.

Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Prior to the release date of January 24, 2019, there was anticipation that like the previous U.S. issue of curved coins, the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame issue, some denominations might quickly sell out. → The coins were released on January 24, 2019. Prior to their release it was anticipated that some denominations might quickly sell out like the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame issue. Just a suggestion.

I've rearranged it a bit following the spirit of what you've said rather than the letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise this looks good so far. I'll try to look more into this later and intend to take WikiCup points from this review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the comments so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the All pieces on sale January 24, 2019 and off sale after December 27, 2019 except as noted. Prices increased by $5 on February 25 for all options then on sale. Options including $5 pieces had a sales price that fluctuated based on the market price of gold. can be made small as a footnote. Other than that I don't see anything wrong with this and support this article's promotion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I'm going to hold the change of font in abeyance as I see comments on the box formatting below.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: FYI if you bold a support in the prose and in the section header it gets counted as two supports by the nominations viewer script; if you remove one of them it would help the automated system. Kees08 (Talk) 20:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08

Placeholder until I make a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 16:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Should this be 'first crewed landing' commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon by Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The source doesn't support this, and I don't recall the experiment, so it would be good to have a source for that part (I probably just don't remember). Bootprint Penetration Experiment, an exercise in soil mechanics.

I must have blown that one. Source added, also from the 11 ALSJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would change to this but leaving to your discretion About 13 minutes following the taking of the bootprint photographs,

Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Colon after distributed? would be distributed half to the

I would not think the colon would help much.

• The photo was taken July 21 UTC right? Congress required that the reverse be a "close-up of the famous 'Buzz Aldrin on the Moon' photograph taken July 20, 1969

Congress is ever parochial. I will drop a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an idea on how best to source the footnote? Plainly the entire EVA took place on the 21st UTC, and I can source that to Orloff & Harland's timeline, but there may be a better way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

First you can include the law as a source if you want, I found it while working on this. Ctrl F for AS11-40-5903 at ALSJ. It lists it being taken at 4:14 UTC, which is 12:14 am EST. This doesn't match the NASA date of July 20. I think you can create a footnote that says something like 'According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, the photo was taken at 12:14 am EST (4:14 UTC) July 21.' with a source to the ALSJ that I listed. You can source it/write it other ways, but that covers both the launch time zone and UTC, and covers the language of the bill and ALSJ's timeline. Kees08 (Talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Daylight savings time would make it five hours, I suppose and bring it back to the 20th.--07:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Lunar Module is linked earlier In the reflection on the visor may be seen the Lunar Module Eagle

Fixed.

• Think this should be a comma instead of a colon because of the verb that comes after the colon Apollo 11 astronauts: Mark Armstrong, Andy Aldrin

Done.

• Instead of 'included above' have you considered merging the cells? If the table was sortable I would not advise it, but since it is not, it could make it easier to read (I was a bit confused at first glance)

I don't know how to do that. This is a table I borrowed from somewhere for United States Bicentennial coinage and have adapted as needed since. If you could demonstrate, I would fix it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is using rowspan as demonstrated at Help:Table#Combined_use_of_COLSPAN_and_ROWSPAN. I can give it a shot later unless you beat me to it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it done; you can revert it if you do not like it. Seems more clear to me though. Kees08 (Talk) 19:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Always a comma after the year right? January 24, 2019 at 12 noon EST through
• Same question/comment n May 4, 2019 with the launch
• This had an en dash earlier in the section; not sure which is right but should be consistent: 2019-S proof clad
• Same packaging a 2019-S Apollo 11 U.S. half dollar with a curved
• Same date question The Mint did not report weekly sales figures after November 3, 2019 due to the

All the dates in text you cite above now have commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The date/mintmark thing is fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Surely there is a free record of the bills? I found HR 2726, I assume the two that are linked to ProQuest could be similarly found.

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I just now realized that 400,000 were minted because there were approximately 400,000 working on the Apollo Program. Unless this is misleading me. If that's true it should probably be included if RS's exist.

400K is the standard authorization for silver dollars. The American Legion one had the same authorization.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Many of the citations are from a couple of websites, which I suppose isn't inherently a problem, but I remember collectSPACE had a lot of coverage on the coins, perhaps those citations would provide useful information and could be used?
  • Space.com has some as well

I added something from the cite you mention. I tried to minimize/avoid collectSpace as I had gotten some flak over that website re the postal covers incident. Coin World is the established weekly numismatic newspaper, and the others had good coverage of the weekly Mint sales report. I'm looking through the collectSPACE articles to see if there's anything else to add.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah no problems with those numismatic sources for quality; just wanted to point out that there were space-focused publications that could be useful to use. I assume most of the coin articles you write do not have a theme or dedicated media base like that, wanted to make sure you thought of it if you had not. No worries if you think the space citations are worthless. Kees08 (Talk) 20:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm reading through them. I don't think they are worthless but as you know part of FAC is giving reviewers less to complain about!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Images

As usual I am spending more time than I should on images. Hoping for both Wehwalt's opinion on inclusion and Nikkimaria's opinion on copyright. HouseLive records the House of Representatives, and HR 2726 (warning, huge video!) is about a four minute segment of a house proceeding. HouseLive's terms say Proceedings of the House of Representatives, including any recording of such proceedings, may not be used for any political purpose or in any commercial advertisement, and may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program. I think because this restriction is placed by the House (from Committee on Ethics: Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1). In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office., it falls under House Rules and would therefore be PD.

It also looks like videos have been uploaded to Commons:Category:United States House of Representatives and Commons:Category:Videos by the United States House of Representatives.

So Wehwalt, if I downloaded, clipped, and uploaded the file, would you want it included? I think it would go nicely in the proposal and legislation section. Plus, you get to see Posey's JFK impersonation. And Nikkimaria, do you agree with the copyright assessment? Kees08 (Talk) 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: The video is uploaded at File:50th anniversary moon landing coin motion.webm. I think it would go nicely in that section, do you have any issues adding it? Kees08 (Talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No objection. I'm sorry to be some slow, my laptop died while I was traveling and I had to rely on my tablet and phone until Sunday night. I'm catching up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I am having tablet issues as well (Microsoft won't fix a unit they shipped me with a hardware defect. Surface Pros are garbage). I can add that in there. Kees08 (Talk) 20:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we move the reverse photo and put an image from the unveiling in? The Mint says all right reserved on those photographs, but as far as I know that is not right. You could move it down to striking, which is where it is discussed anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 16:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC) That's all the feedback that I have. Let me know your thoughts. Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your argument here. The Commons guideline called "house rules" refers to cases where the facility restricts photos or video. For example, if you personally were to go in and take a picture of a house proceeding and then release it as PD that would be fine. However, the creator in this case is imposing the restriction, and while it's certainly possible they're doing so only because of the committee ruling you cite, I don't think we have room to argue that their restriction is illegitimate. Now, given that as you note there are many videos already on Commons of house proceedings, possibly there's been a discussion there around this issue previously, or some reason I may be missing why the stated restriction is taken to not apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I will research into it more, I was unable to find anything the first time. It sounded like a case of the NASA Flickr account that posts photos labeled as NC, which we disregard since it is a government work and that restriction can't be placed. Kees08 (Talk) 18:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Query posted at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#HouseLive_videos Kees08 (Talk) 19:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Am I clear to add something from the Flikr page in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion you can upload and tag as US-GOV, we do the literal exact thing with NASA's Flickr. Kees08 (Talk) 22:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• Any reason there isn't an infobox?

The multiple coins and specifications make it difficult. I'm following the practice I did in Panama-Pacific commemorative coins.

• Not an issue that needs addressing for this article, of course, but any reason the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame coins don't have their own article?

We're short on help. I probably hadn't come up with the idea of gradual writing of a current-event article.

Background

• by the end of the decade — Unless I'm missing something, this part isn't supported by the citation. Maybe cite to the speech as well?

Oops. Source added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• a bulk sample — of soil?

Regolith technically, but yes, will add something.

• the eighth[4] — Just confirming that this source is used for everything after the first clause of the first sentence in this paragraph.

Yes, it is merely to establish that this was the eighth of eight photos taken by Armstrong in that sequence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal and legislation

• The source for the first paragraph is somewhat confusing, and I think wrong when it says the proposal was included in the 2015 report. The 2015 report is here; unless I'm missing something, there's no mention of the proposal. The 2014 report, on the other hand, includes it. I would add that as a second source to the paragraph and fix accordingly.
• There was danger that another commemorative coin bill might pass instead — Any idea what one?
• On December 5, the last day of the House session,[6] — The source doesn't seem to back this up
• uncirculated and in proof condition — What's the difference between the two? Perhaps link them to glossary of numismatics?
• Tom Uram, also a CCAC member, stated that the bill could have been improved by allowing a different design for each denomination, but that in many cases coin legislation is written by people in Washington who do not know what collectors want. — Seems a little bit out of place here; even though it mentions legislation, it's more of a qualitative assessment.

Obverse design selection

• I'm confused by the second paragraph. Were there three meetings: one of the CFA, one of the CCAC, and one of both?
• Extra info on Cooper, including that he also submitted a proposal for the Maine state quarter.
• This, and the following section, feel out of order. This section is about what happened from May 2017 to October 2018, and the next section is largely about what happened in and before June 2017. Here's a suggestion (since undone) for how to handle: link.

Design

• You're probably sick of hearing me say this, but what about a footnote listing the other five designs featuring alive people? (I won't hold it against you if you would rather not!)

I'm inclined to agree on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Striking

• The smaller silver dollar would cost $54.95 for the proof coin and $51.95 in uncirculated — The mint isn't given here, but it is for the others.
• enhanced reverse proof condition — What's this?

Now you're asking something! I will look for an explanation.

• Prices for the gold pieces — When were these set? Earlier in the paragraph, it says the gold prices were to be set at a later date.

Continued sales

• Sales of the half dollar set reached 94,119 by February 10 and it showed as unavailable on the Mint's website. However, this was not a sellout of the Apollo 11 half dollar, but only of the Kennedy piece ... By February 21, the proof half dollar set had sold out entirely. — This first makes it sound as if the Kennedy piece was sold out by February 10, and then says that it sold out 11 days later. I've tinkered with the language a fair deal and added qualified the February 10 date as a "forthcoming sellout," but you may want to check the language to confirm that it is correct.
• At one point you say 99,997 sets sold, then you say 99,998 sets.
• This section—particularly the sales figures, the part about sending some of the coins into space, and the Australia/Spain/Canada paragraph—feels a little bit like a chronology that was written as events happened, and lacks some cohesion as a result. It's not a huge issue, and I'm not sure what the solution would be—maybe including the weekly sales figures in extra rows in the chart below, and adding a subsection such as "Other promotions" to deal with the rest—but just something to think about.

Conclusion of sales

• identical mintage limits — for just the half eagle, or also for the half dollar and smaller dollar?
• Is the final paragraph all that exists for reviews/retrospective discussion of the coin?

Wehwalt, comments above. Seriously cool coin—I really like the design with the boot. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Drepana

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

When I nominated an article on a naval battle from the First Punic War - Battle of Cape Ecnomus - FunkMonk commented "hope it becomes a series!" And so, specially for them, this account of Carthage's only naval victory of the 23-year-long war. I feel that it is ready for the rigours of FAC, but realise that if anything can be found fault with, it probably will be. All commentary gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• Be consistent about the Cicero date

Oops. Fixed.

• Be consistent about using full name or initials for authors

Done.

• Sources appear reliable + are (otherwise) correctly formatted
• Source checks:
  • Checked Konrad. I had trouble verifying because in my version from Cambridge Core, note 30 appears on page 200. Could you quote exactly what text in the source supports the claim?

The note number is correct, the page number was wrong - apologies and now changed from 199. The text relied on is the second sentence from note 30 "Tarn (ibid.) surmised, plausibly enough, that Claudius knew already before the battle of Carthalo's reinforcements being on their way – indeed, that this intelligence had prompted him to launch the attack on Drepana before they could arrive there."

Thanks. I'm not sure that supports" several sources speculate", however.

Ah, I see your point. I can't recall, but I think that I misread the full stop in "Carthalo had just arrived at Drepana with 70 ships (Polyb. 1.53.2), and Adherbal's fleet may be estimated at anywhere between 100 and 130: see Tarn (n. 18), 54; Thiel (n. 3), 90; Lazenby (n. 3), 133. Tarn (ibid.) surmised, plausibly enough, that Claudius knew already before the battle of Carthalo's reinforcements being on their way – indeed, that this intelligence had prompted him to launch the attack on Drepana before they could arrive there." and took Thiel and Lazenby to also be supporting this. Whatever, thank you for picking me up on this. That means that we have Tarn, and Konrad saying "plausibly enough". So how about if I change it to "Two modern historians have speculated that Pulcher may have been aware of ..." and explicitly add Tarn as a source? (I have done this, as it makes sense to me, but it is easily undone or amended.)

I'm not sure it's fair to say that Konrad is speculating, he mentions Tarn's hypothesis in a footnote. I would just attribute to Tarn and cite both.

@Buidhe: I can't say that I am that bothered by it, but I would consider his interjection of "plausibly enough" to be agreement with it - as speculation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I see your point but I'm not completely convinced. Could I get a third opinion? (This is addressed to anyone reading this) buidhe 18:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

buidhe 14:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC) buidhe 13:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Checked Curry. No issues. buidhe 22:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe and thanks once again for stepping in. Your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe: Good catch and apologies. See my response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• All images are free, correctly licensed, and relevant. Information contained within is cited in the image description. buidhe 18:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• What can I say, other than thanks! I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• I wonder why the text under the infobox map is so small? Would be easier to read if it was the same size as the rest of the text.

It would, but IMO it would then look incongruous, being larger than the rest of the text in the infobox. It is the same size as the text in all other infobox text on Wikipedia. No, I don't know why infobox text is smaller, such things are above my pay grade.

• "Battle of Aegates" Link at first mention instead of second?

Done.

• "along with their capital" Maybe say "along with their capital, Carthage", for clarity, and since the name isn't mentioned in the article body earlier?

Good point. Done. (And in a couple of other articles, including a FA *red face*.)

• Link more names and terms in image captions?

OK. (IMO most people overlink, so I may not have added enough for your taste.)

• "trireme" is linked twice in successive sections.

Gah! Fixed. (This is what happens when I cut and paste.)

• I wonder whether, as in Battle of Cape Ecnomus, the section Operations in Sicily should come before the section on ships? Now it takes quite a while before the reader gets an idea of what this battle was about, and I think the ships used would logically be secondary to that.

Logically, I think it works better as it is; but in practice I think you have the right of it. And as I am all for anything that gets the information into the reader more smoothly, done.

Ok, it seemed that the ships used would be relevant as the preparation for the battle itself, and that the lead up to the war would therefore chronologically come before which ships were used in the battle itself. Anyhow, I think it looks fine now, but now the corvus is only presented long after it is first mention, so the presentation of it might be moved to first mention? FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That may have been why I swapped the sections around. I don't want to go off on a tangent of technical detail in the middle of a description of operations. IMO the technical aspects of the ships need separating from getting across the operational background. I have shuffled around a lot of sentences, and added a little extra detail, and I think that it now flows. See what you think. Jens Lallensack, this also goes to your first point.

Good solution, I think! FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk: One way to entice a reviewer - dedicate the article to them :-) . Your points above are all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, you can be pretty sure I'd reviewed it anyhow! FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe right align the image under Prelude, since it now clashes with an above image?

Done.

• "moved against the main Carthaginian base on Sicily of Lilybaeum" Had to read it a few times to get it, maybe "main Carthaginian base on Sicily, Lilybaeum" or "moved against Lilybaeum, the main Carthaginian base on Sicily", to avoid confusion?

Changed to "the Romans moved against Lilybaeum – which was the main Carthaginian base on Sicily." Better?

• "Sources other that Polybius" Than?

Oops.

• "Location Off Drepana (modern Trapani), Sicily" Link Depana in infobox?

Done

• "It was Carthage's greatest naval victory of the war" Only stated in the intro.

What an idiot! Fixed and sourced.

@FunkMonk: Your additional points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - looks nice to me now, and I hope the series continues!FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks FM. There is one more to go. The grand finale to 23 years of war. If you want a sneak preview, it is at ACR right now. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

• Corvus should be linked and explained at first mention, not later in the text.

Fair point. Can we discuss it together with FunkMonk's similar comment above?

• manoeuvrable . – one space too much.

Done.

• carried a crew of 300: 280 – I took some time to understand this colon here, first thought it is some ratio. Not sure if it should be combined with the semicolon that follows later in the same sentence. Maybe put "280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers" in brackets or use "including".

You are quite right; it was difficult for me to see because I knew what it meant anyway. Changed to 'A quinquereme carried a crew of 300, of which 280 were oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers' Does that work?

• although hexaremes (six oarsmen per bank), quadriremes (four oarsmen per bank) and triremes (three oarsmen per bank) are also occasionally mentioned – This sounds like if in a hexareme six oarsmen would sit next to each other on a bank together, at a single oar. The article Hellenistic-era warships describes it differently: Two on each level, summing up to six taking the three levels together. Is this known for certain for the Roman warships after all?

A bank would be three oars, one above the other, with five oarsmen; or six for hexaremes. The image is meant to help visualise this. There was a fair bit of discussion as to how best to communicate this at Battle of Cape Ecnomus. We ended up with "The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that for each file there were three banks of oarsmen, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each oar of the two uppermost levels and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file." I trimmed it as getting off topic, but that may have been a mistake. If I put it back in, would that address your comment?

I am still confused. Shouldn't it, in the present article, be "file" rather than "bank"? Above you say "The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that for each file there were three banks of oarsmen". In the article you say "triremes (three oarsmen per bank)". Isn't that contradicting? Should't it be "three oarsmen per file"? A definition of "bank" would really help here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies Jens. I was being slow on the uptake. I see your point, and yes - "bank" is an ambiguous term. Technically the explanation I give is accurate, but I can see that it is not easy reading. How about

The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that there would be sets – or files – of three oars, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each of the two uppermost oars and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file. This would be repeated down the side of a galley for a total of 28 files on each side; 168 oars in total.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This would be perfectly clear, yes! Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No Jens, thank you, for spotting this flaw, bringing it up, and insisting that I make it clear. I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent article, as always. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jens, it is very good of you to look at this. Your usual insightful comments, thanks. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Little to quibble about here. A few comments:

• suggest introducing Drepana in the first sentence ie "near Drepana (modern Tripani)" and just go with Drepana in the second para

Strange how you miss these thiings when you are too close to them.

• when mentioned, state that the Battle of the Aegates was the final battle of the First Punic War

Done.

• perhaps added (modern Agrigento) to Akragas

Done.

• then perhaps they were thirsty. ("Bibant, quoniam esse nollent.")→then perhaps they were thirsty ("Bibant, quoniam esse nollent.").

OK. Done.

• chivvy is a bit colloquial (and highly Brit Eng-centric). encourage the stragglers? drive the stragglers?

I have no idea what I was thinking there. I have gone with "possibly so he could discourage straggling."

• suggest "and he immediately ordered them to take on board the garrison as marines,"

Good idea. Done.

• suggest "passing between the city and two small islands to reach the open sea"

Done.

• suggest deleting "although it is impossible to reconstruct to what extent" as we already have estimates of the numbers of ships on each side

Done.

• "the coasts of Roman Italy in 248 BC"

Oops. Done.

• Battle of the Aegates is duplinked

Fixed.

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, appreciated. Your points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891

Not too much from me, but here goes.

• "Adherbal was able to lead his fleet out to sea before it was trapped " maybe rephrase to clarify meaning? My first reaction was 'They got trapped while on the open sea?!' but now I see it was to avoid being captured.

Good point. Changed to "Adherbal was able to lead his fleet out to sea before it was trapped in harbour". Does that work?

works for me

• "Since 2010 a number of artefacts have been recovered from the nearby site of the Battle of the Aegates, the final battle of the war, fought eight years later. Their analysis and the recovery of further items are ongoing. " does the discovery and analysis have any bearing on the information in this article? If not, what's the point of including it?

Weell now. Yes and no. I take your more general point and I have deleted it.

• "The modern historian Anne Curry asserts that " "The galley expert John Coates suggested " Why is the former written in present tense ('asserts'), whereas the other is in past ('suggested')?

Because I'm a crap writer? (I struggle with the convention of pretending that all writing is in the present tense.) Fixed.

• "full deck " I'm not immediately familiar with what a 'full deck' (as opposed to a half or quarter deck?) is outside of the connotation with card playing. Is this a well known term? Is there something we could link to or explain?

Simples - it's what I write without. Another good point. Sadly, there is no link I can find; despite the vast number of nautical terms in such articles as glossary of nautical terms. Does "Vessels were built as cataphract, or "protected", ships – that is, fully decked over – so as to be better able to carry marines and catapults." convey the meaning better?

Works much better for me, thanks

• "In 255 BC the Roman fleet was devastated by a storm while returning from Africa, with 384 ships sunk from a total of 464 and 100,000 men lost" is there no article or section about such a great loss of life? Perhaps even a red link we could add?

Would you believe that there is not? It is usually considered as a part of the aftermath of the Battle of Cape Hermaeum. (If you click on that you will see that there is no article on it and it redirects to something pretty unrelated.) Even if the article on the battle existed I would be loath to link without mentioning the battle itself in this article, which seems to be getting off topic. I may write something brief on the battle and the storm one day, but not today. In short, I am inclined to leave it unlinked to anything. (I have just moved it to my formal "to do" list.)

well then, that's fine. Seems like quite the gap in our coverage, but that's for another article... Maybe I'll poke around my local library (perhaps put my rusty Latin to work) and see if I can find anything this weekend.

• "but were defeated losing most of their elephants" should this be "but were defeated, losing most of their elephants"?

Done.

Not much, and pretty much all arguable or subjective, but great work as always on your part.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eddie. No. All were to the point - hence my immediately going with most of them. Wikipedia relies on editors diligently insisting that other editors write sense. I think that I am passable at checking other's work, but know that I am rubbish at checking mine. I rely on the community for that, so thank you for helping prevent me present a faulty piece of work.

Your points all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, happy to support. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

G'day Gog, just a few...

• between a Carthagian fleet under - is there a word "Carthagian" or should this be Carthaginian?

There isn't, it should.

• and Cape Hermaeum (255 BC). [44] - remove space before ref

Done.

• The immediate cause of the war was control - "cause" doesn't seem best word here, maybe motivation, purpose, aim, objective or similar? or
• The immediate cause of the war was control - maybe swap "of" to 'for', or add 'for' before "control"

I am not sure I see the issue, but have changed to "The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana" Does that help?

• Bibant, quoniam esse nollent - match quote marks, one is outside template, the other inside. (poor chickens "gone to sleep with the fishes"}

Sorted. And I removed a superfluous full stop. (Yes. To this day they occasionally catch feathered fish off the west coast of Sicily.)

• Is Carthalo the linked army officer definitely same as Carthalo the redlinked admiral you had til 23 Feb?

How embarrassing. No, he is a red linked admiral. Fixed.

• Adherbal brought his command up to 100 and sent him to raid - swap the "his" or "him" to Carthalo?

Done.

• Can you pls check the 3 links: [[Carthage (state)|Carthagian]], [[Carthage]] and [[Ancient Carthage|Carthage]] are all intentional?
  • What I should have said was that Carthage (state) redirects to Carthage. Is that intentional or o'link?

That's all, no ref orders:) JennyOz (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I could move some around for you if you would like? Ha ha.

G'day Jenny and thanks for your usual thorough service. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor clarification above but not a bother so I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenny. Yeah, I kinda knew that was a bum link, but somehow it snuck through. Thanks for picking it up. Both instances fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to coordinators

Good morning Ian. Given the above, I wonder if is permissible for me to let the next one out of the trap? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, pls do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

SMS Niobe

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Niobe had something of a colorful career, serving under the Imperial German, Yugoslav, Italian, and Nazi German flags (and depending on who you ask, maybe under the banner of the Independent State of Croatia as well). She also book-ended her relatively long life under the name Niobe, having been renamed Dalmacija and Cattaro (and, again, maybe Znaim) in between. This article is the result of a collaboration between Peacemaker and myself, and it passed a Milhist A-class review last year. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:SMS_Niobe_launching.png: as per the template, please provide evidence of lack of author attribution. Same with File:SMS_Niobe_(1899)_2.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've either removed the EU-no-disclosure template or moved it locally to avoid the issue, since we don't have access to the original German sources. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment by CPA-5

Hmm I'll do this later or so. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oh right in which kind of English style should it be written? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • American English. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• SMS Niobe ("His Majesty's Ship Niobe")[a] Delete ("His Majesty's Ship Niobe") because the note already cleared it out and it's unnecessary.
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• and a top speed of 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph) Link knots.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• The ship had a long career, serving in all three German navies, along with the Yugoslav and Italian fleets Link Yugoslav.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• but as one of the cruisers permitted to the post-war Reichsmarine (Navy of the Realm) British post-war.
  • Removed the hyphen. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Niobe was 105 meters (344 ft 6 in) long overall and had a beam of 12.2 m (40 ft) --> "Niobe was 105 m (344 ft 6 in) long overall and had a beam of 12.2 m (40 ft)"
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• triple-expansion steam engines manufactured by AG Germania, Tegel --> "triple-expansion steam engines manufactured by AG Germania in Tegel" Because this isn't a location.
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• powered by eight coal-fired Thornycroft water-tube boilers Why has Thornycroft an upper case?

• It is the name of the manufacturer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• The ship was protected by an armored deck that was 20 to 25 mm (0.79 to 0.98 in) --> "She was protected by an armored deck that was 20 to 25 mm (0.79 to 0.98 in)"
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• thick sides, and the gun shields were 50 mm (2 in) thick Gun shields?
  • I'm not sure what you're asking on this one. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm it's the first time I've heard about a gun shield and because it hasn't an article maybe a clarification is needed here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's linked earlier at " ten 10.5 cm (4.1 in) SK L/40 guns in single mounts protected by gun shields." Parsecboy (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• On 19 June 1906, Niobe was recommissioned for service in the East Asia Squadron To do what?

• Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Between 28 August to 2 September, and from 23 December What happend between 2 and 23 September?
• flotillas defending the Jade Bight and the mouth of the Weser Add river here.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• British submarine HMS Traveller south of Premantura but all of the torpedoes missed Add village here.

• Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Cattaro was later transferred to the Navy of the Independent State of Croatia Does Hildebrand say when she was transferred to Croatia?
• She returned to German service in September 1943 after Italy surrendered to the Allies Ehm was there a resistance when Germany took her?
• On the night of 21–22 September, while she was still refitting --> "On the night of 21/22 September, while she was still refitting"

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• when salvage operations began. She was raised and broken up for scrap by 1952 Maybe add "Yougoslav government"?
• with consideration given to Zenta or Novara --> " with consideration is given to Zenta or Novara"?

• No, that's not right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or so. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• No worries. No rush. We'll work through responses to the rest of your comments and come back when you get a chance. Keep well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Samuel May Williams

Nominator(s): Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This article has been in development for several years, and I have written most of the copy based on multiple sources, including one book-length biography. Despite the fairly rich selection of sources on Williams, he is largely forgotten in Texas, even in his adopted hometown of Galveston. I believe the article presents a complete and balanced view of this very complex person, including some reasons offered by reliable sources explaining the indifference to his memory among Texans. The article has benefited from proofreading and criticism by experienced editors, both inside and outside of peer review.

This article is about Samuel May Williams, a tri-lingual merchant from Providence and Baltimore. He did business in Argentina and New Orleans before his arrival to Texas, where he served as secretary to Stephen F. Austin. He and a business partner were financiers of the Texas Revolution.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Some of your images are missing alt text

• Fixed.

• See MOS:CREDITS

• Fixed.

• File:Wreck_of_the_Invincible.jpg is tagged as lacking author info

• Added author to Commons documentation. I do not know why the US Navy publication gives attribution to Humble Oil Company.

• File:Plan_of_the_City_of_Galveston,_Texas.jpg: why is the library believed to have held copyright?

• The map was printed in 1845 and the file says that it's in the public domain. I don't understand how the library claims rights. It's clear that I need to understand image issues better. Does this image need to be removed?

• No, but the tagging needs to be changed. The current tag would be appropriate for a case where the work's copyright holder released it into the public domain. If you can confirm that the map was published (not simply created) in 1845, then you can substitute a tag noting that the copyright is expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I found another copy of this map at Baylor University, which lists the imprint as "New York: Lith. of G. & W. Endicott, 1845." Is this evidence of printing or evidence of publication? Second, when you say "tag" does that refer to image caption, or something we attach to the file in the Commons?

• If there were multiple copies with the same date I'd say that's evidence of publication. By tag I mean a copyright tag at Commons, replacing the current one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the image until the free-use rationale can be resolved.

• File:Commercial_and_Agricultural_Bank_of_Texas_$1.00_(one_dollar)_private_scrip_(8519862080).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is more specific copyright information available? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• [6] "No known copyright restrictions." This was a bank note printed in Mexican Texas in 1835, but never circulated.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that's reflected in the current Flickr tag. But if you take a look at the tag's wording, "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined". So if the note was never circulated, when is the first confirmed publication?

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• This note is part of the Rowe-Barr Collection of Texas Currency, donated to the SMU Archives in 2003. I cannot find any information that would indicate an early publication date. I cannot find any information about rights in addition to what is contained in the documentation in the Commons file. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is it possible the work was never published prior to 2003? If so you could look at the PD-unpublished tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am not able to determine the publication date, though it seems likely that it's in 2003 or later. A bot performed an image license review in 2016, and Commons policy reserves the authority to conduct Flickr image reviews for administrators and other trusted editors COM:LR. I removed the image from the article until the free-use rationale can be resolved. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I think I have the tags for the two images sorted. Please check the new tags and let me know if you need any other information. Thanks for your patience. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Support by Kaiser matias

I'll note that I had previously reviewed the article for GA, and made comments at the Peer Review. Things I've noted there have been addressed, and I feel the article is good at this point. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Ruby2010

Just adding some thoughts below on the lead for now:

• I wonder how important it is to the subject to mention in the first sentence that he was a "close associate of Stephen F. Austin."? I did not know who that was before reading the article, so I did not understand the importance of it. I would suggest either removing that part from the sentence, or adding additional text clarifying who Austin was. If you opt to leave him listed there, then I'd suggest shortening the later mention of Austin later in the same paragraph.

• Williams's association with Austin is an important one, so I am retaining it, but adding a bit of context.

• ... clerking and later adding - is there an article you can link "clerking" to?

• Fixed.

• ... then formalized a partnership of with Thomas F. McKinney. - extra word in there

• Fixed.

• Definitely needs a link to Texians and Galveston, also recommend you find target articles for Brazos District, Texas independence, Texas Attorneys General, and Panic of 1857.

• Provided links to all except the Brazos District. I removed this phrase as a non-essential detail.

• Williams then returned focus to introducing the first bank in Texas, succeeding in 1848. Seems to be missing a word.

• Fixed.

• Many of Williams' friends and allies distanced themselves from the bank and encourage him...' Tense issue.

• Fixed. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

So far (having just read the lead), my main critique would be to consider that your readers, including me, may not know much about Texas history. Wikilinks and other minor clarifying text would help. Ruby2010 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations

Roar (film)

Nominator(s): NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Filmways...er...Drafthouse films presents: Roar!

This is one of those films that has a backstory more entertaining to listen to than actually watching it: actress Tippi Hedren and her husband Noel Marshall set out to make a film about lions, what follows is 11 years of "beastly terror". Around 70 (100 if you ask Noel's son) members of cast and crew were injured while acting/working in the proximity of animals. Then, a flood destroys their set and surrounding compound, further delaying production. On top of all that, it doesn't get released in the U.S. and only makes back $2 million.

I've been working on this article for well over a year; it was reviewed and listed as a good article, peer-reviewed by a FA mentor, and copy-edited two times. And even though this is my first Featured Article submission, I'll do my best to fix any issues spotted. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Fowler&fowler

Reserving a slot here. As inveterate animal lovers, my family and I are big fans of Tippi Hedren. I have my plate full right now, but I've put you on my user page to-do list, and will make some initial comments here in a day or two. That's a promise. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Roar's story follows Hank, a wildlife preservationist who lives with lions, tigers, and other big cats in Africa." (I understand this is a movie, but as there are no wild tigers in Africa, Hank must have some kind of preserve or sanctuary for tame big cats. The "preservationist" part throws me off, as the term is more commonly applied to wildlife. Is this made clear in the sources? The Plot says, "American doctor and wildlife preservationist Hank (Noel Marshall) lives in Tanzania with big cats, to study their behavior." That doesn't clarify either.) I did see the movie but am blanking out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a really hard part to clarify, and is a big part that critics griped about in the reviews: Hank's occupation was never made very clear in the film. The dialogue only tells us he's studying big cats (according to Mativo, in their natural habitat or otherwise, which is an attempt to explain tigers in Africa). Drafthouse Films, the company who re-released Roar, states in an article that he is a preservationist...HOWEVER, on the back of the Blu-ray release, he is referred to as a doctor and "outspoken naturalist". The cats aren't tamed at all I should mention, and I don't think his ranch is much of a "sanctuary", so I'll add mention that his ranch is a preserve as well. Also, going off just information given to us in the beginning of the film, Hank is also seen bandaging wounds and helping a native tribe (while wearing a medical coat of sorts), but that's the only time it's introduced and or used in the film. This is why I included the 'doctor' part, so should it be removed then? -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 14:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion: You need to think about presenting the story in a way that doesn't presuppose any knowledge of the story. So you had, "His family attempts to visit him." That is too much information, as I have no idea of the confusion at the airport. Y has wisely taken it out. But at the same time, the information has to be enough and consistent. So, when you say, "are accidentally left with a number of animals they fear," which Y. has again fixed, there is both too much information (accidentally) and not enough or vague (left), or redundant (they fear). You can simply say, "they find themselves unattended with some of these animals." At this point, I'm expecting something more, how the plot takes off from there, not in great detail, but some clue, so I'm thrown off by the naming the names. You should go through the article looking for such issues. The grammar I can fix easily; the coherence I have to work harder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

How does this sound then? Roar's story follows Hank, a wildlife conservationist who lives on a nature preserve in Africa with lions, tigers, and other big cats. When his family visits him, they are instead confronted by the group of animals. Please tell me if this is better?

Nice. Much better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Also, you need to clarify (which again Y has flagged in his edit summary) whether he is a conservationist (preservationist does mean the same, but is less commonly used) or a behaviourist. (He can be both.) I mean lions and tigers are apex predators; even in India, the only place where they both exist in the wild, their habitats don't intersect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's all over the place and was the subject of criticism from critics. Does "naturalist" sound better according to the DVD synopsis? (see above)

On balance "naturalist" is better. No source says, "animal behaviorist?" Are we bound literally by the sources? Can't make a common-sense interpretation? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked at Tippi Hedren's memoir, and she states that he's a zoologist "studying a collection of big cats under one roof"! My god people, make a decision!! XD. How does zoologist sound?

Naturalist is probably better; zoologist is too preciose. Let's not worry about the speciality for now, but please file away, "studying a collection of big cats under one roof." That is potentially useful info. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Done! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 00:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I think I've fixed all of the issues, along with other prose problems. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. I just took at a look at the lead. There are still some coherence and organization issues. Let me go ahead and make an edit. Will post here when done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know of other issues so I can address them. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 23:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've left two versions there. The second is more precise. I'm strapped for time right now but will take another look tomorrow. Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Filming actually started in 1976, not '74. Otherwise, everything looks pretty good; I wasn't sure before if mention of the attacks should have been put in the last paragraph or not. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-D

I don't think that this article's prose meets FA standards at present. As some examples:

• The first sentence of the lead is rather complex and doesn't really leave readers wanting to continue with the article

I've tried to fix this by looking at another recently featured article, The Thing, which moves the cast to the end of the paragraph, allowing the film's story some leeway.

• "When his family attempts to visit him, they are accidentally left alone with a number of animals that they fear." - is the word "alone" needed here?

Removed

• "Hedren and Marshall learned about endangered wildlife in Africa while Hedren was filming Satan's Harvest in Mozambique, and they decided to make a film in response" - in response to what? I presume that they became aware of a need for more action to protect endangered wildlife or similar?

Added context: poaching was what they wanted to respond to.

• "Hedren, Marshall, and their family lived with a number of big cats in their California homes." - the context here is unclear

I hope this is what you mean: By suggestion from animal experts, Hedren, Marshall, and their family lived with a number of big cats in their California homes. It was a professional trainer who suggested they get to know the animals. Let me know if I need more info or if this is okay?

• "Although Roar's message (to protect African wildlife) and animal interactions were praised, its plot, story, inconsistent tone, dialogue, and editing were criticized." - passive voice (who was making these comments? Professional critics?)

Yes, it was critics who made these remarks.

• The formatting in the Cast section is a bit odd. Why is most of this content in horizontal dot points?

Fixed

• "As the script developed with frequent changes, some of the lions were later credited as writers." - Which lions are being referred to here, and why were they credited? Was this a joke, or an acknowledgement of how they influenced the plot?

No joke, the animals did what they wanted to on set so they were credited as both writers and actors. It doesn't state the lions by name, but it lists some "incidents". I tried adding more context, hope it doesn't sound loopy: The script developed with frequent changes but allowed the animals to improvise moments, such as playing with the family's boat or riding a skateboard. This led some of the lions to be credited as writers.

• The sentence starting with "Marshall and Hedren began illegally housing," is rather complex

Do you mean it has no explanation? I've tried to fix it up here: Marshall and Hedren began illegally keeping young lions that they had acquired from zoos and circuses, as they did not have permission from authorities beforehand to house them.

• What's an "African-style house"? There's a considerable diversity of architecture styles in Africa.

This is referring to inspiration or the main idea behind the blueprint. How does [...] a two-storey house inspired by African architecture. sound?

• "Some of the big cats also became plagued with airborne, feline-related illnesses, which resulted in the death of 14 lions and tigers." - did this lead to animal welfare authorities responding?

I checked the book again. No mention of authorities, just that they called in UCLA and UC Davis experts who determined it was airborne and unpreventable (due to no vaccine against it) if it happened again.

• "Due to the large number of untrained animals on set, there were a reported 48 injuries within the two years since filming started" - the "since" here is confusing

Re-worded: [...] there were a reported 48 injuries within the two years of filming.

• "70 members have been injured during the production of Roar" - the tense here is also wrong. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by another user

• Page numbers are needed for each of the references in current refs 7, 11 and 15 (all books) - you can't just point readers at the entire book and hope they find the right page, and this fails WP:V Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Changed the format to include page numbers, instead of using the "rp" format included outside of the citation. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh, "doesn't really leave readers wanting to continue with the article?" Are you a spokesman for readers or are you speaking for yourself? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What are you hoping to achieve here? Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That you speak logically. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm Now I see why people were recently complaining about you trolling FACs. Give it up. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Nick is just giving out an example on how lengthy and bloated the sentence was and how it needed trimming...it's not an insult to my work on the article, it was meant to be taken as a critique.

Apologies @Nick-D: and @NowIsntItTime:, I stayed up too late. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I addressed a few of your issues here Nick. I aim to fix the rest tomorrow as I need sleep. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 05:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I have tackled the issues you've pointed out so far. Please look over them and tell me if I've addressed them adequately. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 03:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Image Review - Shearonink

• The 4 images lack meaningful alt-text.
• The Jan de Bont image lacks a caption at Commons. Also, the picture seems to be from 1973...there isn't anything available that's more recent? Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Added alt text. Replaced image and added description from a 1975 picture (sorry, that's the latest picture on Wikimedia Commons). -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the images pass muster. Inclined to support but will wait for word on the other FA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Coropuna

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the highest volcano in Peru, which currently happens to host the largest ice cap of the tropics even though it is retreating like most ice bodies of the world. The volcano itself began forming during the Miocene or Pliocene but activity continued until recent times; two or three eruptions occurred within the last 10,000 years. Aside from its geological and climatological importance, Coropuna was also a holy site of the Inka, which dedicated two archeological sites to it.

This article was already at FAC two months ago and was withdrawn to work on mainly prose issues. I've taken the liberty to message all the reviewers back then, if that is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I supported the last nomination based on the content. I will leave the word-smith minutiae to others. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments SG

Resolved on FAC talk, change installed in article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent raised this on his talk, so I'm addressing it here. (Although we worked for weeks on this article, I focused on prose in individual sections, and never actually got to read the entire thing through ... I missed this section.) Coropuna was considered to be the most important God (apu) of the region, the second-most important in the cosmology of the Andes and a holy mountain; it was particularly important for the town of Cotahuasi. ... Today, St Francis of Assisi is sometimes localised at the top of the mountain by pious people and the mountain is used in mortuary rites to this day. Can we know why it was particularly important for Cotahuasi? The two parts of the St Francis of Assisi sentence aren't connected; there are two different thoughts there= two sentences. Today, ... to this day ... redundant ... and take care with MOS:RECENT to specify what exactly is meant. The sentence is awkward; localized? The reader doesn't know what that means. (Iri's question?) So I consulted the source to try to understand what was being said here. Iri says, "It might be worth finding a Spanish speaker (ping for SandyGeorgia) to ask es-wiki if anyone there has any idea about why the locals believe a medieval Italian is living on their mountain as I can't be the only reader who finds it odd." The source is in English, and culturally, I don't find this at all odd. Different saints are patrons/protectors of different things in the Catholic religion, and I've seen all kinds of customs similar to this throughout my time in Latin America ... but that still doesn't help understand what the sentence is trying to say. The source says: Noteworthy in this vein is the fact that the pious among today’s Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano, the sacred Mount Coropuna, where the Poverello of Assisi awaits the souls of dead Andeans to fly into his paternal arms. ... Flying Francis appears in centers of Franciscan influence that are located in highly volcanic or seismically active regions. Seismicity and volcanism appear to have been the trigger for the depiction of these eschatological scenes in colonial times, and the initial center of dissemination of the novel iconography was the Cuzco friary. In the Andes, Francis appears more often than not in paintings and sculptures created by native artists, often commissioned by wealthy indigenous nobles for Indian towns. ... Flying Francis and his fellow militant angels also highlight the appropriation of the rhetoric of the oppressor by the oppressed and the subsequent redirection of that rhetoric against the oppressor. And so on; there is plenty in the source to expand the sentence enough to help the reader understand how this came to be, and the source is in English. Will come back to this when I have time; five of us working made tons of progress on the article,[7] but I never found time to read the whole thing. Someone with better prose than I might figure out how to fix the passage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC) I'll reply in this section to keep the thread together even though it probably violates something; my concern with this section is that it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Sure, Catholicism has lots of patron saints who don't necessarily have an obvious connection, but as I understand it the locals don't believe just the St Francis is the patron saint of the mountain, but that St Francis has been resurrected and is currently physically living on the mountain. That is definitely not typical Catholicism; if the sources genuinely don't say how this belief came about then so it goes since we can't speculate in Wikipedia's voice, but every reader who gets to this section is going to be confused by it. (I don't really buy "Flying Francis appears in centers of Franciscan influence that are located in highly volcanic or seismically active regions"; the spiritual heartland of Franciscan belief in Italy has no shortage of active volcanoes but I never heard of a connection between Francis and (e.g.) Vulsini.) ‑ Iridescent 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC) First the cultural part, then the source-->text dilemma. One key is the sourced phrase, "among today's Peruvian peasantry". I am not surprised at all. Odd local customs tangentially related to religious beliefs are legion in the hispanic culture. Although they often originate among those with less formal education, they often become widespread cultural norms and expectations. To this day, I get very odd looks when I nervously scurry to pick up a purse that a guest in my house has set on the floor, or to ask a child with a seashell in her pocket to leave it outside. Of course I know intellectually that dire consequences are not going to befall my household because someone set their purse on the floor or brought a seashell into my house, but these are nonetheless cultural practices of dubious and odd origins that become the norm. Still does not seem odd to me that peasants have these beliefs, even if they don't exist in other countries and we can't understand how they relate to Catholicism. How does Cuba's brujeria relate to Catholcism? It doesn't; but most practice it. No Venezuelan woman will ever set her purse on the floor or bring a seashell into your home, no matter the level of their education. Does that make sense? No. So, to the source-->text dilemma, the source a) explains this is a peasant belief, b) says it appears to have been triggered around a local Peruvian (Cuzco) friary during Colonial times as a response to seismicity (that explains the local custom, not found for example in Italy), c) was furthered by wealthy Indigenous nobles through artwork, and d) is related to themes of rhetoric against the oppressor. We have enough to craft one sentence. If it's hard to do, safest is just to directly quote the source. I am not a good wordsmith; you do it, Iridescent :) :) The other issues I listed should also be fixed in that section. Coropuna is not just a volcano; it is a tourist site and a holy site; we have to address this content even if briefly. Also, Iri, re "physically living on the mountain", the source mentions "angels", which aren't such a stretch: I missed the part where you come up with physically resurrected and living there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC) I can't see how to read the pious among today’s Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano in any way other than that he's physically there. (The alternative—that Francis has changed from human to angelic form—really would be heresy at burned-at-the-stake levels, since Francis was human and it's an article of faith that angels are sinless, unchanging and unchanging beings of pure spirit). ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've split the sentence, but regarding the MOS:CURRENT thing this falls under the "very long time periods" proviso there. As for why it is important for Cotahuasi the source does not specify but it looks like it's because Coropuna is in that area. On the religious aspect ... I wonder if following the source a sentence like "Native people have adapted Spanish beliefs such as Francis of Assisi into their own culture" (needs a better vocabulary) might work as an explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Best I leave the wordsmithing to others more competent :) On MOS:CURRENT, is the first "today" redundant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've attempted a slight rewrite here to explain, which should probably be checked (it's sourced to the quote that Sandy posted). Just to clarify, the first "today" in the article or in the section? There is only one "today" in the section. I am struggling for a synonym to "localized" that could work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

New wording installed after discussion on FAC talk. Looks good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support promotion to FA. Have done a few more wording tweaks and some conversions that were a bit off in last week and have read it over twice again. Using the FA Tools from the article talkpage, there are no dead refs and citation bot turned up only one formatting error. From my end I cannot see any reason to not promote this article.--MONGO (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comments from Fowler&fowler Reserving a slot here. I haven't forgotten, just have my plate full right now. I've added this review to my to-do list on my user page. Will get here very soon. I have to earn my 1/3 star. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sakura Wars (1996 video game)

Nominator(s): Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

In 1996, Sega and Red Company, now Red Entertainment, released Sakura Wars, a cross-genre video game that included tactical role-playing, dating sim and visual novel elements. It became the highest-selling title for the Sega Saturn and spawned a popular franchise that continues in Japan to this day, with a sixth installment released this past year.

Although this game was localized in Russia and China, American/European role-playing video game fans had to wait until Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love was released in 2010 since Sega release the game into the then-niche Western JRPG field. Since this article was promoted to GA back in 2018, ProtoDrake and I have extensively polished it up; I think it can go all the way to FA.

This is the first part of my efforts to get all of the main Sakura Wars series articles up to GA+. It had an FAC nomination in 2019, but it was closed due to inactivity. Over nine months later, I think it may be worth trying again. Hopefully, the second time is the charm. Thanks for reviewing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - I noticed that a lot of the refs are missing the "title" parameters. They need to be fixed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I just added some titles (title parameters with actual titles) to the remaining refs as of this writing. It ain't perfect. I think I fixed the issue for now. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 22:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've been a busy editing machine as of now. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 23:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

Note: I have not verified the sources as I cannot read Japanese, mostly looked prose.

Infobox

• It might be worth mentioning that Askella and Dysin Interactive were the publishers for Microsoft Windows for Russia and China respectively in the main body so you can shift the refs out of the infobox. But that is up to you.

Lead

• Unnecessary to wikilink Tokyo per WP:OVERLINK
• Probably worth mentioning that the game is set in the 1920s

Gameplay

• Live & Interactive Picture System (LIPS) The ampersand should just be an and per MOS:AMP.
• Use either "Players" or "the player" in one section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Gameplay.

I used "the player". I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 23:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• ...granting statistic increases and improving combat ability Does the statistic increase directly improve the combat ability. If so I would suggest adding "subsequently". If not leave it.

I added "subsequently". Problem solved. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 22:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, one of our buddies here did it already, so I was confused. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 22:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• The game ends when certain conditions are not met or if the health bar on Ogami's Koubu reaches zero... Would the game not also end if the player wins the battle.

I added "such as winning a battle". Checkmarked it. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 22:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Synopsis

• Probably worth wikilinking "Sendai" since it is not as well-known as Tokyo
• The city recovers at the group relaxes I am guessing this is suppose to say: "The city recovers as the group relaxes"

Refs

• As mentioned above, there are 7 refs without the title parameter filled in.

To quote from earlier in this page: "I just added some titles (title parameters with actual titles) to the remaining refs as of this writing. It ain't perfect. I think I fixed the issue for now." I guess I'm right it seems. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Refs 1, 5, 85, 101, 118 (possibly missed one or two) need to have the trans-title and language (where applicable) parameters filled in.

Bingo! Just fixed it. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 00:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 3 seems to be published in 2009 not 2006
• When referencing page numbers you use en dashes instead of hyphens per MOS:DASH which needs to changed on refs 8, 9, 11, 44, 51, 65, 66, etc.

I believe I used en dashes correctly. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 00:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• There are a few refs missing archives like 25.

Added archive urls. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 00:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the website parameter would be more precise when filling out sources from RPGFan (as well as it resulting in italics).
• The publisher parameter should be consistently wikilinked for example with Enterbrain and the publisher parameter should be present for Kotaku.

I made it. The publishers are now consistently wikilinked and I added G/O Media as publisher of Kotaku. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 00:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I should be able to go over the rest in the coming days. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I plan to do a review of this myself soon, but I just want to point out that Spy-cicle's the ampersand should just be an and is incorrect here, as Live & Interactive Picture System is a proper name - the MOS page they're linking says to retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T.--Alexandra^IDV 05:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah looking back on it I misinterepted MOS:AMP. I have since striked that part. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Responded below.

• I've addressed the concerns in the lead.
• The problems in the Synopsis section have been corrected.
• I will try to find some titles for the 7 refs that are not filled in.
• The date in Ref 3 has been corrected.
• Corrected publishers in the citations.
• I will get the rest of the problems addressed in the next couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Okay great, I will review the rest of the article soon. (Side note: I did not receive the ping I think because the ping was not on the same line of it being signed just so you know if you need to ping another user on a different occassion).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm Aya Syameimaru! took care of the rest of the problems. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I checked stuff, and then I checkmarked everything. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 23:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mary van Kleeck

Nominator(s): Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Mary van Kleeck, an American social scientist and feminist of the 20th century. It is currently a Good Article (since November), and as a first time FA-nominator, I sought the mentorship of Coemgenus before nominating the article. Van Kleeck was a fascinating figure but there is not a great deal of scholarship on her, so the article is comprehensive but still relatively short. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from 100cellsman

There are no length requirements for Featured Articles, so I wouldn't worry about it being short.🧍‍♂️⭕⭕ (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. As noted above, I've agreed to mentor Ganesha811 in this nomination and I wish to add my support for the article after she made the few changes I suggested before nominating it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Mary_van_Kleeck_LOC_hec.10458.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Same with File:VAN_GLECK,_MARY_LOC_hec.10457.jpg

• These images are from the Harris & Ewing Collection given to the Library of Congress. Harris & Ewing was a US photo studio from 1905 to 1977, when it closed. I'm not the original uploader for either image, but the library (and hence Wikimedia) claim there are no restrictions on these images and that publication is permitted (see here). The LoC also claims both images were published between 1913 and 1918. Subjectively, her age appears to be consistent with those dates. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• The LOC claim is that the images were "created/published" in that range, which is different from definitely stating they were published in that range. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. I'm not sure there is any way to state more definitively that they were published in that range without heading to Washington and doing original research at the LoC. Given that, what do you advise? Should the images be removed or should the Wikimedia record simply be modified to reflect the lack of definitive evidence? I'm new to FAC so I'm not sure what the best course is here. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, any thoughts on this issue (or the other unresolved comment below)? Thanks for the comments! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• The easiest solution for Harris & Ewing images is to rely on the Harris-Ewing tag and omit any other tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. Done for these images (and, for good measure, the other in the series on Wikimedia). Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• File:Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0394).jpg: source link is dead

• Fixed. Refound link (here) and updated Wikimedia record accordingly.

• File:Photo_of_Mary_Van_Kleeck.jpg should use original not upload date, and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• This one is problematic. I uploaded a higher resolution version of this image, but the original was uploaded without a lot of good information, as you say. I'm not sure when the original date is. A digital display record of the same image exists at the LoC, but has no further information. I think, that unless you have another suggestion, this image should be removed from the article (and probably Wikimedia too) until its rights situation can be ascertained. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, unless more information can be found this should probably be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. Removed and replaced with File:"Men wanted today to work on pulpwood cutting, logging and in saw mills" - NARA - 515003.jpg, which is an US Employment Service poster. Should be good on rights with this one.

Comments by Epicgenius

Hello. I will leave some more comments later. (Note that I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.) On first glance this is what I saw:

• Of Dutch origin, Van Kleeck was a lifelong New Yorker, - This reads strangely. And the link leads to "Dutch American".

• Fixed. Rephrased the sentence (and the following one). The link leads to Dutch American since Van Kleeck was a Dutch American - I think that makes more sense than any other potential link. What would you suggest? Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• "A Dutch American, van Kleeck was a lifelong New Yorker". Or "Van Kleek was a lifelong New Yorker of Dutch origin". Either is fine. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks for the suggestions - went with the first. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Also, be consistent when you capitalize or lowercase "van Kleeck" in the middle of sentences.

• Fixed. Yeah, I did another runthrough to make sure these are right and caught a few.

• undergraduate studies at Smith College - where's Smith College? Relevant because the previous sentence mentions her being a lifelong New Yorker, so this implies Smith College is elsewhere.

• Fixed. Added "in Massachusetts" to clarify.

• President Wilson - president of where? We can't assume all readers are Americans.

• Fixed I actually disagree that this is needed. While all readers may not be Americans, I think it is clear from context that we would be talking about the American president here - to help clarify this, I added "U.S." before Army in the preceding sentence, and "American" before War Department in the preceding clause. The following sentence also mentions her/this action's Americanness. Writing "American President Wilson" or "President of the United States Wilson" seems a bit awkward here. If you feel strongly, though, I can edit again to reflect your views. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, what you added is fine. In the future "U.S. President" (or US President) is fine. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Epicgenius, great, thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also jumping down to the end:

• An excerpt from that questioning follows below: - "below" is redundant. In almost every version of the article, the text that follows is located below.

• Fixed. Good call, thanks.

• Van Kleeck died of heart failure during surgery to replace a broken hip on June 8, 1972, in Kingston, New York, aged 88 I would consider rewording this, since it currently reads awkwardly.

• Fixed. Rephrased the sentence. Let me know if you think the new version has any issues. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think length is a problem (it has 14,000 bytes of readable prose, so it's already pretty long). I will check more later. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not forgotten about this. I am studying for a test tomorrow but hope to have some more comments afterward. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, thanks for the comments so far! I'd welcome any other comments you have. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It seems as though I have indeed forgotten about this. Let me take a look at the rest of the page shortly. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 More comments:

• Eliza Mayer of Baltimore - do we know Van Kleeck's mother's occupation? Asking only because we only have the father's occupation as well.

• Response: I don't know of any sources that explicitly an occupation for her. In the absence of other evidence, I assume she was a homemaker. I do recall a source that Eliza was her father's favorite child, the youngest and only daughter, but that didn't seem relevant enough to Mary van Kleeck to put in this article.

• This is a minor detail anyway, so it's fine. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Flushing High School - the fact that this is in NYC could probably be mentioned, since the context is that she grew up elsewhere.

• Fixed. Added "in New York City".

• where she thrived - studying calculus - should be either a spaced en-dash, or an em-dash per MOS:DASH. Check the article for other instances of this as well

• Fixed. I didn't see any others but I'll keep a weather eye out for this and other style issues.

• As part of this work, van Kleeck carried out investigations of enforcement of the labor laws governing the workweek, then limited to 60 hours, a provision which was frequently ignored by employers - This wording feels awkward. I understand the message here, but the second half doesn't flow well. I suggest something like "which was limited to 60 hours at the time, though this provision was frequently ignored by employers".

• Fixed. Adopted your wording, which I agree is clearer.

• , which was the start of a relationship which would last for forty years. - the word "which" is repeated in a short span here; replace one of these words, or cut the first "which was" completely.

• Fixed. Deleted 'which was.'

• The organization had been founded the same year - I think "the same year" can also be cut or reworded. Unless you were intending to say Van Kleeck gained support from the Russell Sage Foundation in 1907, shortly after its establishment in the previous sentence. In which case, definitely reword it, because this is repetitive.

• Fixed. Cut 'the same year', moved phrase 'shortly after its establishment' in previous sentence. I think it flows better now, but let me know what you think.

• In 1916, van Kleeck persuaded the Foundation to create the Division of Industrial Studies with her as its head. - This is not directly sourced. Is it related to the next paragraph? If so, move this sentence to the following paragraph instead.

• Fixed. This was actually just a missing citation, which I've now added from a previously added source. In any case I agree the sentence works better as the lead of a new paragraph, and have moved it accordingly.

• , according to the Encyclopædia Britannica - what is the purpose of this fragment? (Especially since you already have a reference.) If it's particularly important to include this in-text attribution, this can stay. If not, cut it.

• Response: this was added at Coemgenus's suggestion as part of the mentoring process. They wrote: ""she became a notable figure in the study of industrial labor conditions" --someone will probably ask you to attribute this in the text, showing that it's the view expressed in a reliable source and not your own opinion". Hence the fragment. I'm happy to cut it if you think it significantly detracts from the article.

• In this context, it should be good. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• She recommended the creation of a Women's Bureau in the American War Department, and as a result President Woodrow Wilson appointed[14] van Kleeck to lead a new Women in Industry Service group, a sub-agency of the Department of Labor.[20] - ref 14 has an unusual placement here. Is it being used to cite the fact she was appointed, as opposed to elected or something else?

• Reponse: it is placed there to reflect the fact that she was appointed directly by President Wilson, and not some other executive functionary - this fact is reflected in source [14], but not in source [20]. Is there a standard protocol for sourcing cases like this?

• Generally, refs "should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies" (MOS:REFPUNCT) so I think it's fine. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• In December 1918, the group published a wide-ranging report entitled Standards for the Employment of Women in Industry, which was later used as the basis for the groundbreaking Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which applied basic working standards to men and women throughout the country. - this sentence needs to be split or reworded. It looks like a run-on sentence to me.

• Fixed. Split sentence after the report name to avoid run-on.

• Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover's administrations - since these are multiple administrations, should be "Harding's, Coolidge's, and Hoover's".

• Fixed.

• including the President's Conference on Unemployment in 1921 - How come this is part of the preceding sentence (about serving on various committees) instead of the following sentence (about the unemployment conference itself)?

• Response: Honestly just for flow. I think it's difficult to make the second sentence work as a non-run-on, and the phrase you highlighted in the previous sentence connects the two neatly. However if you feel there's a better way to structure this paragraph I'm very open to suggestions. :)

• I didn't even notice. I was thinking you can split the Conference on Unemployment text into two sentences, but on the other hand, that might give too much weight to that particular detail. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• she resigned after one day in protest due to her belief - this needs punctuation, or rewording. I take it she resigned in protest after one day? Otherwise this is very confusing.

• Fixed. Reordered phrases so it now reads "She resigned in protest after one day due to her belief...".

• What's the NRA?

• Fixed. - National Recovery Administration - I expanded the acronym in text.

• Good thing you did that as well. My mind jumped to the rifle club instead :) epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• She lost the election and turned her focus to nuclear activism and disarmament work.[15][3] - Was she a third-party candidate? In any case, the ref order should be fixed so [3] is before [15].

• Response/Fixed. Switched ref order. Yes, she was a third-party candidate, as described in the previous sentence.

• Van Kleeck died of heart failure at the age of 88 during surgery to replace a broken hip on June 8, 1972, in Kingston, New York.[10] - this sentence is trying to pack too many details into a single clause. Also, shouldn't we mention her age closer to her date of death? E.g. "Van Kleek died on June 8, 1972, at the age of 88 in Kingston, New York. The cause of death was listed as heart failure, which occurred during surgery to replace a broken hip" (I do not recommend this wording, but this is an example of what I am talking about.)

• Fixed? Rephrased. Removed "during surgery to replace a broken hip" entirely, simply because it doesn't seem needed and is awkward to fit in. Moved her age to new, short final sentence. Let me know what you think. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• This way works fine as well. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

These are all my comments for now. Ping me back after you resolve these, and I will have another look. epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, pinging as requested! Thanks for all the comments. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Support on prose. I think all my concerns have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pekarangan

Nominator(s): Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a type of tropical home garden developed in Indonesia. Currently a GA, there is no significant additional edit/information to the article since. I think it's enough for FA standards, and it's probably good to go for nomination. Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

This looks pretty comprehensive to someone who knows nothing about the topic. I'm interested that you wrote in AE, given that BE is standard in all the former British colonies in South and Southeast Asia, but of course Indonesia wasn't one of those. Some comments.

@Jimfbleak: Thank you for the review! I'll try my best to improve the article. (a note: Indonesians are more familiar with AE, given that Indonesia wasn't a British colony, as you said.... and perhaps thanks to a sizable number of Indonesian scholars in the past who sought after graduate/doctoral degrees in the US and returned to Indonesia, acquiring influence in various public and private institutions back home.) Dhio-270599 14:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• no problem with duplinks, but the User:Headbomb/unreliable script flagged up Asian Social Science as a predatory publisher, so perhaps you should comment on that. It doesn't mean that the "Effects of Sustainable Home-Yard Food Garden (KRPL) Program: A Case of Banten in Indonesia" can't be used if you are happy with that, the paper itself looks OK. Has it been published elsewhere?

Thanks for the info! I'll use the predatory publishers' script from User:Headbomb in the future. I'll try to find another article to substitute it.

an update: I've changed the Amrullah ref and the RPL description/history sentence to a reference by Nawir et al. about a 1951 program on Indonesian home gardens.

• wild animals— I'd suggest "(including farmed fish, poultry and ruminants and wild animals)". You also have "animal" three times in that sentence.

Made a minor edit to that. However, I'm not sure if I edited it right - is it okay for you to re-check it?

• Looks underlinked to me, I'd suggest linking at least ecosystem, langua, lemongrass, eggplant, water buffalo, fauna, amphibian, edge effect, precipitation, genetic, insectivorous, carbon capture, fallow land, carbohydrates, proteins and vitamin A at first occurrence

All done; vitamin A is linked as vitamins [[vitamin A|A]] and [[vitamin C|C]].

• yard in the plants section is worked to death. Vary it a bit with garden, plot, area or similar.

Done.

• Any reason why scholars aren't given first names?

If you mean the ones from the Ashari-referenced paragraph from the "Name" section, the original writers of the referred article (Ashari et al.) only put the scholars' last names in the journals. However, I've come to realize that the last names actually refer to names in the bibliography within the Ashari article that the Pekarangan WP article lacked.

An observation: "Sajogyo" is a single name; the first name of Hartono is unknown in the Ashari article; Simatupang and Suryana are only referred as "P. Simatupang" and "A. Suryana" in the article.

• waste dumping in garbage pits instead of using them for compost—I think you mean dumping waste in garbage pits instead of using it for compost

Done.

I'll have another read when I get time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• melinjo (Gnetum gnemon) produce leaves consistently perhaps insert "edible"?

Done.

• similar gardens in other Indonesian islands tend to have a big size. perhaps tend to be larger

Done.

• used for liturgical purposes — I'd guess Hindu on Bali; can you clarify?

It is. Is "used for Balinese Hinduism liturgical purposes" good?

I'm happy with all the responses above, but I have a couple of queries about the accuracy of the long quotation. I'd be astonished if a 19th century British diplomat wrote AE "labored" rather than BE "laboured", and I suspect that "verdant grove" is more plausible than "verdant glove"! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks for pointing those out - both corrections are right, with the latter was, perhaps, a typo. Dhio-270599 08:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No further concerns, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Dhio-270599 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 82

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a relatively minor Interstate highway that took over 30 years to build because of inter-city disputes on where it should go. This highway passes through one of the most productive agricultural areas in the U.S., especially when it comes to hops and wine. It was promoted as a GA over a year ago and went through a project A-Class Review that only got one review. SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Yakima_River_Canyon_highway_paved_in_1924_Washington_State.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per review at ACR. My one hesitation was the lack of publishers in the newspaper article citations - not necessarily because I think they're needed but because I've been told that is generally required at FAC. But open to input either way. --Rschen7754 05:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Lee Vilenski

• First paragraph is a little short. If you combined 1&2 it would be the same size as the fourth para. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Took a section of the second paragraph and grafted it onto the first, and expanded the second paragraph.
• WP:INFOBOXCITE - the length is in the body, doesn't need to also be sourced in the infobox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Road articles normally have the length cited in the infobox.
    • Why though? The information is clearly cited in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm going to start a discussion at WT:HWY since it seems that this is now part of MOS. --Rschen7754 04:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• I feel like the original table seems a bit out of place. Either needs a move, or preferably a cull. It's information that's easy to put into prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed it, seeing as other two-state Interstates seem to omit it.
• A branch highway between PSH 3 and the Columbia River near Plymouth—across from Umatilla, Oregon - could we say "Plymouth, Washington", rather than it be confused with Plymouth? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The section already references several Washington cities without using the state, and Plymouth is already mentioned in the Route description as being in Washington. I don't see the need to disambiguate.
• hearing board is a weird redlink. I'm not saying it's definately not notable, but as it doesn't redirect anywhere, it might be worth either relinking (say to hearing (law).) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Created a redirect. The concept of a hearings board is somewhat unusual to the U.S. public, but we have some exposure out West due to their significance in land use decisions.
• Could we link the first instance of $? There are so many dollars Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Links to the dollar article aren't common for U.S. articles, and MOS:CURRENCY only mentions linking for lesser-known currencies.

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for dropping by to start a review. I've left replies to your suggestions above. SounderBruce 03:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Leeds Town Hall

Nominator(s): Rcsprinter¹²³ (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys. This is the first time I have entered the FAC process, so please be compassionate with your review. I’ve been working for a while on this article for Leeds Town Hall, one of the largest in the UK and a major heritage building in the city. I’ve expanded it considerably from the state I found it in to start with, just adding information from sources (mostly print books) as and when I have had time. It turns out that doing this is incredibly educational and interesting, at least for me, and so with those sources I eventually plan to create a featured topic named “Architecture of Leeds”, encompassing that article, the Town Hall, and local buildings and architects. The only start I have on that was taking Elinor Lupton Centre to GA last year.

Anyway, I’m fairly pleased with the article as it stands today. One thing I probably want to change is the title of the “Appraisal” section, to a word which means “things people said to demonstrate how important it is”, but the right word hasn’t occurred to me yet. Suggestions on general formatting, sentence structures, refs etc are welcomed. Rcsprinter¹²³ (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks very interesting and, though Neo-Classical, it is indeed a fine Victorian building. I shall certainly come back to review. Two immediate thoughts: would Appreciation do as a replacement for Appraisal; and, in my experience of FAs about buildings, reviewers prefer the History to come first, followed by the Description and Appraisal. I originally had Chartwell in exactly the order you have here, but two very experienced reviewers preferred it flipped, and I think they were right. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Two other things struck me on first read-through. James Rhodes, On this Day in Leeds - Lulu publishing is a bit of a red flag, and I can’t make the ISBN work. Nor can I find it on Worldcat. Is it self-published? If it is, that may cause a Wikipedia:Reliable sources concern. Do you actually use it? I’m not seeing it in the refs. But I may have missed it. Second; while you’ve used Wrathmell’s Leeds PAG, I suspect the Leach/Pevsner revised Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and The North, will have some additional material. I can go through it to see what it has or, alternatively, I can email you photos of the relevant pages. Let me know. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, KJP1. I'll give you a few replies now. On the section naming, Appreciation might sound like it's only about positivity rather than significance and influence too. But what I can't understand so well is the History/Description order. Surely the reader (who we should assume knows next to nothing about the topic when beginning to read) would like to know what the building looks like and consists of before getting into the detailed whats and whys of how it came to be. I don't want to disagree with architectural FA precedent, but it seems illogical to me. Then on the Rhodes source, it's true that the self-published book isn't a very strong one and shouldn't really be allowed to stay, but it was the only thing I could find about the lions being modelled at London Zoo which I seem to remember was always in there unsourced and apparently true. I guess we can just remove the statement and leave only the Topham source to ref the lions moving (20th C section). Finally on Pevsner, I must say that it wasn't very useful in finding things that weren't already said in other sources, and that's including in the original 1967 Pevsner West Riding copy I found at the library. However, if you think there's possibly more to be got, there's no harm in taking a look if you have the book. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) 15:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

Welcome to the FAC process! I'll be looking around this article, and intend to take WikiCup points for this review.

• a design by architect Cuthbert Brodrick I have absolutely no issue with false titles, but I thought they weren't as common in British English.
• It was planned to include law courts, ... This seems a bit clunky, IMO. Perhaps "designed" could be used in its place?

• "to a design by... It was designed" possibly overuses the word. R

• The hatnote in the "Description" section should perhaps be replaced with {{Commons cat}} in the External Links section.

• I know this is unconventional, but I really feel that readers should get an extra push to see all the fine detail on Commons when they could miss the link in the External links section. R

• Until 1813, the Moot Hall, on Briggate was the seat of the Leeds Corporation and was used for judicial purposes from 1615. Should be reworded.
• Perhaps inflation figures could be included for historical figures with {{Inflation}}, but this is hardly fatal to the FAC.

• Had a go with this with a few key figures. R

• ending the potential situation where a public concert may happen simultaneously while prisoners are being held. That this would be brought up seems a bit like original research to me, a reliable source that explicitly says this should be cited.
• The "Present usage" section should be renamed "Present use".
• There are many articles that are linked multiple times within the article, such as Woodhouse Moor, Potts of Leeds, etc. This is not best practice on Wikipedia, and this tool helps you remove them.

Overall this looks rather nice, and I'll look more into it later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Welcome to FAC! I've no particular interest in municipal architecture, but I'm local (York) and have visited the building for a vegan fayre, so there's a (minimal) personal connection! Only a few minutes, but I'll start reading through. (I am participating in the WikiCup, but I'll only claim points if I "finish" the review.)

• I wonder if you jump in with the history a little too quick? Maybe say what it is before jumping in to when it was built. See WP:FIRSTSENTENCE.
• You mention the Grade I listing in the lead, infobox, and categories, but not in the article proper.
• I'm surprised to see the see also to Wikimedia Commons. I thought external links like that were discouraged... Is there something in the MOS supporting this use?
• Paragraph 1 of the "description" section feels too rhetorical/superlative. It doesn't really read as Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. Third paragraph too, to a lesser extent. And paragraph 1 of the sculpture subsection.
• What does "pilaster" mean? Wikilink? rosso antico? capitals? tympanum? Beware jargon!
• "originally the 'Great Hall'" Why single quotes? Also "or 'central charge office',"
• False titles are non-standard in British English, and beware MOS:LQ; I've fixed them when I've seen them.
• Slightly tricky writing in the sculpture section: "Catherine Mawer who lived in Oxford Place close by", "were being worked on by her husband Robert Mawer,[1] between 1853 and 1854, when he died".
• "It was a new status symbol, and ever wishing to compete with Bradford, calls grew within Leeds for a new town hall." Grammar; "calls" are were not "ever wishing". "...ever wishing to compete with Bradford, the people of Leeds..." or something may be better.
• "in the midle of their hitherto" Typo? Or [sic]? I'm not sure if this passage meets the expectations of MOS:LQ. Is the "if" at the start of the quote the start of a sentence in the original source?

• I can confirm that "if" is part of the quote. "midle" was a typo! R

• Do we have a picture of Moot Hall? That'd add some nice visual interest to the "background" section. This would be great, if it's the right thing!

• No image of it on Commons as yet, but certainly an idea. I think that artwork would be OK for upload, being c.1825? R

Ok, stopping there. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• "This site was on the edge of the town centre of the time, but required a large parcel of land that was unavailable in the congested central streets" I'm struggling - in what way did "this site" require a large parcel of land.
• ""unwise and expedient to proceed with the Hall"" Is that the correct quote? Surely they meant inexpedient?
• "'Instructions to Architects'", "'crowning glory'"; Again, why the single quotes?

• These are to indicate that these are descriptions bestowed by others, not the article. Changed to normal quote marks. R

• "However, only sixteen entries were received, which were fewer than expected" was?
• "No public building had so huge had been erected in the town before." ?
• Second paragraph of the "Building works" section: Again, I'm wondering about MOS:LQ.

• That's a quote within a quote. Not good? R

• "(now considered part of its picturesque character but which caused alarm when they started to sprout)" Again, this doesn't feel like Wikipedia's neutral voice. There are other issues in that paragraph.

• Removed "picturesque" and made less brochurey. R

• I think the paragraph beginning "Whatever doubts the council" needs revisiting (sorry). Again, the language is a little flowery.

• Tweaked. Finding it hard to remove rhetorical language without affecting factuality. R

• "and the Council had to find extra funding at a time when there was great poverty among Leeds's working classes." Reference?

Stopping again - sorry this is so bitty. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for combing through, John M Wolfson and Josh Milburn. I've made amendments to the article and crossed out the items above that are dealt with, and replied individually to some. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) 00:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The design was revised many times during the construction, such as the inclusion of an organ" The grammar is off here. The inclusion of an organ is an example of a revision, but you don't use that word, you use revised. "There were many revisions, such as" would work. Alternatively, you want something like "The design was revised, for example, an organ was included".

• Amended. R

• "they started to sprout" Too informal

• Tried "first appeared". R

• "Leeds considered the" Who does Leeds refer to, here?

• I've put that as the council because they arranged the subsequent celebrations. R

• "who successfully managed to express Leeds's increasing wealth and importance" On what grounds are you saying they were "successful"? Is this a neutral claim?

• Removed unnecessary word. R

• "often a symbol of Leeds" Used as? Presented as?

• Changed to "used". R

• "earliest of its time" How can something be earliest of its time? I don't understand this claim.

• Just "earliest" now. R

• I was interested to see what part of Peaky Blinders was filmed at the Town Hall - as best as I can see, your source does not support the claim that Peaky Blinders (or, indeed, the other programmes listed) was filmed at the Hall. I think this underlines the need for a close source review.

• I believe the source backs this up. Although it renders a bit strangely in the archive, close to the bottom, it clearly states "Productions filmed here: [the four programmes mentioned in article]". I don't think you could find exactly which scenes from each were filmed there without watching the shows through, but that could be OR. R

• Yes, you're right - my apologies. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Another significant appropriation of its form – the square plan with a neoclassical design and tower – is Parliament House, Melbourne (1856),[85][86] as are other colonial examples such as Parliament House, Adelaide (1880s), and in South Africa, Cape Town City Hall (1893) and Durban City Hall (1885)." "As are"? I'm struggling with this sentence.

• Another appropriation is Parliament House, as are other examples, XYZ. I think this is the correct plural form. Are the subclauses getting in the way of it making clear sense? R

• "On the tower, he was more hesitant to praise," Again, struggling.

• Reworded. R

• Rhodes is in your bibliography but not cited.

• Must have neglected to remove from bibliography when non-RS cites replaced. Gone now. R

I'm sorry this has been so bitty - and I'm sorry to say that I don't think I can support right now. I think there were some writing issues, some neutrality issues, and problems with the one source I checked. Certainly not enough to oppose, but I do suspect there will be room for further improvement as other reviewers contribute - and I do think that a close source check will be a necessity. (Please double-check my edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Responded to extra points above. Josh, I'm grateful for all the feedback and for your copyedits. I shall remember for future times that there are extra steps to take regarding getting reviews of the writing and sourcing before nominating FAC. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

Starting properly, but it'll take more than a day.

General

• History or Description first? - I see your point, and it is , of course, your call. You have precedent, but I can see the strength of the opposing view.
• Revised Pevsner - You're right, the text in the 2009 Yorkshire: West Riding - Leeds, Bradford and The North, seems an, almost exact?, lift from the Derek Linstrum text in the 2008 Leeds PAG. I'll go through, but doubt it will throw up much.
• Peer review - for an article that's not previously been GA, from a first-time nominator, you may have found Peer review helpful. But it's not a deal-breaker for FAC. And one other suggestion - sorry, not meaning to be preachy - I got very firmly told off on one of my early FAs when I struck through reviewers’ comments. I think the convention is to have the reviewer strike through when they’re satisfied with the response.

• Thanks, KJP1. I won't strike any more points from now. R

Infobox

• Architectural style - I think I'd swap Classical architecture and Baroque architecture for Neoclassical architecture and Baroque Revival architecture but there may be some debate on this!

• Updated. R

• Renovated 2019-2023 - is this a bit futuregazing?

Lead

• A little short for the body? Perhaps something more on the building history/style
• "With the building of the Civic Hall in 1933 some of these functions moved away" - not of their own accord, I think. Perhaps, "were relocated"?

• Updated. R

• "the Town Hall now functions" - perhaps, "operates", to avoid the close proximity to the previous "functions"?

• Changed to "serves". R

• "It became a Grade I listed building in 1951" - again, not of its own accord. "It was designated"?

• Updated. R

• "as the civic leaders sought to make an even grander statement despite the poverty in the city at the time" - I don't get the suggested connection. The civic leaders' desire to make an ever-grander statement doesn't seem to me to have existed despite the undoubted poverty. The only linked reference I can see in the main body almost suggests that the city's poverty was a spur: "if a noble municipal palace that might fairly view with some of the best Town Halls of the Continent were to be erected in the middle of their hitherto squalid and unbeautiful town, it would become a practical admonition". Is this a bit POV?

• Split the sentences to remove the connection.

Description

• Media link - I also (see above) find this a bit jarring. Would it not sit better at the end with the other media link?
• I share JM's concern re. the adjectival/subjective language. In the first para. we have "commanding", "deeply", "huge", "immense", "unique". Are these all from Cite 2? If they are, would they be better as quotes, so we know whose views they are? And is the first sentence also a quote? N.B. the language issue isn't confined to this para. And are there really no other domed clock towers? Anywhere? I suspect there are. [File:0011Tarrant County Courthouse Clock Tower E Fort Worth Texas.jpg], [File:London Greenwich.JPG], [File:Council-House-Nottingham.jpg]. Both Pevsner and PAG suggest this as the inspiration, St Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham.

• I couldn't find anywhere that the first sentence is a quote from. As for the adjectives, I'm fairly sure they're not quoted either, but I would not say they are overly problematic, they are just ways to describe those elements. Cite 2 (Webster) is only for the tower not being in first design, so PAG added for earlier description. Points taken about not being so unique. R

• "This striking internal decoration to the design of the London decorator John Crace, cut-glass chandelier and the then-largest organ in Europe led one writer to say that it was "the best place in Britain to see what it looked like on the inside of a wedding cake"." This sentence is packing a lot in, and doesn't quite flow for me. Perhaps something like: "The decoration (remove 'striking') was by the decorator John Crace and, combined with the cut-glass chandeliers (plural as there were 10, now three - maybe with a footnote) and the then-largest organ in Europe, led one writer...."

• Amended, but not complicated futher with 3->10 detail. R

• "The frescoes adorning the domed ceiling of the vestibule was the first attempt..." Doesn't quite work.

• Changed. R

• "as the gift of Sir Peter Fairbairn" - perhaps introduced him as the then-mayor?

• Changed. R

• "The Town Hall provided accommodation..." is this para. not covered in History?

• No, but seems an OK place for it here. R

Sculpture

• "It has a heavily rusticated base" - I know you mean the Town Hall, but it's not quite clear.

• Changed. R

• "giant Corinthian order of columns" - "orders of giant Corinthian columns"?

• Changed. R

• link pilaster.

• Linked in previous section, don't want to duplink. R

• Prose - as per JM, I do think this section needs a bit of work. There are some odd, dangling endings, "close by", "when he died", "he was not a sculptor".

• I'll be returning to look at this section. R

History - Background

• "Until 1813, the seat of Leeds Corporation was the moot hall of 1618" - link moot hall and I'm not sure it needs caps.

• Linked, but it is a proper noun like "the Town Hall". R

• "The neighbouring "wool capital of the world", Bradford, took the lead..." - I'm assuming the whole of this para. is supported by Linstrum's p.17? It's slightly puzzling that neither the Pevsner nor Linstrum's Leeds PAG entry mentions Leeds v Bradford rivalry as a spur? The PAG mentions Leeds v Sheffield/Wakefield over which should be the county assize town. Hunt does mention it (p=184).

• Briggs makes a big deal out of the Bradford rivalry as well as Linstrum. I've put that in as another source for the paragraph. R

• "In July 1851, it presented a report, with consultees including Joseph Paxton, the designer of The Crystal Palace, and delegations to other large towns including Manchester and Liverpool to investigate their plans for building public halls" - not quite getting where the delegations fit in to the report? Is it something like; "In July 1851, it presented a report, with consultees including Joseph Paxton, the designer of The Crystal Palace, and submissions/contributions from delegations that had been sent to other large towns including Manchester and Liverpool to investigate their plans for building public halls"?

• Moved it around. R

• "The report's recommendations also identified a site for the hall" - not sure what the 'also' is doing? You've not listed other recommendations.

• Removed. R

• "However, the scheme did not secure universal backing immediately" - perhaps, "The scheme did not immediately secure universal backing", removing the "However" at the beginning, which some reviewers are likely not to like, and the 'hanging' immediately at the end?

• Removed "however", but I think the "immediately" indicates that the council later did later show full support. R

• "This and other motions to limit its cost were defeated by a small majority, but this demonstrates that financial prudence was a strong desire among some Victorian local politicians, who disliked spending without proof of genuine advantages" - the "this"/"this" doesn't quite work for me, and the plural motions probably need to be defeated by "small majorities". Perhaps something like; "This, and other motions to limit its costs, were defeated by small majorities, but they demonstrated that financial prudence was a strong compulsion for some Victorian local politicians, who disliked incurring civic expense without genuine proof of public advantage"?

• Updated. R

• "malcontent ratepayers" - a rather obscure word which won't help the wider readership. "Dissatisfied"?

• Changed. R

• "to discard its image of being a backwater with no architectural heft.[23]" - And "heft" is another oddity. Perhaps, "an architectural backwater with no/few buildings of merit"? Or some such. And we've no page number in the cite. It's p=185.

• Thank you. Google Books doesn't show any page numbers for Hunt for some reason. R

History - Design

• General - there are a number of short para.s here that could usefully be combined, e.g. the 2nd/3rd/4th and 5th.

• Combined 2nd and 3rd. R

• "an open competition, a common method of selecting architects for important buildings in the 19th century" - if you want a cite for this, you could use, Victorian Architectural Competitions - An Index to British and Irish Architectural Competitions in The Builder, 1843-1900, Roger H. Harper, 1983, Mansell Publishing, isbn=0-7201-1685-6, loc=Introduction.

• Added. R

• "Even the monumental edifice of St George's Hall, Liverpool, only contained a public hall and assize courts" - St. George's Hall actually has a public hall, courts, and a "small concert hall".{Wrathmell (Linstrum)|2008|p=64}.

• Updated per source. R

• "though it is likely there was no thought it would be anything but classical" - perhaps, "the use of the, then prevalent, Neoclassical style being the unwritten assumption"?

• Changed. R

• "However, only sixteen entries were received" - redundant "However".

• Done. R

• "...the Council's non-commitment to employing a winning design. This did not mean toleration of a lower standard" - sorry, not getting the meaning of this. Does the last part of the first sentence mean the council did not commit to employing the winning designer, or to using the winning design? Neither is unknown, but it needs clarifying. And the last sentence I cannot work out at all.

• Changed to "winning architect". Does this clarify? R

Sorry - still not getting the last sentence. Small number of entries but still high quality? Says who? KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've just removed the last sentence as it's non-critical and possibly a matter of opinion. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Brodrick's design was in the Roman Corinthian style of architecture" - not sure the "of architecture" in necessary. More crucially, who uses the term "Roman Corinthian"? Brodrick? Webster? Not Linstrum, as far as I can see. Given we're already called it Classical/Neoclasscial/Baroque and Linstrum calls it French Neoclassical, I think we need to know who's calling it RC.

• DK where that came from. Updated to be more specific about what's Roman. R

• "The Town Hall Committee initially had reservations after selecting Brodrick, asking Charles Barry for an affirmation in Brodrick's abilities in the construction of such a large building, mostly relating to him being so young;" - perhaps, "asking Barry for confirmation of Brodrick's abilities"? And the "mostly relating" clause belongs after the first clause, i.e. "The Town Hall Committee initially had reservations after selecting Brodrick, mostly related to his youth, and asked Barry for confirmation of Broderick's abilities...… Barry responded with high praise..."

• Updated. R

• "a clause in Brodrick's contract stating that he would receive no payment beyond that of the accepted estimate of £39,000 if the work costs exceeded it." - this isn't clear to me. I'm assuming he's being paid a %, not the initial £39K which is the budget. Thus, is the clause stating he'll only get a percentage of costs up to £35K, and nothing for any costs over and above this? And was it enforced? If it was, CB must have ended up hugely out of pocket, given the final cost was 4 times the estimate.

• The source (Briggs) reveals there was a qualification to this clause that it wouldn't apply if costs increased outside of Brodrick's control, which is evidently what happened. But you're right, it only makes sense if you know this, so added. R

• "No public building so huge had been erected in the town before" - another instance of slightly hyperbolic language. Would "large" not meet the need?

• Changed. R

Construction - Building works

• "the building contract was awarded to Samuel Atack, a Leeds builder and bricklayer, and Benjamin Musgrave, a dyer" - do any of the sources tell us what construction experience a dyer had? I don't have the Briggs.

• Briggs literally just says Atack in association with Musgrave, a dyer. I don't know why dyeing has anything to do with it, but he was apparently joint contractor and considered notable enough in the book. P 166 is his only mention. R

• "both elements eventually turned out to have been forlornly underestimated" - "forlornly" is rather odd. "sadly", "greatly"?

• Yes, "greatly" works better. R

• "Rawdon Hill stone was favoured for those parts of the building on which there would be carving" - The Sculpture section links here, Rawdon, West Yorkshire, for Rawdon Hill millstone grit but now we're taken here, Rawdon Billing. Which is better?

• Standardised to Rawdon Billing. R

• "Brodrick never shied from asking for additional sums to make his perfec his building, so was fortunate there to be a council majority for building - something awry here.

• Fixed. R

• 1st Tower para. - two things. Might be worth mentioning that Barry suggested one (Pevsner/p=411). And the concluding phrase, "would provide the building with beauty beyond mere utilitarianism", doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Is it Briggs? If so, you should say so.

• Barry included. Heaton said those last two words; now quoted. R

• "However, it is likely that Brodrick designed a tower before building even started" - is the "however" needed?

• Removed. R

• "Whatever doubts the council might have had in the early days" - there's quite a lot of POV/peacock language here; "unprecedented lavish", "participated actively", "delicately painted", "creatively devised". And I can't get my head round; "Though Brodrick's red Morocco upholstered furnishings and the original gallery were removed in the 1930s, there is a characteristic example of a form of decoration within the Classical framework which evidently appealed to Brodrick". What's the "there is" referring to? And what is a "classical framework"?

• Some words changed, sentence clarified. R

• "Leeds Town Hall was subject to much criticism during its construction" - this opening suggests the criticism will then be detailed - but it isn't. What's given are details of cost escalations. That's fine, but the opening needs revision to reflect what follows.

• Made clear that criticism is about cost. R

Construction - Later changes

• "then with the placing of the four sculpted lions along the south front, also in 1867" - the "also in 1867" hangs rather. Perhaps, "beginning with Brodrick suggesting in 1867 that a larger skylight be put in each of the courts,[1] and then, later in the same year, the placing of the four sculpted lions along the south front."

• Changed. R

• "Brodrick's final touches to the Town Hall, they were" - this isn't clear to me. "the lions were"?

• Changed. R

• "they were the work of William Day Keyworth Jr of Hull and each is made from two pieces of Portland stone with zig-zag joints" - we flip from past to present tense, and what is a zig-zag joint?

• Now present tense. There's no article on a zig-zag joint, but it's in the source. Surely the reader can work out that the two pieces of stone fit into each other in a zig-zag pattern. R

• "Evidence of Brodrick's early interest in lion sculptures is documented in travel sketches from Brodrick's European tour" - replace the 2nd Brodrick with "his"?

• Changed. R

• "while windows on the Calverley Street and Victoria Square corner were altered from three to five" - perhaps, "while the number of windows on the Calverley Street and Victoria Square corner was increased from three to five"?

• Changed. R

• "In 1907, a new grand stair was built down to the crypt" - what is the crypt, not, I think, previously mentioned, and what on earth did they do down there? I don't think town halls generally have crypts. Vaults / basements / cellars?

• Changed to basement, as mentioned elsewhere in article. R

• "At the same time the curved entrance steps were changed back to a straight set" - when were they previously changed to curved? Have I missed that?

• Yes, they were but that was omitted. Updated. R

Opening

• "Despite the wild cost overruns Leeds considered it a great investment and celebrated its new " - "wild"'s a little baroque in tone, and I think the "it" should be "Town Hall".

• Changed. R

• "was officially opened by Queen Victoria and Albert" - Prince Albert?

• Changed. R

• "the British Association for the Advancement of Science held its annual meeting in Leeds" - "there", or "at the Town Hall"?

• I think this is OK. It was held in Leeds, which they had long wanted and now the TH made it possible, i.e. they held it at the TH. R

20th century

• "In 1993, Leeds Crown Court opened on Westgate, ending the Town Hall's role as a courthouse, as did the Town Hall's police station and cells (Bridewell)" - the end of this sentence doesn't quite work. Does it mean the TH's role as a police station also ended? In which case, perhaps, "In 1993, Leeds Crown Court opened on Westgate, ending the Town Hall's role as a courthouse. Its police station and cells (Bridewell) were closed at the same time"?

• Changed. R

• "This was not before a heated debate" - the "heated" debate sounds a bit Mrs Merton. "This was strongly opposed by the Leeds Civic Trust which preferred that its blackness..."?

• Changed. R

• "The four lions on plinths across the Town Hall entrance have entered local folklore" - I'm afraid I dislike this bit of urban folklore, rather as I loathe mentions of ghosts in building articles! Both sources are weak, and I'd lose it unless you can find better.

• It is weak sourcing, so removed. I wouldn't be surprised if a local resident doesn't add it back again before too long though; it's very common within reminicences about the building. R

21st century

• "The planned three-year works encompass new seating and soundproofing.." - as per my comment on the infobox. And would "will provide/include" be clearer than "encompass"? You'd then need to tweak "updating two chandeliers" to something like "modifications to.."

• I believe the works have already started, so mixing up future and present doesn't seem right. "Encompass" and "updating" changed. R

• "curated with a group of young people" - "curated with" reads oddly to me. "assembled by"?

• Changed. R

Present usage

• "Leeds Town Hall has been used for filming several films" - rather than "filming films" perhaps, "Leeds Town Hall has been used as a location for several films..."?

• Changed. R

Appraisal

• As discussed above, I'd personally prefer Appreciation, which doesn't, in this sense, imply only positive comment. But no deal breaker.
• The first two sentences read like personal opinion. Are they supported by the cites?

• I don't think the first sentence can be cited as such. Isn't the length of the bibliography evidence of the fact? Removed final part of second sentence and added cite. R

• "as are other colonial examples such as Parliament House, Adelaide (1880s), and in South Africa, Cape Town City Hall (1893) and Durban City Hall (1885)" - I think these claims need specific citing.

• Added. R

• "Additionally, many Americans reportedly travelled to Leeds especially to see the Town Hall, which some venerated as highly as medieval cathedrals" - this sounds a very 'Victorian' observation. I cannot believe modern American visitors do so. Can this be clarified and a cite provided.

• Added "after its opening" to date the statement. It's covered by Linstrum 1978 at the end of the para. R

• Despite it being called Appraisal, rather than Appreciation!, it still contains only positive comments. I think Pevsner's observation on the tower warrants an appearance; "The architect has not quite made up his mind whether he wanted a dome (like those of the Greenwich Hospital) or a tower".{sfn|Pevsner|Radcliffe|1967|p=314}. It would also be interesting to know what George Gilbert Scott's criticism was.{sfn|Wrathmell|2008|p=17} Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Scott's book but will try to find out.

• Pevsner tower quote added, but decided to change two Wrathmell PAG cites straight to the Pevsner 1959 original as everything is from what he said originally anyway. I don't know which book Scott wrote. R

References

• Cite 6 - p number?
• Cite 13 - self-published by Lulu. Doubt it meets RS.
• Cite 14 - p number?
• Cite 23 - p number?
• Cite 51 - p number?
• Cite 62 - not RS.
• Cite 75 - better source?
• Cite 79 - Paid subscription required tag needed.

• Need to find copies and check cites 6/14/51. 23 & 79 sorted. 62 removed. Added Linstrum to strengthen 75. R

• Page numbers added for the books. R

Bibliography

• ISBNs - you've a mix of 10 and 13-digits. I think the convention is one or t'other.

• All ISBNs standardised to 13-digits and hyphenated per WP:ISBN. R

• I probably would use the Pevsners, just to show that it's comprehensive.

Summary You've done a great job of covering the relevant material and it is an impressive first FAC. I wouldn't be able support currently, as there are too many issues. They are all fixable and if you're able to do that here, great! As mentioned at the outset, I do think Peer review is really helpful for FACs. It can be a bit slow, but when it works you get the benefit of multiple eyes/opinions, without the spotlight of FAC. Let me know if any of the comments need clarification. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed almost everything you've pointed out here with replies for each. Hope it's satisfactory! Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, and comprehensive, responses. Can’t pick them up today, but will tomorrow. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - Life is intervening. I will get back but it won't be before next week. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

First, really sorry for the time this has taken. Second, many thanks for your full responses. As I said above, it's a fantastic effort, especially since it's your first FA. But I'm afraid I still can't currently support as, for me, there are too many instances of remaining, mainly prose/colourful language, issues. I appreciate we may well disagree on this, and it may be that other reviewers also won't agree with me. I wish you all the best with this, and with your future FAs. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning and have learned lots. I just don't seem to have the capacity to alter the language sufficiently to more neutral prose without losing intended meaning and nuance - other, more experienced and skilled writers/copyeditors will be able to look at it with fresh eyes and make the kinds of changes needed, and I will make sure this is carried out before any future FAC on this article if it doesn't pass this time. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Harry

Welcome to FAC. Nice to see you here, RC, and lovely to see some more English architecture here. I've only read the lead and skimmed the rest so far. I'm not seeing any major spanners in the works but I have few nits to pick:

• The Headrow (formerly Park Lane), Leeds, West Yorkshire, England: I like to make location descriptions slightly more prosaic than just a list of locations and administrative entities. I'd go with something like "in Leeds, northern England" or "in Leeds, West Yorkshire, in the north of England". It's a bit more wordy, but much nicer to read in my opinion.
• Citations in the lead are generally unnecessary because the lead should be a summary of what follows.
• The Town Hall held the title longer than any other building, 108 years just for flow, I would merge this into the previous sentences. Short sentences like this can be jarring for the reader.
• As of 2017 it is the thirteenth-tallest building in Leeds Is 2017 the last time this was updated or when the most recent taller building was erected?
• I agree with Kevin above that I would put the design before the history, but it's up to you to consider.

I'll be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Harry. Just to clarify your last bullet - if you're agreeing with me, you want History followed by Description. If you want it the other way round, you're with RC. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, always nice to see you; wish real life allowed more time for Wikipedia stuff! Apologies for the confusion; yes, I'm agreeing with you—I'd put the history (or at least the pre-opening history) before the description. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome. Sorry, I think I will go with the convention of keeping the location slightly listy, because making the changes you suggest because I can't make a sentence which keeps all the elements of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England (WY is important) but doesn't get too long and weird. I took out the cite in the lead and merged the sentence. I've updated the tallest year to 2020 since according to this source a taller building is here this year. Would it be worth putting the height info somewhere in the body so it can be cited? Finally, on the section ordering, I will hold it as it is (the more logical way in my opinion) unless it becomes a dealbreaker on the FAC. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• presented to the Council as the gift of the then-Mayor Sir Peter Fairbairn "then" is unnecessary (it goes without saying that political offices change hands), and when was it presented? Contemporary to the town hall being built or at some later date?

• Removed "then"; and it was presented at time of opening as the source date indicates. Added a few words to reflect this. R

• Although many departments have been relocated might be worth elaborating here. I'm sure, as with most cities, the council now occupy a more modern building with greater capacity. Perhaps we could mention that building(s), especially if it's interesting or notable and give an idea of how much of the council is left in the town hall? It helps give a picture of the changing use of the building.

• Agree that info should be included. Other buildings now mentioned but can't find which particular departments are located where. R

• Is the building still used for meetings of the full council, or do those take place elsewhere now?

• CH noted as meeting place. R

• "famous old cities whose Town Halls are the permanent glory of the inhabitants and the standing wonder and delight of visitors from a distance You need a reference straight after a direct quote. I know there's a reference after the next sentence but you need one straight after the quote (there's a policy shortcut for it but I can't locate it at the moment; apparently I've forgotten some things during my break!).
• Likewise "unwise and inexpedient to proceed with the Hall" and several other examples throughout.

• Extra citations added where needed. R

• the relatively modest budget at this time attracted ridicule "at this time" is redundant and can just be trimmed; attracted ridicule from where?

• The derision's origins are not mentioned in the source. R

• Cubitt's King's Cross train shed should be full name on first mention.

• Done. R

• it now appeared determined that nothing was too good for their Town Hall That's a bold statement to make in Wikipedia's voice. Is that from the source?

• It is adapted from the source, but "appeared" is added to weaken the assertion. Change, remove? R

• "splendidly furnished" needs to be attributed to the person you're quoting.

8Done. R

• I would suggest breaking up the "building works" subsection into two subsections, just for readability. It's quite a long section and looks quite daunting.

• I've thought of this previously but not decided on an appropriate place to split it. I've put all the bits that are about changes to the design in their own subsection. R

• 'a practical engineer' Generally it should be double quote marks ("") per the MoS, and the quote needs attributing; it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader that the engineer was practical.

• Done. R

• Nowhere in the body do you mention its listed status or what that means.

• This is mentioned in the 20th century section. R

• You should cite the NHLE entry to satisfy 1c. From a quick skim it sadly doesn't contain much appreciation but it can be used as an extra reference for some of the architectural details. It also mentions a fire in 1991 that isn't mentioned in the article.

• It's already used multiple times, ref [2], but I put a couple more in for some details, and mentioned the fire. R

• Have you looked at the more recent editions of the Pevsners to see if they have a more detailed appraisal? Kevin might be able to help you with that.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123: just in case you hadn't seen this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delays in responding this week. I’ll be getting to this soon. Real life, etc. Rcsprinter¹²³ (parlez) 15:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• OK - changes and replies have been made now. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. The only quibbles I have outstanding are in-text attribution for "splendidly furnished" and "a practical engineer" (see MOS:QUOTE, § Attribution). Also, you now need a ref at the end of the "description" section above "sculpture". And my mistake on not spotting the mention of listing; I still think it needs a little more detail (also Historic England didn't exist in 1951) so I was bold. If it was up to me, I might move it into the appraisal section but that's not based on the FA criteria. Is there any more info on the fire? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  I couldn't find any mention online of the fire so all we have is that small amount of info from HE. On the end of the description section, I have added a Civic Hall council chamber source. Those two quotes are referenced directly after. I think the listing would fit well in either 20th C or Appraisal, but I may leave it where it is. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  The references for the quotes are perfectly in order, it's the attribution that's needed—those two quotes are opinions, so we need to state in the text who they belong to (see the MOS subsection I linked to). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sorry Harry, I overlooked that you indeed put "in-text attribution" in your comment. I have added a name for the "splendidly furnished" quote, but elected to remove "practical engineer" as a quote as I think introducing it as an opinion would be to make things needlessly complex. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. It's second nature if you spend a lot of time at FAC but I wouldn't expect a first-time nominator to know the MoS inside out and back to front (there are 21st-time nominators who don't). I agree with Kevin and Josh that some of the prose is a bit too ... flowery. Some of it is just stylistic preference but some of it is bordering on editorialising. Since this is preventing them from supporting, I'll take another pass through the article with a finer comb over the next few days to see if I can make it more readable and less flowery. Feel free to revert any of my edits if they introduce problems and we can discuss here or on the talk page if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• What does baroque in imaginative power and drama mean? And that's a prime example of the sort of language Kevin and Josh are talking about; if it's a quote from the source, we need to attribute it and cite it, but I'm not entirely sure what it means in the first place. Will list other concerns below.
• Be consistent in whether you use the Oxford comma or not (my preference is for, and the article mostly uses it, but I think I spotted a few inconsistencies).
• has been described as "a remarkably assured and individualistic design Quote attribution again.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• OK. No problem with any of your copyedits apart from the {{who}} tag, which I did check in the source but offers no more clue, it's just an anonymous quote. On the "baroque..." sentence, I think it's just one of those parts from earlier revisions which I've not been very good at cutting, it's not a quote as far as I can find. When you point out that it doesn't really mean much it's easier to see the general point about language. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) 15:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Rcsprinter123: that's the end of my more detailed run through. Just the three bullets above that need your attention. @KJP1 and J Milburn: can you see what you think of the prose now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've changed the sentence at the start of Description, added some more commas for the Oxford style, and attributed the quote. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. After my copy edits, I believe the prose now meets 1a, and all my other concerns (including the few quibbles I picked up while copy-editing) have been addressed. This a well put-together, thoroughly researched article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Parklanemap1847.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Parkhousemap1852.jpg, File:Leeds_town_hall_first_drawing.jpg, File:Design_for_Leeds_Town_Hall,_1854_-_Cuthbert_Brodrick.jpg, File:City_Hall_Philadelphia.jpg, File:Engraving_of_Bolton_Town_Hall_1873.jpg, File:Portsmouth_prewar_guildhall.jpg
• File:Official_Order_of_Procession,_page_1_-_Leeds_Town_Hall_foundation_stone.jpg needs a US PD tag
• File:Leeds_Town_Hall,_General_Election_results.jpg needs a US PD tag, and I don't understand the note on authorship?
• File:Leeds_Town_Hall_cleaning.png: the current copyright tag does not explain why the photo itself would be PD
• File:Parliament_House_Melbourne,_1890_Mitchell_Library_ref_PXE_800_photo_33b.jpg: for the purposes of Wikipedia, faithful reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright. What's the copyright status of the original print? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Alt text added. Will return to look at image information. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we can know where the images were first published, due to their age. Is this a requirement in the image information? What's the Commons parameter for it? Added US-PD tags. Not sure why tag doesn't cover cleaning photo adequately? I have no idea on the Melbourne picture. Rcsprinter¹²³ (interview) 14:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• For the cleaning photo, the tag explains that "photographs of buildings are normally allowed if the building is old enough to be public domain" - freedom of panorama, which allows us to ignore the possible copyright protection of the building. However, the photo of the building is still potentially copyrighted, so we'd need a tag explaining why it's free.
• Many of the images have a tag claiming the image is free because "it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1925." That tag can only be used if we can confirm that publication in that timeframe actually happened. There's not a separate parameter for it but it's needed to confirm the validity of the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Gerbis

This is just an aside as I don't see any reference to it in the article. Jonathan Meades has made a film documentary on Cuthbert Brodrick in which he talks about Leeds Town Hall at length in his inimitable idiosyncratic way: The Case Of The Disappearing Architect first broadcast in 2007. Just thought you might be interested. Gerbis (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerbis - I'll give this a watch and see if anything useful is within. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa

Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the well-known film director Akira Kurosawa. The article was previously nominated 2 years ago with requests to review it with further editors and update the images which was done. Grapple X has agreed to act as mentor since I have only done GA articles and not a completed FA. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support A great article about one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Overdue for appreciation. Article reads well and greatly improved imagery...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a great article. Any possibility of a picture of Kurosawa from the latter half of his life? (Sorry if this is not an appropriate question to ask at a FAC; I don't have a lot of experience in this area of assessment.) Dekimasuよ! 05:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nice to hear your comment about this biography article. The images for the article went through 3-4 cycles of selection and it seemed a good idea to include the image of the Hollywood director Sidney Lumet defending Kurosawa toward the end of Kurosawa's career since Lumet was a well-known director contemporaneous to Kurosawa. The image selection process took place here [8]. If you have any alternate images from commons which look good to you then it would be nice to hear about any alternate images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Some of your captions need editing for grammar and clarity

• Some of the captions were 5-6 lines long in description and I can try to shorten the longer ones for clarity now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

• I can add longer text versions to some of the images as alt text. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• File:Akirakurosawa-onthesetof7samurai-1953-page88.jpg: where was this first published? Same with File:Kajiro_Yamamoto.jpg

• For the 7samurai image, this was scanned from a public domain 1953 issue of 映画の友 (Eiga no tomo) an old Japanese film magazine. For Yamamoto, this was a publicity still from Toho studio when he was an established director. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can we add this to the Yamamoto image's page on Commons? At present it assumes PD on the grounds of either being taken before 1947 or published before 1957 but doesn't prove either so this should be cleared up. As for the two images below, can the translations be added to their Commons descriptions as well? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• File:Yukiko_Todoroki.1937.2.2.jpg: please translate source and description, and also provide the original date

• The photo is from ‎Kinema Shunpo, July 11, 1937‎. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• File:Shimura_Takashi.JPG: please translate source and description

• Translation with date is Asahi Shimbun-Asahi Graph, January 22, 1956. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also noting in passing that your references include multiple harv errors which should be fixed before a full source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the Harv errors, I am not sure which tool you may be running on them which gives you multiple errors. I will be happy to run whichever tool you have to replicate your errors. Currently, the citations are printing out cleanly in the References section of the article on my screen, and let me know how to run your tool with an example of a problem cite if possible. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• At a glance, some of them are formatted as "Author, page range" and some as "Author year, page range" (eg Galbraith, pp. 127–138 vs Kurosawa 1983, pp. 180–187). Years are fine if there are two or more texts with the same author(s) that need to be differentiated but this is not the case with all of the texts (Bock is given with a year but only has one source). There are also AV sources which should ideally be timestamped (see Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)#Footnotes for an example of this in a featured article). I'm only interpolating here and these may not be what was meant. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• If Nikkimaria could confirm that the year should consistently appear and always be applied or not applied. The article should be consistent especially for authors with more than one article being used by a single author and I'll change over to the preference which you indicate. Regarding the AV sources and website sources I have already started to remove some of the deadlink archive links which were showing up. I have updated Commons for the images requested above. At present, all of the items in the Sources section in the article now have the year associated with each entry. Thanks for the comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. When was the Yamamoto image believed to be published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Yamamoto image appears to be between 1941 and 1946. For Ucucha errors reported for the Sources section, these are cleaned up now with currently unused citations moved to Further reading section. All of the residual uncited harv ref notices are now in Further reading, and are residual from previous over-edits. They can be retained or deleted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Where was the image published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Country of origin for the photo is Japan for the studio image of Yamamoto. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• You'll need to add some more information about publication history on the image description page, as per Grapple's comment above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Info added to Commons. The original image editor has not been active since 2009 and I could not ping him. The birth year for Yamamoto is 1902 and the image is consistent with a man in early middle age, about 1941 or 1942. Otherwise, I might suggest to drop the image if this is the only image which is holding things up. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Fowler&fowler

• Reserving some space here for my comments. May I say, I'm delighted to see an article on one of the greats from that now-vanished world of Renoir, Bunuel, Bergman, Fellini, Tati, Hitchcock, Ray, Goddard, Truffaut, Mizoguchi, Wilder, Ford, Cukor, Sturges, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Fowler&fowler: From your list of top directors, I previously added some material regarding Kurosawa's high respect for Bergman in the closing sections of this biography article. It is of interest that from the top directors which you name that many of them respected each others work and commented on this in public statements. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there! I will start a review soon. There is something that is puzzling me though. It is the pictures. First, I'm surprised that for a cinematic giant such Kurosawa there aren't more pictures: of his childhood, his youth, his family. Second, the pictures there are in the article seem too Western-centric. Why are we seeing pictures of Dostoyevski, Ed McCain, Lumet, and of all people Speilberg? Why not Akutagawa, a master of the Japanese short story and author of K's major hit, instead of Dostoyevsky. Or Mifune, Mizoguchi, ... instead of L and S. I'm giving you a heads up because others will likely ask these questions. When people read a biography, they're looking to understand what made him tick, especially at the crucial stages before ticking became easy. :)

• That sounds like you may have some images in mind, the Akutagawa biography article has a nice portrait of him, there is a movie still from the early film Uma which Yamamoto directed with Kurosawa, and there is an informal picture of Yamamoto as Kurosawa's mentor on Japanese Wikipedia, possibly you have your own preferred suggestions for new images from Commons? JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another thing, and again, others will bring this up so might as well blurt it out: the article seems too long. There is some sort of emerging consensus at FAC that no article should be > 10K words and biographies even < 8K, unless the biographed is Shakespeare. Well, maybe it's not a consensus, but I've heard it enough times that I fear other reviewers will bring this up. I will think about how best to reduce the article judiciously, i.e. without removing anything essential. Please give me another day, and please think about these two issues. Looking forward! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'll look forward to your comments whenever you are ready. This article is listed as a level 4 vital article and if some sections might need to be shortened or condensed then let me hear your thoughts on the best places you have in mind for it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand it is a vital article; otherwise, most likely, I wouldn't have appeared here. :) I've given an example here of how a section can be made tighter without reducing comprehension (IMHO). It saves 200 words in this example. I have self-reverted. You can tell me where I went wrong, by re-editing my version in the article and self-reverting. That way, we won't clog up this review. I can do this for each section, and, with your feedback, your text will become much tighter. I hope you don't mind; I know you have worked hard on this, but some reduction is needed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Since we seem to have begun with the "Styles and main themes" section, I noticed that a large chunk of the first paragraph there has no citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• That all looks correct and proper. That first paragraph there was meant more as a summary of the linked article which has many cites. Regarding your edits, they appear directed to keeping the existing links and the existing citations while shortening some of the text and making it tighter, which all looks good. It seems successful and it would be nice to see more. When you are ready you can install the new text and continue. There is no need to self-revert and just let me know when the next section(s) are ready. Let me know if there are questions along the way. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• OK, let me see if I can add a relevant picture. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• That image you added looks good. Here is a movie still on Commons from a film directed by Yamamoto where Kurosawa was the assistant director in 1941 here [9]. Let me know which section you plan to do next and I can look for more images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Very sorry, @JohnWickTwo:, I became distracted by other things. Well, let me make a time table, so we can get through this in a timely fashion: I will (i) do the first two subsections of the Legacy section (3.1 and 3.2) today, leaving the other minor subsections for later, or I might leave them as is; I will then work backwards through the biography section doing on each successive day (ii) 1.3.4 and 1.3.3 (iii) 1.3.2 and 1.3.1 (iv) 1.2.3 (v) 1.2.2 (vi) 1.2.1 and 1.1.3 (vii) 1.1.2 and 1.1.1 (viii) Lead. So, it will take a little over a week, which some people might think is a lot of time, but I believe a vital article such as this deserves no less attention, and I hope it will be the better for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• The two pics of Mizoguchi and Rivette are well chosen, with the Rivette image having the advantage of Wikipedia being given authorization for use from the photographer himself. Something to consider if you are going with one image only in that section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• That sounds good. Two do seem overmuch. Also Rivette is high def; Mizo is an old slightly unfocused print. So, I'd take out Mizo. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm having a hard time with the "Reputation among filmmakers" section. It is too much of a repetitive hagiography. I'll try to chop it down, but I'm afraid I'll have to remove some directors. We can't have director after director say the same thing, director after director get on the bandwagon, claim him for his own. The praise becomes meaningless and tiresome. The way I see it, there are three great directors there: Bergman, Fellini, and Ray. (One way to check is to look at their biographies in Britannica for comparison.) They have spoken about Kurosawa's work, so they should be included. Then there is a second list: Polanski, Bertolucci, Herzog, and Altman. They should be included. Kubric is a great director, but it is not clear he thought Kurosawa was as great as his assistant is making him sound. Kurosawa was not on Kubric's only two known lists of the best movies. Herzog, who is an admirer to be sure, says something more complex, and we can't reduce the quotation. Anyway, I'll try to do something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice edits. That section includes the sentence, "Stanley Kubrick, in the reminiscence of an assistant, would have very likely included The Battle of Algiers, Danton, Rashomon, Seven Samurai and Throne of Blood...", which mentions 5 films that might optionally be shortened to mention only the 3 Kurosawa films among those 5 films. One such wording option might be "...would have very likely included the three Kurosawa films Rashomon, Seven Samurai and Throne of Blood...". I have asked that @Grapple X: offer some comments and to be available for added review participation. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The desert island books (or in this instance movies) are always listed fully. Orwell had six, one of which was Gulliver's Travels. I mean if your list has 200, and Akira makes an appearance three times, then it is not a big deal. But if there are five, and three are Akira's, then it sure is. I have made several desert island lists both of books and movies, always six after Orwell. They may come in handy in Shipwreck in the Time of Coronavirus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Didn't realize I had "included." Have corrected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: the section seeming too repetitive or hagiographic, I would err on the side of including material based on what has been said rather than purely who said it. Something that directly address Kurosawa would be more useful than anything that primarily discusses the field of Japanese cinema or just one of his films in isolation for example. I don't feel that the Herzog quote adds much as it is really about DW Griffith with Kurosawa mentioned in passing, and the material from Altman onwards could stand to be trimmed. Keeping the Ray quote, that would let us trim down to two paragraphs and a block quote, keeping things that are more directly impactful. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 09:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree entirely with your first sentence. I don't agree with everything in the second. Desert island lists are not entirely about their compilers, in this instance Kubric or Herzog, but a commentary on Kurosawa as well, as they place him in a group that another director considers the defining ideal of the medium. Herzog reflects purely on Kurosawa as well in that book; perhaps I can combine those. As for the others, not so much Altman, for he does say something, but Speilberg, Coppola, ... I was holding back because I did not want to remove too many of John's citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

John, I've made Herzog a little more meaningful. The Rashomon bit has a different page number, which on my digital edition I can't figure out. Could you please locate it, and add. Also, I don't know the conventions of filmmaker pages, but could the remaining subsections could be reduced? Could the two immediately after be put in external links and the last be reduced to honors and awards? In any case, I will now move to the proper biography sections, working backwards from the last. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I need to defer to @Grapple X: on this and he is more experienced at peer reviewed articles than myself. The quote (made by a previous Wikipedia editor) from Herzog which you refer to is from the unpaginated book on him in digital format and seems to be for a combined quote from Ch4 and Ch5 of that book by Cronin. It is available on Google books here [10] to verify precise quotes. The other sections you mention can be optionally merged into some of the sibling Kurosawa articles mentioned as "See also" and "Main article" links already listed in various sections in this Kurosawa biography article. Grapple X should be able to pick up on questions like this. Grapple X can answer with further comments here and for subsequent section trims and development. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused John. I see now that he is a mentor. Why is he weighing in at so late a stage in the game? He should have told you these things long before you made the nomination. I mean did he not read the article? I would rather deal with you, not with an absconding mentor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

In other words, I deal with the nominator, not a ghost mentor. If your heart is not in this, I'm happy to withdraw without prejudice. I like Kurosawa, and I'm happy to help you. It's your call. I'm in no hurry. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

JohnWick and I had been discussing this on my user talk page before and during the nomination; I've pinged you there if you want to look at anything we've talk about. I agreed to help John with any difficulties that may come up but as I hadn't actually written the article I felt it would be wrong to be listed as a nominator. In terms of "weighing in late", it's not that I think any of this material should go, but if you feel that the section should be trimmed, they would just be my choices as the cuts to make--it's all worthwhile material but when space is tight (and I did feel this was borderline in terms of length but felt it was better to cut it down in the face of critique than lose too much pre-emptively) then some of it could go. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus

Nominator(s): Slate Weasel, Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The possibly largest known dinosaur. Argentinosaurus was described in 1993 by the important paleontologist José Bonaparte, who sadly passed away this week. The article is a GA, got a GOCE copy edit, and a thorough peer-review. We are looking forward to any comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I probably should add that this is also my first time at FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I did a pre-FAC peer review on the talk page with the FAC criteria in mind, and it looks good to me now. As one additional point, the life restorations and size diagrams should probably have citations in the Commons descriptions, stating that they match published reconstructions and size estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up several of the images, particularly the diagrams

How wide should they be? (I assume that you mean adding something along the lines of adding "|500px|" to the wikitext) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No, this shouldn't be done using a fixed px size, but rather |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Done; hope this looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• File:Argentinosaurus_BW.jpg would benefit from sourcing

I'm not sure what the author originally used for proportional references, but perhaps Steveoc 86 can tell us what he used as a guide for updating it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm doing a minor update to that image and will update the description to include reference info.Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• File:Argentinosaurus.jpg: link in the description is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here. Pinging FunkMonk for advice. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Done; I just repaired the link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb: I intend to claim points for this review at the WikiCup.

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

• The skeletal reconstruction tells a reader what the white and the green represents; what about the grey and the blue?

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• References: at a skim, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs lacks a publisher; Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages lacks a publisher location; as does Revision of South American Titanosaurid Dinosaurs: Palaeobiological, Palaeobiogeographical and Phylogenetic Aspects; and Apesteguía; ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated. There may be others.

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• "about 8 km (5.0 mi) east of Plaza Huincul" Could we lose the ".0"?

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I shall try to do a full review tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• "39.7 metres" seems spuriously accurate. What does the source say? Similarly "Holtz gave a higher length estimate of 36.6 metres" in the main text.

You are absolutely right that this is false precision, but this is what the sources give. I guess this is because these estimations commonly do not include an error calculation. We can of course round it, but then we would deviate from the source, and this can come with WP:OR issues. We already had discussions on this issue; the consensus always was that we should give the precision of the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I was just demonstrating that I was paying attention. If the sources are being silly, then I agree that all we can do is pass their silliness along.

• "Additional specimens include" Optional: → 'Further specimens included'.
• "and Argentine palaeontologist Rodolfo Coria" Suggest 'and Argentine the palaeontologist Rodolfo Coria' to avoid false title. (Likewise in the main text.)

Do you mean "the Argentine palaeontologist"? I've changed this and all comparable occurences to that form within the article now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I do, I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• The verb tense in the second third paragraph of the lead seems a little odd. "Arguments revolved around": why is the past tense used? Are the arguments now resolved? "though the model needed some improvement" I really don't know what this is trying to communicate. (Although I may slap my forehead once you tell me.) "and contained a diverse dinosaur fauna" - do they no longer contain it?

I'm not totally sure here either. Pinging Jens Lallensack. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This still needs resolving.

Tricky, yes. "Arguments revolved around" because we are talking about published papers here. All these arguments were presented in the past. However, this is indeed a case of ongoing debate, the last paper on the topic was published recently. Changed it to present tense. "The model needed some improvement" was meant to emphasise the preliminary nature of the model, but removed this now. The last point, "contained a diverse dinosaur fauna", is past tense because all that stuff has been excavated already. We don't know whats in the formation before excavating it. I would be totally fine with using present tense here though if you recommend it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see how one might wish to use contained to fit in with "deposited", and if pushed hard I would back off, but I feel that 'contain' works better for our mythical average reader.

Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Image caption: "Size comparison of selected giant sauropod dinosaurs, Argentinosaurus in red and second from the right" Cough!

Oops.  Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The mass of the blue whale, however, still exceeds that of all known sauropods." It may be helpful to a reader to be told what the mass of a blue whale is.

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• "As in many other titanosaurs, the vertebrae were cancellous (internally lightened by numerous small air-filled chambers), which was possibly related to increased body size and neck length" OK, so I know why it is possibly related, but you ought to tell a general reader.

Added explanation. Hopefully this helps. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link hyposphene-hypantrum articulations.

This is already linked on its first mention. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• "it differed from typical titanosaurids in the presence of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations" "in the presence of" doesn't look very user friendly for the lay reader. Maybe 'in possessing' or similar?

In a previous nomination, I was advised against the use of the verb "possess" in this context; will therefore change to "in having", hope this works. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fine.

• "that included more derived (evolved) members of Titanosauria" A genuine query, should that be 'that included the more derived (evolved) members of Titanosauria'?

Probably better, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• "to extract a maximum of energy and increased protection against predators" A comma after "energy" would be helpful.

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• "size increases in the evolution of sauropods were commonly followed by size increases of their predators" 1. What does "size increases in the evolution of sauropods" mean. I see what you are getting at, but maybe reword?

Does "increase in sauropod size over time" sound better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It does. Could you make it so?

• "It was originally reported from the Huincul Group of the Río Limay Formation" maybe "reported from" → 'excavated from' or 'found in' or similar?

Well, here "reported from" is used in the sense of "it was said to come from." I'm using "originally" here because these deposits were later renamed, so I think that changing reported to excavted might make it sound like the fossils were later dug up somewhere else. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

OK.

• "Vertebrates are most commonly found in the lower region of the formation." Maybe add ', and therefore older' after "lower"? (And should "region" be plural?)

Added, region here describes the entire lower part of the formation. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link form. (From "and some unnamed forms.")

Hmm... I'm not sure if that's the definition of "form" I was aiming for - I've changed it to variety. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Several iguanodonts were also present in the Huincul Formation." "were"?

Changed to "are" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Very readable. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I see steady work on this. Could you ping me when you're ready for me to go through your responses? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Apesteguía still lacks a publisher location.
• ISBNs are still inconsistently hyphenated.

Question @Gog the Mild: Can/should we really unify ISBN hyphenation? The hyphens (block size) have a meaning, and WP:ISBN states: Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of hyphens varies between books. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Most reviewers interperate that as requiring consistency within an article. However, so long as you have consistently copied the hyphenation/spacing in the actual work I am happy. (Other reviewers may differ.)

• Is Argentinosaurus singular or plural? I am thinking of "The fragmentary nature of Argentinosaurus remains make their interpretation difficult."

Here "their" refers to the remains, I believe, not Argentinosaurus itself. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it. OK.

I like all of your changes. One unaddressed point outstanding above, and the three minor issues immediately above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for being so slow with this. Lately real life was quite stressful. I'm on it. Thank you so much for all those comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. So far as I am concerned you can take as long as you wish. And you definitely made the correct decision in commenting on my FAC rather than responding on your own. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: We have addressed everything now I hope. Please let us know if there are further queries! Thanks for your help, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good to me. Nice work. A fine, readable and informative article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Æthelred I, King of Wessex

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Alfred the Great's elder brother, who led the resistance to the Viking attempt to conquer Wessex until his early death allowed Alfred to become king. Æthelred's reign is also important numismatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you don't like.

• I see there are many references listed that are not used in a citation -- normally these get separated into a "Further reading" section. I don't think that's a FAC requirement but as a reader I'd prefer that.

• I have checked the references and I can only find one which is not used, the PASE entry for Wulfthryth, which I have deleted. I use harv referencing partly because it flags unused refs, but for some reason in this case it did not work. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  That was the one I noticed; I thought there were others but I guess not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wessex and Mercia were close allies when he became king, and he carried the alliance further by adopting the Mercian Lunettes design: I know what you mean, but I think "carried the alliance further" isn't the right way to put this.

• Yes I had difficulty finding the right wording. How about: "Wessex and Mercia were allies when he became king, and the alliance became closer when he adopted the Mercian Lunettes design"?

  I had a look in Grierson and Blackburn and they just say "There seems to have been a political motive underlying the adoption", which "established a common coinage in Wessex and Mercia". That speaks to Aethelred's motives, but not to the state of any alliance. However, the quote you give in the body of the article from Lyons and Mackay supports what you have, so I'm going to strike it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• he was believed to be a paternal descendant of Cerdic: I seem to recall Yorke at least, and perhaps Kirby, saying that the genealogies back to Cerdic were likely to have been deliberately constructed to include Cerdic, as a political requirement for a candidate for the throne of Wessex. In other words it's not at all clear anyone "believed" this. If I'm remembering this correctly, some softening of the statement would be good, even if just in a footnote.

• There are two issues here: whether the genealogies were fabricated, and whether they were widely believed. I don't think that there is any question that they were widely believed and I am not aware of anyone querying the point. There are doubts about Cerdic in general and Ecberht's descent in particular, and I have added a note on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  That does it. If I can find the bit I'm thinking of in Kirby I may post a note to the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

-- More later, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Have fixed a couple of minor formatting issues. I think you're missing a location on the Keynes/Lapidge Alfred the Great citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• You describe the Kingdom of Kent as including Essex. Kirby (p. 190 in my 1992 un-revised edition) says Sigered was independent of Kent in 825, and Ecgberht may not have taken control until 829. Perhaps it's a digression to define Kent inline? Maybe a footnote could be used, which would make it easier to cover the unknowns. Abels, p. 31, describes the inclusion of Essex in "Greater Kent" as an effort of Wessex's after the conquest of Kent.

• This is a difficult one. I think it is important to make clear to readers that when the article mentions Kent it is not just the modern county. Historians disagree about the details of the conquest - Edwards in DNB mentions Sussex not Kent as conquered later. I have deliberately been vague about the timing and I think it is beyond the scope of the article to go into further details. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  If your sources support what you have, that's fine -- personally I would make it the uncertainty a bit clearer to the reader, but perhaps you're right that that takes us too far afield. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mike I have had another look at this and I think you are right that most historians think that the other SE territories were direct dependents of Mercia in 825, not part of Kent. I have revised to reflect this. Does it look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  That looks fine -- thanks for checking further on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• The alliance between Wessex and Mercia was sealed with the marriage of Æthelwulf's daughter, Æthelswith, to King Burgred of Mercia. I think you can cut this. Abels doesn't really support "sealed", which implies the finalization or completion of a process, but in any case you don't need the sentence -- we've already discussed the alliance between the kingdoms and this doesn't add much to our understanding of Æthelred. If you do keep it, I would either move it up in the paragraph to be adjacent to the other mentions of the alliance, or (perhaps better) down to where you mention Æthelred attesting a charter issued by Æthelswith, as context for that sentence.

• I have moved it up and also mentioned Æthelwulf's assistance against the Welsh. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wulfthryth had two known sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. She may have been Mercian or a daughter of Ealdorman Wulfhere of Wiltshire, who forfeited his lands charged with deserting King Alfred for the Danes in about 878, perhaps because he attempted to secure Viking support for his elder nephew Æthelhelm's claim to the throne against Alfred. This needs rewording -- Æthelhelm was Alfred's nephew, not Wulfhere's.

• Aah my brain was not working. Of course, Æthelhelm may have been Wulfhere's grandson, not nephew. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• The town was between the Thames and Kennet rivers: a minor point, but Reading is still between those rivers. If you could find a smooth way to eliminate the past tense that would be good. Perhaps something like "They occupied Reading on around 28 December, and set about building a ditch and rampart on the southern side of the town, between the Thames and Kennet rivers"?

• I think it is simpler to change "was" to "is" Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've never really tried to use the Fitzwilliam coin database, but I had a go just now to see if I could improve on your "152 coins by 2007". Either they don't include everything or I don't know how to query it properly. This search seems to find at least a couple post-2007, assuming the EMC number starts with the year of the find. No need to do anything about this, unless you can figure out how to make the query find all 152 your source mentions.

• I think I will leave this as I suspect it would be a lot of work for no result. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sure you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps a link somewhere to Coinage in Anglo-Saxon England?

• That is a basic stub. History of the English penny (c. 600 – 1066) is a much better article. It was created by a Cambridge graduate student in 2006, but is dated so far as Æthelred is concerned and does not mention him by name. Perhaps have a "main" link at the head of the coinage section? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  Up to you, but I never mind linking to bad articles -- to me it's the same principle as redlinks, which are encouraged, after all. It might prompt someone to improve the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think it is better to link to a good article when one is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass; looks very good, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike. Replies on sources to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. The unstruck points above are just personal opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review.

• All sources are reliable. Peddie isn't a professional historian, but Keynes supports using him for military matters so I think that's OK.

• He is cited by Abels, p. 129, n. 15, which is how I found him. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• You have locations for all publishers except for Keynes/Lapidge Alfred the Great.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Whitelock (1955) has an ISBN so you probably should add an orig-year parameter.

• This is a mistake. The isbn is for the second edition, but my source is a 1961 reprint of the first edition. I have changed to the oclc and assume it is correct to give the original publication date. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yorke is linked twice in the bibliography; it's usual to only link the first occurrence.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• There are stray closing braces at the end of the Beaven citation.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise sources are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks again Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  Everything looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Changed to upright=. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• File:Æthelred,_King_of_Wessex_coin.png: generally coins are considered 3D rather than 2D. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a photo of an image in an 1899 book. Should the licence refer to the 3D coin rather than the 2D book image of it? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not rather than, in addition to - both should be reflected in the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• How do I do that Nikkimaria? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Have multiple tags - see for example what's been done at File:British_florin_1967_obverse.png. Nikkimaria (talk)

• Nikkimaria I don't know what additional tag to add. The file you link to has Coin:{{PD-UKGov}}, which does not seem right for an Anglo-Saxon coin. Should I delete the image? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• No, given the age of the coin it'll be well out of copyright - the combination currently used within PD-Art should actually work if you take it out of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria. One query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon. Initial thought, perhaps more names and terms could be linked in the image captions? FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have linked Æthelberht. Are there any others you think should be linked? I cannot see any. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed Genealogical Roll of the Kings of England had an article, but it doesn't. Do we have any approximate date that could be mentioned in the caption of the coin? FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have labelled it as an early Four Line design although the evidence is indirect. All three images in Category:Coins of Æthelred I of Wessex are clearly of the same coin and the first image shows both obverse and reverse. The numismatists Lyons and Mackay have a picture of the reverse labelled Four Line, which I take as showing that the same applies to the image of the obverse in the article. A bit of a stretch but I trust not too much. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps both sides could be shown? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

All changes look good, one last point, perhaps the coin could be shown as a double image with a single caption? See for example the images on the left here:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link Welsh and Danish? You do link other mentioned ethnicities.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Æthelwulf died in 858... Æthelbald only survived his father by two years" What did they die of?

• This is not known. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• "the first recorded naval battle in English history" Seems signficant, no article to link to?

• I cannot find one. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Æthelberht is linked twice in successive sections.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wulfthryth had two known sons" Wulfthryth and Æthelred? Otherwise it could read as if she already had these sopnd by the time she was married to Æthelred.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the intro you say "Great Viking Army", but in the article body you say " Great Heathen Army", probably best to be consistent for clarity. Or otherwise somehow make the connection between the names ("also called the" or similar).

• Changed first to Viking Great Heathen Army. I have linked the second mention of Viking to avoid a sea of blue at the first mention. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• "marched on York and conquered Northumbria", same with East Anglia and Nottingham in the article body; you link other places, why not these?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is only for science articles, but should you give metric conversion for miles mentioned?

• I have never converted in historical articles but I see that other editors do so I have here. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• On a side note, I wondered whether "æthel" meant the same as my native Danish "ædel", and sure enough, both mean noble (as I just noticed you state in the intro).
• "an unknown location which was probably the scene of the murder in 757 of King Cynewulf." How is this known, and what is its significance? Could warrant a footnote.

• Several historians have made this suggestion as both took place at Meretun. However, one historian said that the location is unknown because Meretun is such a common place name, which makes it less of a coincidence so I have deleted the reference to Cynewulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Between one and one and a half million Æthelred I Regular Lunette coins were produced" How is this known?

• I am not sure but as I understand it numismatists make the calculation based on finds of single coins (which are thought likely to be a representive sample, unlike hoards). Numismatists estimate total production based on the number of coins typically produced by a die, the number of different dies represented in the coins found, and the number of coins produced by the same die. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review FunkMonk. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - looks great to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

• Lead
  • Add an explanation that "Æthel-" is the Old English word for "noble" (see Ethel)?

• The article did have an explanation but I deleted it as I could not find a reliable source. The Ethel article does not have one. I have now found a translation of his name in the DNB article on Æthelred the Unready as "noble counsel" (Æthel-ræd). Thus un-ræd means no counsel and is a pun on his lack of wisdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Æthelwold is piped to Æthelwold of Wessex which redirects to Æthelwold ætheling. Any reason for not piping to the article itself?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• • wl Mercia on first occurrence, as for Wessex earlier in the lead

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• • "and the reform coinage of King Edgar the Peaceful a century later.": "Reform coinage" was not familiar to me, but I find usages via Google, for Saudi Arabia or Ukraine for example. The linked article about Edgar I has an image of some of his coins which seems unrelated to any content, but does not mention any coinage reform (probably a deficiency in that article). I suggest wikilinking thus: reform coinage. Reaching the notes, I see that the current note "j" gives a good background, so you could also add a second callout to that note here.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Background
  • I've edited the first references to Æthelwulf, to link and explain whose son on first mention.

• I have moved the first mention of Æthelwulf to the previous paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Even better! Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Viking Invasions
  • Perhaps point out (since the section mentions that Æthelred delayed entering the battle to take Mass) that this is not Æthelred the Unready? I was left wondering why the epithet had not been mentioned (shows how much English history I don't know!)

• I have added a hatnote on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Coinage
  • The term "Floriate Cross" appears without an example. This is an image of the reverse of an Offa penny showing the design.

• I have added that the illustrated coin is a Four Line, which is stylistically similar to the Floriate Cross. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• • "Lunettes" also appears without an explanation of the term, and I could not find a good wl. The main article for this section also does not really explain what "Lunettes" refers to (but does say they are "very difficult to organise or categorise in any meaningful way.") I did find this image of another Offa coin. It's not clear whether the image in the article also illustrates this, but I suspect not.

• This is a very difficult area. We really need someone who understands numismatics to write an article on Anglo-Saxon coinage design. One problem is that whereas you can copy a photo of an ancient manuscript in a modern book, you are not allowed to copy a photo of a coin. (According to the rules of Commons, a photo of a 2D image is OK, but not of a coin which considered 3D and requiring skill to photograph, so the copyright belongs to the photographer.) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it would be too much of a distraction to try to describe these stylistic details here: as you say other articles dealing more directly with the subject need to be created or improved. --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Please also address the old but unanswered talk page section Talk:Æthelred I, King of Wessex#Incorrect coin.

• This was answered - it is a coin of Æthelred the Unready. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There was a response confirming that the original image was incorrect, but no update when the article was corrected. I have added a clarification. I agree that issue has been dealt with. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

-- Mirokado (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review Mirokado. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • You are welcome! It was a pleasure to read it. I've struck most of the comments, will think a bit more about the coinage... --Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've struck the talk page question, still thinking about Four Lines, Floriate Crosses and Lunettes. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Support: The coinage section is now OK after your work with FunkMonk (above). --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Chestnuts Long Barrow

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one of the Medway Megaliths, a series of Early Neolithic long barrows in southeast England. Three of the articles in this series, Coldrum Long Barrow, Smythe's Megalith, and Coffin Stone, are already FAs. Hopefully this article, which has been a GA since 2016, can now join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

An excellent article. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• witnessed inhabitation—"habitation" seems more natural

• A good idea. Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• link "iconoclastic" at first occurrence

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• silica sand—Is "silica" necessary? Sand is usually assumed to be mainly silicon dioxide unless otherwise stated

• This isn't my strong point but I certainly have no objection to removing "silica" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• You mention acidic soils but there isn't much to suggest why it's acidic. Your source mentions the local geology, perhaps add a sentence

• That could be a good idea, but frankly I have no idea why the soil is acidic; I don't think the source cited gives any explanation, at least not at the cited page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I fixed the capitalisation of "Amygdaloideae", but perhaps pipe as "plum family", "stone-fruit trees" or similar

• I've added "(stone-fruit trees)". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Prior to the adoption of this name—no indication whether this was last year or 200 years ago

• Ah, a fair point. Although we don't have an exact date I will try to make the time frame clearer in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Göbekli Tepe was also built by non-farming hunter-gatherers/foragers, worth mentioning?

• I'm not sure if that would be particularly necessary here; it might read as being a bit off-topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• 2300 but 3,500

• I have added the comma to the former here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• two hones—perhaps link to sharpening stone. I don't think the noun sense is much used now

• Another good idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• All clear on duplinks and headbomb/unreliable tools

@Jimfbleak: - Many thanks for taking the time to read through this article and for offering your thoughts. Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 20 ::February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the acidity, although Alexander mentions the geology on p. 2., it's not necessarily the case that sands are acidic, although here they clearly are, so best left as is. Happy to ignore Göbekli Tepe, just happened to read it a bit about a couple of days ago. All looks good, and Josh doesn't appear to be finding major issues either, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Keith D

• I do not know why this was switched from the established unit order of imperial first. Keith D (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keith D "established order"? Articles on scientific topics are nearly always written with metric first, and I'm sure that you are aware that, unlike in the US, metric is taught in UK schools and frequently used in real life. I've written 70+ FAs and the only time I've put US units first is an article about a specifically US bird species always put metric first. I can't see why this should be switched to your personal preference, and I'd oppose such a change, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

• "The Chestnuts Long Barrow, also known as Stony or Long Warren" Stony Warren, presumably? Worth spelling out.

• I'm really not sure here. I'd actually assumed that it was "Stony", not "Stony Warren", but your comment has got me thinking. The source (Alexander 1961, p. 1) says only "its earlier name was Stony or Long Warren", which could permit either interpretation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Archaeologists have established that the monument was built by pastoralist communities" That this monument was built by several communities?

• That works. I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• No, sorry, I was asking about the claim you were making rather than making a suggestion. Is it really the case that archaeologists have determined that this particular monument was built by multiple communities? I assumed that what you wanted to say was that monuments of this type were built by pastoralist communities, without making any claim about precisely who (i.e., how many communities) built this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose the text should specify that it is monuments of this type that were built at this time, as there isn't any specific absolute dating evidence for this particular monument. I've amended the sentence accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Three further surviving long barrows, Kit's Coty House, the Little Kit's Coty House, and the Coffin Stone," It's disputed whether the Coffin Stone is a long barrow, isn't it?

• That's true. I've changed this sentence to the following: "Two further surviving long barrows, Kit's Coty House and Little Kit's Coty House, as well as possible survivals such as the Coffin Stone and White Horse Stone, are located on the Medway's eastern side." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "by medieval robbers" Earlier you suggested that they may have been robbers; why the certainty now?

• I've changed this to "due to damage caused in the medieval period," Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "He suggested that these megaliths were covered with sand until the capstones were placed atop the chamber, at which the sand was then cleared" At which time? This doesn't read right to me.

• I've changed this sentence to the following: "He suggested that the long barrow's builders kept the megaliths in place by filling the chamber with sand. Once the capstone was placed atop and the chamber was stable, he thought, the builders would have removed the supporting sand." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "in the drystone wall" What drystone wall? Also, isn't it dry stone rather than drystone?

  The wall is introduced at the end of the previous paragraph; do you think we need to expand on this in the article? The source itself used "drystone" as one word rather than two, although our Wikipedia article is titled "Dry stone". I've changed it to the two-word option (although have no particular preference either way) and have also added a Wikilink to our article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  So you did; apologies. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Many archaeologists have suggested that the construction of these monuments reflects an attempt to mark control and ownership over the land, thus reflecting a change in mindset brought about by the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic." You claim many but cite one; does Hutton claim/cite many? If I was being critical, I'd say this subsection was a little heavy on weasel words.

• Hutton specifically cites Richard Bradley here, so we can probably do the same. I've played around with the prose to amend this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think sherd and daub are jargon. I'd recommend a link or explanation at first mention.

• "Sherd" can be linked to Glossary of archaeology#potsherd, no problem. "Daub" can be linked to Wattle and daub. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The existence of Chestnuts Long Barrow has been known since the 18th century." Known to antiquarians, maybe? It was clearly known in the middle ages...

• Very true! I've changed this sentence to reflect that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• "During the late 19th century, the field in which the barrow is located was used as a paddock.[2]" Does this not belong in the "subsequent use" section? This may not be the only example of this in that section.

• Yes, I think it certainly does. I've moved it. There are also some sentences which could be moved ("In 1953, the archaeologist Leslie Grinsell reported that several small trees and bushes had grown up within the megaliths.[102] That year, the field was prepared for horticultural use, being levelled and ploughed, although the area around the megaliths was left undisturbed.") but which chronologically slot in better in their current location. I'm not completely averse to moving these too, if you think it advisable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Colebrooke source - technically, I don't think you need archive or access information as the link is a courtesy link. Your citation would be fine without it - you're citing the journal, not the archived web page.

• I see your point. I've removed the links here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Your Killick reference seems to be in a different format to the others?

• So it is. How odd. I've fixed that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't really like the inclusion of publishers for journals, but I suppose it's doing no harm. If I was being really picky, I might note that a lot of them are published by university presses, rather than solely by scholarly societies.

• I'm very happy to remove these; it does not particularly bother me either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a great article - with a comparatively full bibliography! I am taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, per WP:LEADLENGTH, your lead is too long! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had actually expanded it from it's GA rated version in anticipation of the FAC, but I see your point so I have trimmed it back again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Also also, I wonder if, compositionally, the Geograph photo might be the best of the lead? It gives perhaps the best impression of the whole structure. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think you're right; it would work better in the lede. I've swapped the two images around. It's a shame we don't have any better quality photographs of the site. The fact that it is on private land and (at least at present) does not appear to be open to visitors obviously makes this more difficult. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and attention, Josh. I'll respond to your other two points soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I've responded to everything now, Josh. Was there anything else that you'd like me to take a look at in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - no further comments! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Red King

• Dimensions: abbreviate or don't abbreviate, 'X kilometres (Y mi)' looks amateurish (and I don't understand why it is default behaviour of template:convert!). So use either {{convert|10|km|abbr=on}} or {{convert|10|km|abbr=off}} (which produce 10 km (6.2 mi) or 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) ).

• Ah, I don't really mind either way, but I've added "|abbr=off" throughout, just to ensure consistency. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is an explanation of why template:convert behaves as it does, at Template talk:Convert#Inconsistent abbreviation. It is intended behaviour. --Red King (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Passive voice is best avoided unless it is utterly unimportant who did it "an MRI scan was taken of the suspected area" is ok but "In 1961, it was noted" is certainly not (tagged). Whenever I see passive voice, I expect wp:WEASEL.

• A very fair point. I've amended the sentence in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• 'The chambers were constructed from sarsen,' tagged as needing citation.

• Ah, that's a case where the next citation along covers the information. I'll duplicate the citation to make things clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

My only other thought has been said already: the lead is disproportionately large. Otherwise, a well-written piece. --Red King (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read through this, Red King. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Distribution_of_long_barrows.png is of fairly poor quality - possible to get a new version with a different base map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'd certainly be happy if someone was able to create a better quality image here although I don't personally have the skills or software to do so, unfortunately. That's why the maps I produce are a bit basic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert anything you disagree with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• The article on Addington Long Barrow links from "greensand" to Lower Greensand; that seems a better link target that simply greensand, as you have now.

• That makes sense. I'll change the wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think the "Name and location" section could be compressed and simplified, but I'd rather not do it myself since it will mean moving citations around. Here's a suggested rewording:

  Chestnuts Long Barrow is a scheduled ancient monument, standing on private land belonging to a neighbouring house. It lies on the slope of a hill and borrows its name from the Chestnuts, an area of woodland that crowns the hill; it had been previously known as Stony Warren or Long Warren. The barrow is located in the greensand belt, 30 metres (100 feet) above sea level. The underlying geology is a soft sandstone covered with a stratum of white sand.

I don't think you need the name of the house, which is never mentioned again, and there's no need to mention John Alexander for the old names -- that's in the citation.

• I think you've put together a good paragraph there, and I have used it as the basis for some alterations. However, I have kept the name of the house, as I think it is potentially pertinent information. I have also made some amendments to your proposed wording to make it clear that the term "Chestnuts Long Barrow" is mid-20th century in origin. Also, as noted above, it is unclear if the barrow as known as "Stony" or "Stony Warren", so I've gone with the former to be on the safe side. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think we need caps for "Scheduled Ancient Monument", do we? I see it lowercased in sources. Re "Stony Warren": a Google search will find it that name in a Kentish Archaeology Society index; and if that's not enough, if you find "The Pilgrim's Way" by Seán Jennett on Google Books you'll see "Chestnuts, the (Stony Warren)" in the index, so I think we're safe to make it explicit to the reader. It also shows up in Everitt & Everitt, "Continuity and Colonization: The Evolution of Kentish Settlement", again via Google Books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• You're right, lower-case is best here. Also, thank you for finding the reference to "Stone Warren"! (rather foolishly, I hadn't thought to google it...). I'll make the changes in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but do you think we really need the quotes from Philp & Dutto, and Ashbee, about the Medway Megaliths? This isn't the overview article about those. Cutting the quotes would let you combine that paragraph with the next one which would flow well.

• You're right. We don't need them. I've taken them out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the two paragraphs starting "The Medway long barrows all conformed..." and "These common architectural features..." I'd suggest moving the sentence about the heights up to join the other sentences about similarities.

• I'm not sure on this one. I feel that the sentence could work in either of the two paragraphs. If you think that there is a definite advantage to placing it in the paragraph titled "The Medway long barrows all conformed..." then I certainly have no objection, but I don't necessarily see any clear improvement to this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  Up to you -- I'm certainly not going to oppose over it -- but I was thinking that it would be natural to draw the inference that the common features indicate regional cohesion after listing all the commonalities. Moving that sentence out of the way would let you combine the commonality sentence with the following "Nevertheless..." in a natural way. Perhaps "...elsewhere in the British Isles, though as with other regional groupings...". It just feels to me that the sentence where it is now interrupts that thought. But if you feel it's better where it is, that's your call.

• Thinking about it further, I've come to agree with you. Moving the sentence involves rewording it a bit, but that isn't a problem. I've now made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  I think it reads well now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the Medway Megaliths section you list various opinions about stylistic connections to other groups of megaliths; is there a reason to omit Alexander who (pp. 14-18) considers them to be "an outlier of the Atlantic Coast complex"?

• There's no particular reason for the omission. I can add this into the article, no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• How about including a clip of the southwest corner of this map, which is expired Crown copyright? You don't currently have a map showing the location at that scale, and it also shows Addington Long Barrow (at least, I assume that's what that is).

• I can certainly see the value of having a map on that scale in the article. I'm less sure, however, how best to go about adding such a map. Simply cropping it from the larger map could end up looking quite messy and would lack a fair bit of contextual information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  OK -- I can see that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• These were arranged as two trilithons. This isn't wrong, but I had to read Alexander to actually understand the layout; perhaps a bit more explanation such as "two trilithons, next to each other, so that the two lintel stones formed the roof of the chamber". Now I do understand it I'm not sure you're reflecting it correctly in the diagram. You show three wall stones on each side, but Alexander's Plan II doesn't show this -- L, for example, he considers to have been a fallen piece of V. Am I missing something?

• On your first point, I agree. More detail would be helpful here, and I think your proposed wording will work well, so I've added that into the article.
• On your second point; the (admittedly quite basic) plan I put together is based heavily on Ashbee's plan, itself presented as being modelled on Alexander's (page 7). However, comparing Ashbee's plan with Alexander's, it is clear that there is the discrepancy regarding the number of stones in the chamber which you highlighted. I'll work on creating a new plan based directly on Alexander. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• I've now redone the new plan and added it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  That looks much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• In File:Chestnuts Long Barrow.png, does the test "Area in which..." label the black line below the barrow? That's not very clear, and even if it does, I'm not entirely sure what it means -- why wouldn't that be a closed shape, rather than open at the top? I think it's because the western and southern edges of the barrow weren't detectable, but what you have doesn't really convey that.

• The wording I used on the plan was based on that in Ashbee's plan ("outline of spread barrow remnant") but considering the issue further, it seems apparent that what this area actually encompassed by the black line actually refers to is the area in which material from the chamber was found, not from the whole of the barrow. So the wording I have used is misleading here.. Would you recommend that I simply get rid of that black line altogether in the plan? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  I think you were right to get rid of it; details are in Alexander for those interested, and it's not the sort of thing a reader encountering the topic for the first time needs to know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Also in that picture, you describe the black stones as "found erect and in place", but Alexander records straightening at least one or two of the wall stones, so I think this needs to be hedged.

• Well spotted. I've replaced "found erect and in place" with "found largely in place"; do you think that that does the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think the plan PNG should have a source, since it gives explicit information not easy to cross-reference to the sourcing in the text.

• The source is already given in the image information (it is based on the illustration in Ashbee 2000 p.339); however, do you mean that the source of the plan should be given in the image caption within the article itself? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, sorry, wasn't clear. I mention a citation for the caption text, which you've now got. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• a large stone, designated 'G' by excavators: unless I missed it, this is the only place you use the letters given by Alexander. I'd cut this if there's no other reference in the article. One place you might use it would be the photos of the site; if so I think you'd have to add the labels to the PNG plan so the reader could cross-reference.

• A fair point. I'll cut it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• A dry stone within the chamber wall would have also blocked access: a couple of problems here: "dry stone" is a building method, so I think you probably meant to say "dry stone wall"; and do you really mean "within the chamber wall"? Alexander indicated it would have blocked the west end of the chamber, didn't he?

• Yes, this sentence has been a bit butchered somehow; it used to include the word "wall" in there. I'll reword it so that it makes sense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  Any reason not to make it "A dry stone wall across the west end of the chamber..."? Alexander makes it clear that the greensand blocks are at the west end, and he describes them as a wall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• No reason. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• You might consider using Alexander's Plate I under fair use as a "before" picture, for comparison with the two pictures you have of the current site.

• Good idea. I have added it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  Looks good, but I just read Ashbee (2000), and on p.340 he reprints a 1925 picture that is better than Alexander's -- can we use that? Sorry! Should have read that first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• The west-looking photo is quite poor quality. I don't think I'd oppose on that basis but if it can be improved that would be good.

• We could certainly do with some better quality photographs. Unfortunately, these seem to be the only ones we have on Wikimedia Commons at present; I couldn't find any better ones on Geograph either, although it can be hoped that some better images might be produced in future. The fact that the site no longer seems to be open to the public in any form does not help matters. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the "Design and construction" section you use "X suggested that" a lot. How about using language like "The earthen mound was probably constructed before the chamber", or "these may have been once placed in the chamber but later removed...", with the citation providing the person making the suggestion? These are experts and their suggestions are not controversial, though we shouldn't present them as definite facts. Similarly in the earlier section that speculates about connections to other megaliths, how much value does the reader get from the names, particularly if they are unlinked, so that the reader can't find out more about them? Another example: From the excavation, archaeologists expressed the view that the barrow was probably trapezoidal or D-shaped...: I think this just refers to Alexander; could we cut this to just "The barrow was probably trapezoidal or D-shaped..."?

• I've made the amendment you suggest here on "probably trapezoidal"; I'm not so sure on some of the other points. When it comes to the names at the earlier juncture in the article, it is possible that articles will be established about these individuals in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose over this, but just to clarify: my feeling is that the goal of paragraphs like these is to tell the reader what the consensus (or lack of consensus) of archaeological thought is on this sort of thing. We shouldn't add information in the middle of that explanation unless it helps the reader. If the archaeologists involved are not notable; if there's no mention of a back-and-forth debate about differing points of view; if the reader doesn't learn anything from the mention of the names, are we really doing the reader a favour? I know there's a editing reflex to attribute opinions inline, but I don't think that really applies here -- this is not "Famous singer said their spouse was cheating on them"; it's an academic statement supported by a reliable source. But if you prefer it as it is, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the foreground of the site, excavators found: do you mean "forecourt"?

• Yes, that's a much better term. Replaced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is "tall-stones" a typo for "wall-stones"? I understood it but I thought the latter was the usual term.

• Paul Ashbee, who is being cited here, uses the term "tall stones". I'm not particularly attached to that term, however, should someone think of a more appropriate replacement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  He uses "tall stones", without the hyphen; "wall-stones" is Alexander's term. I think either is fine, but "tall-stones" with the hyphen is not -- it implies it's a term of art. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• "tall stones" without the hyphen it is! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure how this should be handled, but since Alexander doesn't mention the fire-and-water breaking of the wall-stones, it might not have been known in 1961, which means that citing his denial of iconoclasm as a reason for the breakage is a little misleading, placed as it is after Ashbee's comments.

• The breaking up of stones with fire and water was something that William Stukeley had recorded at Avebury, back in the 18th century (if my memory serves me correctly). While I couldn't say for sure that Alexander knew of Stukeley's reports (which had been published), it would seem likely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  Having just read the Ashbee papers I see that reference. This is bothering me a bit. Could we reverse the order and have Alexander's explanation first? Then when we give Ashbee's opinion -- and here is a case where I do think the names are relevant, because of the details of the disagreement -- we can say that Alexander does not mention the possibility of fire and water damage. Incidentally, looking through Ashbee's comments in his 1993 paper, I think his point about the Close Roll slightings having been inflicted on round barrows, not long barrows, is worth including in the discussion in the article. I haven't looked at the papers Ashbee cites on that point; it might be interesting to see how definite that distinction is, but Ashbee is quite clear on the point and I think it strengthens his argument to include it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I can certainly reverse the order that we present the two arguments, that isn't a problem. I'm not so sure whether it's worth bringing in a distinction between round barrows and long barrows here. The distinction of these different monument types is a largely 20th century phenomenon, based upon developments in archaeological classification. I don't think it had much value before this period, particularly pre-19th century. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• A large number of surface finds were found: can we avoid the "find"/"found" repetition?

• Certainly. "found" can easily be replaced by "discovered" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  Good enough, so struck, but another option would be "The field, and a quarry 30 metres (100 feet) to the east, between them yielded a large number of surface finds"; up to you if you like that version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the latter part of the 1950s, with plans afoot to build a house adjacent to Chestnuts Long Barrow, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments initiated excavation of the site. Over five weeks in August and September 1957, the barrow was excavated under the directorship of John Alexander. The excavation was initiated and funded by Boyle, with the support of the Inspectorate, and largely carried out by volunteers. Quite a bit of repetition here. Can we do something like this: "In the latter part of the 1950s, with plans afoot to build a house adjacent to Chestnuts Long Barrow, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments initiated an excavation of the site under the directorship of John Alexander. The excavation, which lasted five weeks in August and September 1957, was initiated and funded by Boyle, with the support of the Inspectorate, and largely carried out by volunteers."?

• Good suggestion. I have implemented it within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• However, that paragraph says both that the dig was initiated by the Inspectorate and by Boyle; that needs to be clarified.

• I have tried to do so in the prose, which no longer says that Boyle "initiated" it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Following excavation, the fallen sarsen megaliths were re-erected in their original sockets, allowing for the restoration of part of the chamber and façade: not quite true, surely? He did not re-erect any façade stones, did he?

• Ashbee does specify that part of the façade was also restored, although your point has encouraged me to consider this further. I've tried looking at the photographs of the site to determine what stones might have been part of the façade. There are certainly several stones that branch off to the sides of the chamber, which presumably are façade stones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  You're right, I was mis-remembering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

-- That's it for a first pass. Generally I think everything is here but some tweaks are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: - many thanks for spending so much time carefully reading through this article. You've raised some important points and the article quality has been improved because of them. I think that I've responded to every one of your queries; if there is anything you'd like to offer a counter-response to then please do feel free to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, just checking that you've noticed there are a couple of outstanding points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mike Christie thanks for your message. Sorry for the delay. Will get onto these shortly. I had hoped to answer them late last week but real life got in the way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. I do think the picture on p. 340 of Ashbee (2000) is better than Alexander's plate I, and I think it would improve the article to use it, but I'm not going to withhold support over that. Re the round barrows vs. long barrows point Ashbee makes, I take your point that this was a distinction not made by archaeologists till centuries after the time of the destructive behaviour, but Ashbee's opinion is pretty definite on the point and I think the article would benefit from including it. But it's a point on which reasonable people can disagree, so I'm going to go ahead and support. Are you planning a featured topic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Mike, the c.1925 image from Ashbee is the clearer of the two. I've made the switch. Regarding a featured topic, I hadn't given it any thought, to tell the truth. I've never created a featured topic before. There are still about four articles on the Medway Megaliths which are not yet FAs (of those, two are GAs, while the other two still need quite a bit of work). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review.

• The sources are all reliable.
• I've done some spotchecking as part of the content review above and found nothing to be concerned about.
• I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but a couple of searches conducted while doing the content review turned up nothing further of note.
• As far as formatting goes, the only thing I can spot is that there's no ISBN on Philp & Dutto; you do have ISBNs on other books so we should be consistent.

• Strangely, I don't think that the Philp and Dutto has an ISBN. I just checked the copy in my possession and there is no ISBN listed on the back cover. The amazon.co.uk entry does not list an ISBN either. It may be that because it was printed by a small press (the Kent Archaeological Trust) they never gave it one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• For Colebrooke, you give 1773 as the date, but it appears you're citing a 20th century printing of it. Is there any way to indicate this in the citation?

• I may be in error here, but I thought that I was citing a digitisation of the original 18th century printing? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  I don't have access, so you may be right -- when I posted that I checked to see how old Archaeologica was and thought it didn't go back to 1773. If this is a digitization of a 1773 journal, that's fine -- my mistake. I interpreted it as a reprint of the original source in a later journal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• For Harris, I'm guessing your citation is really to Ashbee; I don't think it's a good idea to cite a book you haven't seen, even on the authority of a reliable source. I've handled this a couple of different ways; my preferred way is to do a note, saying something like "Ashbee 1993, quoting Harris's 'History of Kent'", leaving Harris in the bibliography. I think with Harvard refs that would cause an error to show up since there wouldn't be a link. Any method that shows what was actually consulted and what was only quoted in the consulted source would work.

• I'd hoped to access a copy of Harris' volume but unfortunately have not been able to. Perhaps I should just remove the Harris reference altogether? Do you think that would be best? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  You know, that's probably the simplest way out. I do think the current situation is untenable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I shall do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Laborintus II (album)

Nominator(s): Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note this is actually the second nomination for this article; the title has been moved around a few times over the years (and I wouldn't be surprised if another move is suggested here again). The previous nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laborintus II (2012 recording)/archive1. The main concern, aside from questions of titling and an odd interlude on whether this article constitutes commercial prejudicing, seemed to be whether I had accurately mirrored the sources used--between that review and a few subsequent re-readings of everything used I am confident that there should be no misunderstandings of the source material now; however a source review would be a good way to start this off. I'm also well out of the loop as regards FAC and haven't nominated an article here in a number of years, but hopefully it's like eating a bicycle. Bear with me if I'm rusty. Thanks in advance to anyone who participates in this one. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Dante-alighieri.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've added {{PD-US-expired}}, which seems the most apt; let me know if this needs to be amended. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Aoba47

• The first sentence identifies that the album is by three different groups (Ictus Ensemble, Nederlands Kamerkoor and Mike Patton), but only two are named in the top line of the infobox. Is there any reason why Nederlands Kamerkoor is excluded?

  Added; simple oversight on my part. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have made much larger oversights in the past lol. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Would it be beneficial to add links for music genres like jazz, electronic music, pop, and folk music?

  I've added these to the article body where appropriate but left them unlinked in the lead just to avoid too many links in succession in there. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Understandable. Thank you for the response.

• I am uncertain about the placement of the "which..." dependent clauses in these two parts, (Luciano Berio, which featured lyrics taken from) and (Members of the Dutch choir Nederlands Kamerkoor, which performed in the recording,), since they are directly after a person and not an object. I think the second example should be "who" instead of "which". I could be overthinking it, but it was something that caught my attention while reading through the article.

  I've amended the latter but would be unsure of what would be right for the former. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  That sentence could be right in its current wording. I honestly need to dust up on certain parts of grammar. It was just something that I noticed while during through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would recommend adding alternative text for the infobox image.

  Added. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• The word "avant-garde" is linked twice in the article. AllMusic is also linked twice.

  I've left the link to avant-garde music and removed the other link. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think PopMatters should be put in italics in this part: (Max Feldman of PopMatters awarded Laborintus II). Same for Consequence of Sound in this part: (Consequence of Sound's Carson O'Shoney rated the album three stars out of five). I think both should be linked in the box in the same section.

  Italicised in all instances. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is more of a clarification question, but I was wondering if there is a set structure for the "Release and reception" section? I was just curious because the last two paragraphs seem a little random in terms of critics and quotes. I am not saying there is anything wrong, but I would like to know more about the organization.

  The intended structure was one paragraph on release (dates, charting, etc), then the remainder on critical commentary; the second and third paragraphs are largely ordered based on when I found the sources and so there's no reason why they couldn't be reworked if necessary, although I would still lead off with Metacritic as it does the job of summarising things. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response. When I read this part, it seems like the second paragraph is more about positive reviews for the album and the third paragraph is about the mixed-to-negative critiques. Because of this perspective, I was somewhat confused while reading the last two sentences. The Q sentence seems quite negative, but then I am honestly uncertain of what to make of the Spin quote. Is "orchestra/tape collision crisper" a negative response/description to the album? The Spin source is extremely short, but I think the "narrated by a rock star prone to screaming" part may be more applicable here so it is a clearer critique of the album that fits within the paragraph's preexisting structure. Let me know if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've re-written the Spin review accordingly; on re-reading it I think I misread the sense of the (admittedly quite terse and fragmentary) original words. Let me know how that looks now, and whether you would want the paragraphs involved to be re-ordered. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  That is understandable as I had to re-read the Spin review a few times to make sure I really understood their opinion. I would honestly be interested to read one-sentence reviews for other albums; it certainly an interesting approach lol.

  From my understanding of Mike Christie's comments (and feel free to correct me) is that he was suggesting just having the publication name in the prose so it would be something like (The A.V. Club called the album "challenging, uncompromising, and bordering on inaccessible") without the "review" part explicitly put in the prose.

  After re-reading this section again, I have noticed that the sentence structure is pretty uniform throughout so it may be helpful to change it up to keep a reader more engaged in the content. I get this note quite often during my own GAN / FAC reviews. Apologies for the amount of comments in this part. Once these changes have been made to the reception section, I will re-read the article again and most likely support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Aoba47 Your opinion on either the current version of the section in the article, or the alternate version presented on the article's talk page, would be greatly appreciated. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, and apologies for not being as active on here. I just wanted to step back to allow Mike Christie's suggestions to be addressed without distraction. I think the alternate version on the article's talk page is the better of the two (at least in my opinion). I think that version provides a stronger narrative and helps me, as a reader who never heard of this album and is generally not familiar with this genre of music, have a clearer understanding of its reception. Great work. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. I've replaced the existing section with this version now. Mike Christie, do you feel that this version meets what you were looking for too? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and I hope I've addressed everything for you suitably. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one last question about the "Release and reception" section, and then I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

Comments. So far I've just looked at the release and reception section, and I agree with Aoba47 that it's not quite there yet. I'd suggest eliminating the rating numbers from the prose; they're in the table at right, and they make the prose much more difficult to read. Personally I'd cut the names of the reviewers themselves if they're not notable in any way; their names are available via the footnotes, and most readers won't care that it was e.g. Thom Jurek who wrote AllMusic's review. I think the thematic division between the paragraphs works well, but I'd like to see more integration of the opinions in each paragraph into an explanatory narrative that gives the reader a sense of the paragraph. WP:RECEPTION talks about an "A said B" problem; you don't quite have that here, but particularly in the first paragraph the opinions and quotes are conveyed in a rather listy way, rather than being used to illustrate a point made by a narrative sentence in the article's voice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I can make a start on reworking this section, but I just want to be clear before I do--is the best practice to ascribe any quotes directly to the publication in this case (ie to AllMusic rather than the named reviewer, for example)? If so I can start on this now. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's my personal preference; I don't know that I can claim it's best practice. If you decide to keep the names, I won't be opposing on that basis. The reason I like to cut them where possible is that it makes it much easier to write sentences that flow naturally; interjecting both name and source publication into every sentence with a quote or opinion makes it jerky. If you can make the prose flow more smoothly while leaving the names in, then that's fine. And of course any reviewer who is notable as a reviewer should probably be named, regardless; I don't know if any of these are in that category. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've made an initial pass at this approach here but am open to further amending it. I may have leant quite heavily on the word "review" as it now seems to have lost all meaning, and am happy to hear any objections or suggestions. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 12:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have some further comments, but I'll put them on the article talk page, and we can work on it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I’ll just say that as a prolific editor in music articles, I’ve never had anyone say that reviewer names need to be omitted. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a high-quality article for an album, film, song, or video game that just doesn’t name reviewers. Attributing directly to a publication seems unwise. My most recent FA, Almost There (album), names all reviewers. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I know it's not common practice, but why do you think it's unwise? What does the reader lose if the reviewer names are not included, at least when the reviewer is not a name that anyone will know? It's in the citation, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. The revised reception section is much improved. (Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, by the way.) I have one minor point below, which does not affect my support.

• Berio described the main structure of Laborintus II as a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" (exemplified by the Etymologies of Isidore of Seville): the reference to the Etymologies is not going to be very helpful to most readers. You might consider a footnote as well, explaining what Berio meant.
• You have "focussing", which is a British English spelling; wouldn't it be more natural to have this in American English, since Patton is American?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I hadn't really considered the subject American but it's a minor fix to use AmEng anyway. As for the footnote, anything I could add would probably fall into OR territory so I've reworded the aside to gloss what Isidore's book is a little more readily. Thank you again for your help in improving this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  You're welcome; it was an interesting read, though I have to say the sound sample decided me not to listen to the whole thing! Both points above now struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05

Gonna give this some input as well to get a fresh face here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• One thing I'll note here is that, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, this article should only have a maximum of two paragraphs as it is under 15,000 characters. This should be pretty easy to do, though.
• One minor change I'd make is move the mention of its release date from the third paragraph to the first; see Almost There for how an example of that might look. It might be worth mentioning the record label that distributed the album as well.
• Citations in the lead are generally frowned upon; it's not a dealbreaker, but generally speaking if it's cited in the lead it should be in the article, so there's usually no need for this. I believe this information is already cited, so the citation could simply be removed.

  I've removed the citation (it was there due to a direct quote) and have tried two different re-orderings of the lead's content here and here. Which would you say is the better summation in two paragraphs? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  The current version looks quite good. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Production

• One general inconsistency I've noted is that some sentences have the period outside the quotation marks while others have it within them. This should be modified to where they are all consistent - either all have them outside or inside. I believe the rest of the article uses them outside the quotations so it might be easier to just fix the outliers.

  Amended. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Release and reception

• I would attribute the Allmusic review to the author, Thom Jurek.
• There is a semicolon between the reviews for Spin and Q. This should be a comma.

  Fixed the second point; as to the latter, I had planned to redraft this section a little based on the above review and discussion at the talk page, which has leant towards omitting reviewer names. I have no strong preference either way on this if you wish to disagree with that discussion. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  That’s interesting, I’ve never seen any sort of consensus anywhere to not name reviewers. I disagree with that idea. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Track listing

• The two names in the track listing have already been linked above, so there is no need to duplicate link them here.

  De-linked. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

These are the issues I've found on a first read. Overall a short but seemingly comprehensive work - I'd support on prose if these issues are corrected, Grapple X. Toa Nidhiki05 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed much of your points and sought some further input on a few. Thank you for having a look at this one. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! I’ll jump in on the reviewer comments above but I’d be willing to support on prose grounds, presently. Also, no pressure but if you have any time, would love any input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song)/archive1. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Ceoil

I enjoyed reading the article, and looking up on youtube; wow. However it does need a good head to toe on prose; to take an example that stood out from my last skim: "From a whisper to a shout, the words carry a variety of emotional tones as the work progresses" - this seems as if lifted from a press release, certainly not encyclopedic language, and very different in tone for the preceding and later sentences. This disjoint occurs through out the page, and on that basis oppose for now. Grapple, in my best 90s leaving cert irish - cur i gcoinne :). ps, what is meant by "the main structure"? Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I can take another comb through the prose today but FA-level formal prose has never been my forte. Would it be advisable to list it with the GOCE in the mean time? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 16:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also in relation to your last question; I had meant "the bulk of the composition", as in, the majority of it as opposed to specific passages or moments. How would you prefer that to be phrased? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 16:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would canvas for copyeditors. Re phrasing, "From a whisper to a shout" is a bit poetic/sounds like an advert, and frankly suspect wrt copying sources. Certainly raises a red flag. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I can take the point re: tone but compared to the source it's derived from (AllMusic), I don't really see the red flag as to copying (That sentence is based on "...alternately authoritative and declarative, reflective, romantic", "He shouts, whispers, declares, and intones", "They chant in unison, they argue; they accent the dramatic tension in the music"). Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 17:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in this anymore. None of the alts are any good, maybe even worse, the oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a copy-edit of the article to hopefully smooth out the prose. If you have any other actionable concerns I would be happy to address them, otherwise I would at least ask that you retract the baseless "copying" remark as it understandably rankles to be accused in the wrong. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 18:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

More for the attention of any coordinators assessing this, the article has since received a copy-edit and I have specifically gone over the passage highlighted above to redraft it as well. Net changes can be seen here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 22:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The oppose stands. "Berio described the main structure as a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" (exemplified by Isidore of Seville's seventh century encyclopaedia Etymologiae), using Dante's themes of "memory, death and usury".[3] " is incoherent, to take a random sentence. What is a "catalogue" in this context (an example is not a definition), and then why say 'also' in the next claim - "have also cited usury". Are these connected? Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• The music incorporates elements of jazz[2][9] and 20th-century avant-garde - avant-garde what. That's a very broad term applicable to almost every musical type. Why two cites for "Jazz". Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  These are from glances. I really dont think this is ready for FAC, and suggest withdrawal and a rewrite. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  To save yourself time and edits, I shall not be engaging with you or your suggestions further until the above insinuation is retracted; there shall be no withdrawal as other users have proven perfectly helpful without personal attacks and I would prefer to keep the candidacy open to allow for more input from good-faith editors. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  For archaeological record, the PA mentioned came about from questioning the origins and encyclopedic value of the phrase ""From a whisper to a shout, the words carry a variety of emotional tones as the work progresses". To say nothing about the poetic flourish, why "as the work progresses". My overall impression us that the nominator doesn't understand the material, least of all the sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Marcian

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an Eastern Roman Emperor named Marcian, who ruled from 450 to 457; the article was previously nominated, with many suggesting it be run through by a GOCE copyeditor before renomination, which has been done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free, correctly licensed, and relevant. buidhe 03:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot, including source review

I've made several nit-picky copyedits, doing them individually so it's easy to revert one if you object to it. There were few problems with clarity, however, so I think the article is in very good shape overall.

• "This marked the official abandonment of a rigid Danube barrier, which had been manned by Roman laeti…" I know this term is linked, but could it be briefly defined, so the reader doesn't need to click away from the article?
•  Done

Thanks, but the explanation given makes one wonder what the distinction was between laeti and foederati. A. Parrot (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article alternates between "Sassanian" and "Sassanid", and it uses the spelling "Sasanian" once. Also, the Legacy section refers to Persia, a name not used anywhere else in the article, and not all readers will know that the Sasanians are Persia.
•  Done

• Might the passage referring to chariot-team politics link to Chariot racing#Byzantine era?
•  Done

• "…sent an embassy to Theodosius in 450, composed of his brother Hmayeak Mamikonian, Atom Gnuni, Vardan Amatuni, and Meruzhan Artsruni…" Is it necessary to list all of these people? And although Hmayeak is the brother in question, it looks a little odd to say "his brother" and then list a bunch of people. If you keep them all, perhaps you could say "…his brother Hmayeak Mamikonian along with…"
•  Done

• "He was remembered fondly by the people of Constantinople, who would shout "Reign like Marcian!" at the installation of future emperors." Does the source indicate at which coronations this happened? Did the public shout this only while some of them could personally remember Marcian, or did he become a byword for good government that lasted well beyond firsthand memory of his reign?

  Source seems to indicate it being a byword; sort of a Byzantine Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• The DIR page says "It is also clear that he steadfastly remained out of entanglements with the west. In that sense, Marcian's rule was the conceptual end of a universal--and unified--Roman Empire." I wouldn't want to cite this passage itself, given that your heavy reliance on this page was a source of criticism at the previous FAC, but do the other sources agree with it? Do they say something similar? A. Parrot (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  A lot of sources speak to Marcian arising during a time where East and West Rome were practically independent of each other, but only DIR speaks directly of Marcian being 'the end' of the unified empire, so I'm uncomfortable with citing such a thing with only DIR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sensible, but do other sources describe Marcian's reign as marking any kind of change in the east–west relationship? A. Parrot (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Working on this, have made a number of small additions based on searches. Nothing huge so far, but does nicely round out the topic of the Western-Eastern Roman relationships. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. A few more general content-and style comments, followed by the source review:

• The article favors the spelling Genseric, but Gaiseric is the spelling used in the WP article on him and in the Nathan source. I changed this spelling in one instance, but then I realized that the name appears a few more times in the article, in passages cited to sources that I can't access but that seem on the old side. Unless Genseric really is the more widespread spelling in the sources (including recent ones), I suggest changing it all to Gaiseric.
•  Done

• I still don't feel that the distinction between laeti and foederati is adequately explained. The passage in Friell & Williams that supports the text about them actually says the distinction was breaking down in Marcian's time, which seems a relevant topic to discuss.

• I think it's worth emphasizing how much friction the Council of Chalcedon created between the Near Eastern churches, most obviously that in Egypt, and the imperial court, and that it was the seed of the split between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Church. You mention Nestorians fleeing to the Sassanian Empire, but the Oriental Orthodox split was even more consequential, even if it wasn't a firm break until long after Marcian's time. (The Bauer source cited in the relevant paragraph hints at this.) The WP article on Chalcedon has a detailed anecdote about an argument between Dioscorus and Pulcheria that led to Dioscorus's exile, although the sourcing for them leaves something to be desired; it would be interesting to mention if there are credible sources supporting it.

• A minor point: the "Buildings" section uses "Eastern Emperor" several times, which seems superfluous; very few emperors who ruled the West ever had the opportunity to build in Constantinople, and all those under discussion here postdated the split.
•  Done

Source review

I've spot-checked several of the citations and found few problems; those I did find are listed below. All the sources look reliable, with one exception. Some of the sources are older than I'd generally be comfortable with, but sources since 1980 or so predominate, and I know that classical studies haven't changed as much since the late 19th century as my own wheelhouse, Egyptology, has done.

• Last time around, Squeamish Ossifrage pointed out problems with Dawes 1948. It's a collection of public domain texts, and the relevant one is a life of Daniel the Stylite. The Ossifrage's objections haven't been addressed; the entry in the bibliography really isn't specific enough, and why is a contemporary, or at least pre-modern, biography of a saint being used as a source for Marcian's foreign policy in the Caucasus? Aren't scholarly sources available for this?

• Squeamish Ossifrage also questioned the heavy reliance on the Nathan source. The citation list has only expanded slightly since then, while the use of the Nathan source remains largely the same, but this may be less of a problem than it appears. Several of the citations to Nathan are bunched together with others, and I question whether those citations are actually necessary in every case. See a specific example below.

• That aside, Nathan dates to 1998; that should be specified.
•  Done

• The original publication date for Pharr et al. is 1952; that should be noted (in the same format as the entry for Bury 2012/1889).
•  Done

• The citations for the last paragraph of "Conflict with the Huns" are odd. Nearly the whole paragraph is supported by one set of citations. Most of the text in that block seems to derive from Friell and Williams, but unless the pagination in your copy differs from that in this Google Books preview Citation 22 should be pp. 89–91 instead of just p. 89. The Nathan source (Citation 2) only treats this subject in a general way, and I'm not sure it's necessary to cite it here. Citation 23, to The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, seems to be to a page that's about the career of Ardabur (in this edition), and unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem directly related to this block of text—it mentions Ardabur's defeat of unidentified barbarians in Thrace, but that's not mentioned here. If this citation is relevant here, can it be arranged to more clearly indicate which part of the paragraph it's related to?

• The wording of the quotation of the Chalcedonian Creed doesn't match the wording provided in the source.

• Citation 43 lacks a page number, and the book it cited does not seem to use Arms Trade as part of its title. A. Parrot (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Nb. It is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

This is a marker, I'll get back over the next couple of days. I have looked at this a couple of times already, so my review may be brief. I shall no doubt do some copy editing as I go; shout if any of it causes alarm. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Marcian took advantage of the resulting fragmentation of the Hunnic confederation, settling numerous tribes within Eastern Roman lands" Maybe 'by settling', no comma?
• "Marcian had reached the rank of tribune." Could we have a brief in line explanation of what "tribune" means? Eg 'Marcian had reached the rank of tribune, a middle ranking officer.'
• "He did not see action in the war itself having become ill in Lycia" Delete "itself", replace with a comma.
• " Despite being Alanic" You need to explain to a reader why being Alanic was a handicap.
• "comparable to that of Stilicho in the Western Roman Empire" As Stilicho has not been introduced and a reader does not know how much power he held, I don't see the point of this. Suggest deleting it.
• "After his capture, he is not mentioned again" Is "he" Marcian or Gaiseric? Either way, suggest replacing "he" with their name.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The Eastern Roman Empire had been plagued" Suggest "had been" → 'was'.
• "to pay 350 pounds (160 kg) of gold every year" Optional: "every" → 'each'.
• "In the face of Eastern Roman weakness, the Huns doubled their demand, asking for 700 pounds (320 kg) of gold per year, which Theodosius agreed to; the threat the Huns posed to the weakly protected Eastern Empire was enough that Theodosius recalled a large number of his forces from Africa." A bit long for a single sentence.
• "Theodosius refused to pay the tribute and continued to do so until 439" That's a little unclear. Suggest "do so" → 'refuse'.
• " In the spring of 440, 1,100 ships set sail from Constantinople for Africa, twice the size of the fleet that Emperor Justinian would send a century later." 1. To be grammatically correct, you need to add something like 'which was twice the size ... ' And what is a reader to make of this mention, out of the blue, of an event 100 years later. Either explain it or delete it - recommended: If you can source it, just say something like 'extraordinarily large for the time'.
• "but this is thought to be merely propaganda created by Marcian's supporters after his election" Do we really need "merely"?
• "This has led many historians to suggest a deal was made whereby Zeno would be rewarded for supporting Marcian and not attempt to have himself made the emperor" Could you give the prose from Lee where they state that "many" historians hold this view. Thanks.
• "indicative of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires" Further than what? This hasn't been mentioned before.
• "Marcian took a much tougher stance against the Huns" "much"? Do the sources support this?
• "although both Pulcheria and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence, which may have motivated Marcian's actions." This seems out of place. Maybe something like

  The election of Marcian in 450 resulted in large changes to eastern imperial policy. Chrysaphius, the eunuch and spatharios (guard of the imperial chambers), who had exercised much influence over the young Theodosius, was either murdered or executed. Both Pulcheria and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence, which may have motivated Marcian's actions. Marcian took a much tougher stance against the Huns and a more direct role in ecclesiastical affairs. For these reasons, some historians consider him the strongest, or at least most independent, Eastern Roman emperor.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sections: Why is "Reign of Theodosius II" under "Reign [of Marcian]"?
• Ditto "Rise to the throne"?
• "Marcian reversed Theodosius' policies" All of them? Suggest either specifying which in this sentence or inserting 'some of'.
• "some Franks, Burgundians, and Ostrogoths" Is that some Burgundians and some Ostrogoths; or just some Franks? Either way, the grammar needs changing.
• "resulted in massive losses on both sides" "massive" is a bit 'word to watchy'. Optional: → 'very high'.
• "Aetius dismissed his coalition of barbarians" Suggest deleting "of barbarians" It is a bit PoV and doesn't really add anything.
• "into the almost entirely undefended Italy" → 'into Italy, which was almost entirely undefended.'
• "He was likely motivated by his desire for revenge" "his → 'a'.
• Link lines of communication.
• "Aetius was unable to launch an attack on Attila" Either briefly explain why he was unable, or just say 'did not'.
• "coupled with the famine that Italy was suffering" "the" → 'a'.
• "and enslave it entirely" "enslave" seems an odd word. Optional: → 'conquer' or 'overrun'.
• "starting first with the rebellions of the Ostrogoths" Delete the first "the".
• Link Lower Moesia.
• Link Scythia.
• Link Dacia
• "various tribal people" Should that be 'peoples'?
• "induced to serve the East Empire" Eastern.
• "both the Eastern and Western Roman Churches" I don't think there was an Eastern Roman Church. → 'both the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Church'
• "The decision considered most objectionable by the Eastern and Western Roman Churches" → 'The decision considered most objectionable by both churches'
• "which held enormous religious importance to the early church" "to" → 'for'.
• "The council also agreed to condemn Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria" Could we insert 'Coptic', ie 'The council also agreed to condemn the Coptic Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria' and link Coptic Pope.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Valentinian also did not recognize the Eastern Roman consul—Marcian for 451, or Sporacius for 452" Just those two, or both consuls for those years? Just those years? Ie, did he recognise Eastern consuls in other years?
• "The issue of Eastern authority would prove a point of contention between Eastern and Western Christianity." When?
• Refs: the sfn for Nathan are incorrectly set up, and do not link.
• Refs 51 and 58 should be "pp.", not "p."
• The two Vasiliev works should be in date order.

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Iazyges Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Ileana (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Tropical Storm Ileana during the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. While quite small in word count, I believe it incorporates virtually every detail out there on the storm. Please feel free to leave comments below. Noah^Talk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Both images are relevant, correctly arranged, and available under free licenses. buidhe 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thank you for the image review. Noah^Talk 23:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OpposeComment by Fowler&fowler

An article, much less an FA, cannot be tacked together with primary sources. NOAA discussion numbers such as this and advisory numbers are irredeemably primary. Sorry but this is a nogo. Wikipedia has to decide that this is legal. Until then, my hands are tied. The FAC community also needs to decide whether there is a lower bound on the page size. This article has 1,000 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So these weren't legal? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a problem with a lot of hurricane articles. I have registed my oppose. The coords can decide what weight to assign to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As for your size comment, many past FAs have been significantly smaller than this. A list may be viewed here (hasn't been updated in a few years). One of the smallest (at least as far as I know) is Miss Meyers with a mere 686 words today. That is over 30% smaller than Ileana is right now. If I recall correctly, SchroCat either worked on or knows someone who worked on a bunch of smaller FAs. I believe they were smaller than this. Noah^Talk 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Also pinging the coordinators for their thoughts. Noah^Talk 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are not disallowed, per WP:PRIMARY. What is disallowed is original research from primary sources. Nor is there anything in the FAC criteria that require a certain number of words in a candidate article - all that is required is that an article be comprehensive and cover all the information covered in the sources. I haven't read the article to tell if either of these situations apply - and the oppose does not touch on that either. If this article does original research from primary sources or neglects some area that's covered by sources - the reviewer needs to substantiate that. If reviewers want to change the criteria to exclude any use of primary sources or to require some minimum size, that's a discussion for another location, not on an individual nomination. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, Thanks Ealdgyth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am no longer opposing the article. Thanks for the clarification. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: As this is about to drop onto the older nominations list, would it be best to just archive it? Clearly, the editors have spoken and WP does not care about this article. With no actual reviews after nearly 20 days, I see no reason for the process to continue any further. This isn't a withdraw by any means. I am just stating the obvious in regards to my nomination and will let you decide on how to proceed. Noah^Talk 02:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

OpposeSupport by JavaHurricane:

1. Please get rid of the redlinks in the impacts section.

Not done per WP:RED Noah^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

2. A query, should the watches and warnings be capitalised?

I made them lowercase. Noah^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

3. "In the state of Mexico, heavy rains from Ileana caused severe flooding. The Anillo Periférico and several other roads in Mexico City experienced flooding. As a result of the rains, the Mexico City Metro (STC) implemented safety measures for several of its lines." I think you could merge the latter two sentences and add an also after Mexico city.

Merged, but didnt add also because those were the only roads I mentioned in the article. Noah^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

4. "[...] and a Tropical Storm Watch was also issued for the southern tip of Baja California Sur from Los Barilles to Todo Santos." Remove the "was also issued", it is redundant due to the previous (unquoted) part of the sentence.

Done. Noah^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

5. "Tropical Storm Irwin (1993) – a tropical storm of a similar intensity that was also incorporated into a nearby hurricane" - change to "[...] also absorbed by a nearby hurricane".

Changed, although they mean the same thing (this is simpler to understand). Noah^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

6. "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco. Additionally, Ileana caused flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico." Merge the sentences.

Done. Noah^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

7. "The NHC raised its development chances to 50% around 17:00 UTC on that day after satellite imagery indicated an area of low pressure had formed a few hundred miles south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec and was showing signs of organization." I don't think this sentence is needed, but take a call about it.

sentence shows how quickly the storm developed. It was rephrased. Noah^Talk 14:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

8. "Around the same time, the NHC reported that Ileana had strong deep convection with cloud temperatures of −121 to −130 °F (−85 to −90 °C). Additionally, a banded eye feature had developed within the central dense overcast. Soon after, microwave imagery and Acapulco radar showed the emergence of an eyewall structure at the mid-levels of the system." Please merge appropriately.

9. Please expand upon the interaction between John and Ileana. I think the Fujiwara effect might warrant its own paragraph.

Not possible with the information provided by the NHC. Noah^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

10. "Tropical Storm Ileana was a tropical cyclone that affected Western Mexico in early August 2018, causing multiple deaths and flooding." "Relatively weak" might do, and so might "moderate flooding".

added “small” Noah^Talk 14:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

11. "Ileana began to develop an eyewall structure soon after, but became intertwined with nearby Hurricane John. John disrupted Ileana and ultimately absorbed it on August 7." Very abrupt. Please make appropriate changes.

12. "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco. Additionally, Ileana caused flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico." Merge please.

Merged Noah^Talk 14:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

13. "In the Huixquilucan municipality, a sewage pipe overflowed and two homes were flooded." Rephrase the sentence to show that the pipe overflow caused the flooding.

Forgot to respond to this point... The source doesnt state that one event caused the other. Noah^Talk 01:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

14. "The lowest rainfall total in the area, 0.46 inches (11.75 mm), was recorded at Renacimiento." Is this information really needed?

It does give a range for the rainfall since it is the lowest recorded total there. Noah^Talk 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

15. "In Jiquipilas, Chiapas, Ileana caused another four deaths on August 6. A car containing 18 individuals was swept away by water currents while attempting to cross a flooded bridge. Three children and one adult were later found dead." Please merge appropriately.

combined the last two with semi colon. Noah^Talk 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

16. In hindsight, I think you might want to rephrase the entire lead, as it is very abrupt.

I added some kind of transitions and did the merge for the met thing mentioned above. Noah^Talk 22:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't too bad in my opinion, but it still needs quite a bit of work to become an FA. Pinging @Hurricane Noah: in case he forgets. -- JavaHurricane 11:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Noah has explained some things to me on Discord, and he's doing the work. Hence, I support now. -- JavaHurricane 13:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

• Nowhere in the lead do you say that there are 8 deaths. Just "multiple" in the first sentence, and that there were 4 deaths in Guerrero

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• " Over the next several hours, the disturbance quickly and unexpectedly organized into a tropical depression." - why "unexpectedly"? The NHC noted a 50% chance of development, per the MH

• The development wasn't anticipated (at least not that quickly) because the NHC raised the 48-hour chance to 50% and it formed into a TD an hour later. Also, the TCR explicitly states the genesis was not well forecast. Noah^Talk 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Could you mention somewhere in the first lede paragraph some mention of Ileana's proximity to Mexico? That's the reason it has an article, its effects on land

• Mentioned it paralleled the coast. Noah^Talk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco as well as flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico. " - this could use some more grammar/love

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The origins of Ileana can be traced back to a tropical wave that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) began monitoring on July 26 as the wave departed from the west coast of Africa." - surely, the NHC was monitoring it as a tropical wave even before it left Africa. I don't think you need the "monitoring" part here, it's just as useful to the readers knowing that the wave exited Africa. I'd suggest saving the NHC reference to the first time you mention the development potential. And speaking of:
• " the NHC raised the system's development chances to 50% around 1700 UTC on that day." - did the NHC assess any development possibility beforehand? You mention the NHC monitoring the system, but never mentioned when it was first introduced into the TWO

Did both. Noah^Talk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Six hours later, the structure of the depression had degraded due to wind shear from the north." - Per the TCR, you should mention that the wind shear came from the larger Hurricane John

• Added. Noah^Talk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link "eyewall structure"

• Done. Noah^Talk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "By 21:00 UTC" - I suggest adding another date reference here, since it has been a few sentences since the last one

• fixed. Noah^Talk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Fix link for Lazaro Cardenas

• Link fixed. Noah^Talk 01:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Additionally, an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old fell into the Laguna de Tres Palos in Acapulco and drowned after their fishing boat capsized." - this should be reordered to mention the boat capsizing first - that's the event that caused the deaths, causing them to fall

• ordering fix Noah^Talk 01:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "In Acapulco, multiple power outages occurred due to a fallen tree" - one tree?

• Mistranslation occurred there. Noah^Talk 01:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The lowest rainfall total in the area, 0.46 inches (11.75 mm), was recorded at Renacimiento." - seems unnecessary, as some areas probably recorded no rainfall from Ileana

• Well... just went on what the source said here. removed it. Noah^Talk 01:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "A car containing 18 individuals was swept away by water currents while attempting to cross a flooded bridge" - sounds like it was bigger than a car if it had 18 people!

• Changed to vehicle. Noah^Talk 19:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

All in all it's a decent little article. I looked at Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018), and Ileana's article seems slightly sub-par, with no mention of insurance claims or shelters. That info might not exist for Ileana, I'm not sure, but it's just something that stood out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue was that Ileana stayed further off the coast. There was less coverage countrywide for Ileana compared to Carlotta. Noah^Talk 19:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I think I have addressed all the concerns. Noah^Talk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Great work Noah! I'm happy to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

George Washington and slavery

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Relatively little attention has been given in the sources to the subject of George Washington and Slavery in comparison to other aspects of the life of a founding father and first president of the US. This article draws primarily on the three books and four papers that focus specifically on the subject, supplemented with information from general histories that cover the subject in varying degrees. Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the estate map and ad

• Some images are missing alt text

• File:GW-painting.jpg: source link is dead

• File:List_of_George_Washington's_taxable_property_in_Truro_Parish_Virginia_including_slaves_1788.jpg needs a US PD tag

• File:Slave_Memorial_-_Mt._Vernon,_Virginia_-_Stierch.jpg should include the date of the original memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Estate map doubled in size, alt text added, dead source link resurrected and date of original memorial added to image info on Commons. Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to correctly address the PD tag issue for the list of taxable property. As effectively a tax return, I would assume this is part of the Federal Govt and therefore in the public domain. I have, however, added a PD-USGov-Congress tag to the licensing info on Commons, based on the fact that the document is held by the Library of Congress. Is that acceptable? Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That tag is intended for works created by LOC, not held by them. Is the authorship of the list known? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. There's no specific attribution, but logically it can only have been Washington himself, or possibly an agent of his. I also cannot find anything that would suggest a publication date. Grateful for any advice you might be able to give, otherwise I'll just remove it from the article. Factotem (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

After a little more digging, I have found the following:

• The list is part of the collection of Washington's papers (source: Library of Congress, on whose website it is published). As such, can we make the assumption that the author is Washington, in which case PD-old-70 would apply?
• The papers had all come into government possession by 1849, and the Library of Congress released microfilm reproductions in 1964 and digitised images on its website in 1998 (source: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washingtons-papers/), so failing the above, is there a license relating to a government-published document owned by the government, even if not originally created by it? Factotem (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• It would be fair to assume the author died over 100 years ago, which would probably be the simplest solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've replaced the LoC lic tag with PD-old-70 and added a statement about the assumption of authorship to the Commons info. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Anythingyouwant

I will start with just a few comments, and maybe later will comment more.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph, the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is, and should be in plain English. Here, the lead sentence says, "The relationship between George Washington and slavery was complex, contradictory and evolved over time." The vocabulary is in plain English, but I'm not so sure the gist is plain English. The lead sentence basically says it's all a muddy mess, and does not even hint about whether he owned slaves, whether that was unusual in his social context, and whether he evolved from opposing slavery to supporting it or vice versa. I would suggest something like "George Washington and slavery coexisted in the Virginia culture where he grew up, and his Mount Vernon plantation relied heavily upon slave labor, but in the 1780s he privately advocated the abolition of slavery, and later commanded in his will that his slaves be set free." Tons of info is packed into a lead sentence like that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. I will work on this. Leads are always difficult to get right, and it will take some time. Can you bear with me please? Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, take your time, there’s no deadline. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've recast the lead to better introduce the topic. It means losing the bolded title usually included in that sentence, but per MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDAVOID, this requirement is not set in stone. How does that look to you now? Factotem (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks much better to me, I made a few minor tweaks. Regarding a bolded part of the lead sentence, the guidance is as follows: “If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.” I don’t care a lot one way or the other, but am not sure it’s impossible to use the article title. Keep in mind that we’re just getting started here, so it would not be out of the question to modify the article title if that would facilitate its use in the opening sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can suggest this, without any title change: “George Washington and slavery coexisted; he was a slaveowner his entire adult life, but became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.” Then bold the first four words. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That GW & slavery co-existed is self-evident and doesn't need stating. I think we should avoid trying to shoe-horn the title in just so that there's something to bold. That's how I ended up with the now rejected first sentence, and anyway MOS:BOLDAVOID advises against that. Factotem (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. The rule says, “If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I gave this another try. Feel free to revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That's still stating the obvious in the first sentence, and "apprehensive" in the second is not at all an accurate way of describing it. The only way I can see of getting the bolded title into the first sentence is with "The relationship between George Washington and Slavery was complex, contradictory and evolved over time. He was a slaveowner..." This is basically the same construction as your now reverted edit. The advantages are that it allows the bolded title in a naturally flowing, accurate sentence. The disadvantage is that it does not state off the bat that GW was a slaveowner, per your original objection, but the few people in the world who don't know that quickly learn it in the very next sentence. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s kind of tedious to dwell on the first couple sentences, but it usually turns out to be worth it. We can come back to it, maybe others will be able to cut the knot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Factotem (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Food for thought: “George Washington and slavery paired a man known for advancing human freedom with its antithesis....”. This is the central contradiction of this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington owned slaves from age eleven until his death at sixty-seven. Over that lifetime he set not one single slave free, nor did he ever publicly lend his weight, either in terms of his considerable personal reputation or the high office he held, to the abolitionist cause. I don't think it's appropriate to state in the very first sentence of an article on this topic that GW was known for advancing human freedom. Factotem (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it is the central paradox of this article. Historians take that view as well: “[H]ow is it that the Revolution preserved slavery? George Washington, the slaveholder who led the war for liberty, personifies that paradox.” Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God; George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America, p. (2013). “The challenge, for a colonial historian at least, is to explain how a people could have developed the dedication to human liberty and dignity exhibited by the leaders of the American Revolution and at the same time have developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human liberty and dignity every hour of the day. The paradox is evident at many levels if we care to see it….Virginia produced the most eloquent spokesmen for freedom and equality in the entire United States: George Washington, James Madison, and, above all, Thomas Jefferson. They were all slaveholders and remained so throughout their lives.” Morgan, Edmund. The Challenge of the American Revolution (1978). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my objection to the wording still stands. What about "It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war in the name of liberty owned slaves his entire adult life."? Factotem (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, although he was just getting started by winning the war. He also won the peace, by presiding over the constitutional convention and serving as president, in both instances establishing a very stable federal government that respected the political liberty and individual liberty of non-slaves. So maybe tweak it to say, "It is the paradox of George Washington and slavery that the man who successfully fought a war and established a government in the name of liberty also owned slaves his entire adult life.” But if you don’t like that, then your version would work, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems that between us we've come up with quite a neat solution. Thanks for that. I'm not sure the short first para has any basis in guideline, and don't see the problem in merging the current first two paras, but meh. Factotem (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for working through it. Regarding the current two-sentence opening paragraph, I like it broken from the second paragraph for two reasons. First, the rule says “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.“ The current second paragraph is much more specific, containing several dates and other numbers. The second (stylistic) reason why I like the first paragraph as-is is because it gives a roughly chronological introduction, and the second paragraph starts again with the eleven-year-old Washington, whereas combining the two paragraphs would make the reader jump back and forth in time. By the way, I’m traveling for the rest of this week, but will try to come back to this FAC upon returning home (assuming a virus-free trip!). Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• As for the rest of the opening paragraph, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph says it should be written "without being too specific." If that guidance were more closely followed, I think the opening paragraph would be quite a bit shorter. Therefore, I would suggest moving this stuff out of the lead: "He put his slaves to work on his Mount Vernon estate, which in time grew to some 8,000 acres (3,200 ha) encompassing five separate farms, initially planting tobacco but diversifying into grain crops in the mid 1760s. Washington's early attitudes to slavery reflected the prevailing Virginia planter views of the day; he demonstrated no moral qualms about the institution and referred to his slaves as 'a Species of Property.'" The size and structure of Mount Vernon gets into the weeds, and naming the specific crops does not obviously illuminate his relationship to slavery, so consider moving it out of the opening paragraph. I would remove the quote about "a Species of property" entirely from the lead, because that is merely how slavery was defined, and it also seems kind of unbalanced to use this as the sole GW quote about slavery in the lead when he said so much else about it during his life. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will cut some of the detail about Mount Vernon's development, but the transition from planter to farmer was a significant point in the evolution of Washington's attitude to slavery and warrants a mention in the lead. You make a good point about the quote - I'll cut that. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Having three or four paragraphs in the lead is fine, but they are presently too long, and ought to be cut approximately in half, IMHO. Overly long paragraphs are hard to read. Much of this material could be moved out of the lead, and perhaps out of the article entirely to the extent that it merely describes the typical condition of slaves during the History of slavery in Virginia. I recall reading that James Madison equipped his slaves with umbrellas, and if Washington did anything unusual like that, then it would be more suitable for this article's lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about reducing the length, but the narrative about the slaves' condition at Mount Vernon is every bit a part of the subject as the evolution of Washington's attitudes to the institution. That slave narrative, as it relates specifically to Washington, is covered at length in the sources, most notably Thompson's work and the Mount Vernon website. To exclude that aspect from this article would be a failure to meet the FAC criteria (1b. comprehensive), and the coverage in the main body of the article is significant enough to warrant coverage in the lead, per MOS:LEAD.Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I won’t suggest excluding any of it from the article body, it’s just a question of how much to put in the lead. Covering it in the lead is fine, if it’s not too long. A lot of generic material about slavery can go in this article body, and you can also link to it in the lead using “History of slavery in Virginia”. The lead should summarize the article’s main points in a nutshell. So the issue is whether you can convey how horrible slavery was without going into so much detail. Consider this material: “Field slaves were provided with a set of clothes each year which, due to the nature of their work, were quickly worn out. Domestic slaves who attended the Washingtons and came into regular contact with visitors were better clothed.“ Wouldn’t all of that have been just as true of paid workers? Keep it in the article body if you like, but for the lead it seems like too much. At most, it would seem sufficient to say in the lead that the slaves were often poorly clothed, if that was the case, and then all the detail can go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're getting at with linking History of slavery in Virginia in the lead, which you've mentioned twice now. Everything in this article about the slave condition is specific to Washington's slaves, and I'm not sure what value linking to a generic article, which is anyway linked to as a hatnote at the beginning of the Background section, will bring. I do see what you mean about the second para in the lead though - I was never quite happy with that myself. I will look into reworking it to be a little more summary and a little less detail. Factotem (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed the detail from the sentences you've cited. Any better? Factotem (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You’ve said in the lead that his views reflected prevailing Virginia planter views of the day. Did his practices, that you describe in the lead’s second paragraph, likewise reflect prevailing practices at comparable Virginia plantations of the day, or were there substantial differences? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question and similar to the point raised by JohnWickTwo below. From memory, the only distinctions that spring to mind is Washington's recognition of slave marriages, which weren't recognised in Virginian law, and his later reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue or separate families by sale. Those are already covered in the article. I'll check through the sources tomorrow to see if there's anything that can be added on that subject. Factotem (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, if stuff in the second paragraph of the lead reflected general practice, then I think that ought to be briefly mentioned at the start of the second paragraph. My preference, though, would be to start the second paragraph by saying his practices matched general Virginia practice, but with limited exceptions such as X, Y, and Z (i.e. remove run-of-the-mill stuff from the second paragraph and only include the stuff Washington did differently). Both the run-of-the-mill stuff and the aberrations could go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk)

I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here. The narrative in the main body about the slave condition, in the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, represents approximately one third of the article. Per MOS:LEAD and WP:WIAFA 2a, it is a requirement to summarise that in the lead. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you put in the lead about the practice of slavery at Mt. Vernon, the reader should be told whether it’s typical or atypical. Same for the article body. I personally find the atypical stuff more interesting, more revealing about Washington, and therefore more useful to put into this article. That’s all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Done, insofar as the sources identify this info. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have scanned through the main source on that aspect and added information in the main body about how Washington's practices compared with general practice. I've also recast the 2nd para of the lead to better summarise the key points of the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, including a mention about general practice. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• The external links give only one link to mountvernon.org but it might be very useful to list and briefly describe the relevant web pages at mountvernon.org. For example, this description of his changing views should definitely be in the external links, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Added. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• There is currently a hatnote containing three links: “Main articles: George Washington, Slavery in the colonial United States, and Slavery in the United States”. It would be better to work these links into the lead. Per WP:Hatnote: “Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind....Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section. Multiple hatnotes may be appropriate when they serve different purposes, such as disambiguating topics with similar names and explaining redirects.” Moreover, per Template:Main, “When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often written in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized....Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hatnotes removed and their links now embedded in the lead narrative. Factotem (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JohnWickTwo

A short comment about the narrative style and your general approach. Its currently an interesting theme article which might use a general reading with an eye to tighten the narrative in places. For example, the phrase "Any hopes Washington may have had that his example...", could be simplified to "Washington's concern that his example...". Also, there has been a 6-hr biographical miniseries about Washington on the History Channel that just aired which dealt in part with his relationship to antebellum slaveholding. It might be of interest to readers if a section were added to the article which dealt with Washington's viewpoint in comparison to the other Virginia slaveholders, like Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to address any issues with the prose, but the example you provided is written that way specifically to reflect what the sources say. Wiencek writes, "Washington may have believed that, given his immense prestige, his will would have some lasting influence on the debate over slavery." Hirschfeld writes, "Perhaps it had been hoped that Washington's example of benevolence toward his slaves would carry over to other members of his family." Neither definitively state that Washington actually intended his act to set an example, which is why I have phrased it in the same speculative way the sources have rather than the simpler version you suggest.

To address your other points:

• As much as I enjoy dramatised documentaries designed for popular consumption, I don't think they're the kind of high quality, scholarly source expected at FAC;
• I will have another scan through the sources I have, but from memory, very little mention is made in the secondary sources of any comparison between Washington and other Virginia/Founding-Father slaveholders. Factotem (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

1974 White House helicopter incident

Nominator(s): L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A strange incident in which a helicopter mechanic, Robert Preston, stole a helicopter and flew around Washington D.C., then back to Maryland, being pursued by police in helis and cars. He turned back towards D.C. and actually landed on the south lawn of the White House while under fire from the secret service. I got interested in this when reading about it in a monthly Air & Space magazine, then forgot about it for a while, until I saw it again on WP's Main Page in the OTD section. After a complete rewrite from Start-class, a good article review, and an A-class review, I think it is ready for FA. Thanks! L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Daily Collegian — this is a student newspaper, what makes it an RS?
• Other sources look good. Formatting OK. Source checks not done due to nominator's history. buidhe 01:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed the Daily Collegian and cited the text to the Air & Space magazine. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied that the article is sufficiently complete to merit A-class, but the following sources (which I have access to and can send you if you like) have additional information:
  • "Soldier Lands a Stolen Copier on White House Lawn". The New York Times. Richard L. Madden Special to The New York Times. 18 February 1974. Retrieved 29 December 2019.
  • "Soldier Gets Year Term For Helicopter Incident". The New York Times. 30 August 1974.

• Great finds, I was able to use them to add some extra details as well as given another reference to a lot of existing content. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• This review also counts as a pass at FAC source review. buidhe 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• @L293D: Found this source in case it is helpful. Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I might use it later if I need an extra ref, right now there's nothing in it that other sources don't have. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done.
• File:Preston_helicopter.jpg: possible to say something more useful than "dunno" for date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I really wish I could have a date, but I've done a lot of digging and the image has no exif data. If you feel it's really important I think the only thing I can do is email Air & Space and ask them. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Welp, I looked for about an hour and all I found was that 160219 is in the URL, so if I had to guess it would be February 19, 2016, but I really have no idea. You could always try to email Air and Space and see if they have any more information. Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I've added that as the date: the url "04b_am2017_botzum160219" contains 04 and 2017, and the article is from the April 2017 magazine. The 160219 very strongly suggest that the image was taken on February 19, 2016. Not that it is really important, but that's settled. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• To my eye the lead seems unduly long relative to the length of the article. Optional: consider trimming it.
• "On February 17, 1974, Army Private Robert K. Preston" As this is introducing the topic, it would be helpful to specify which army.
  • Says "US Army" now.
• "Preston was returning to Tipton Field on leave south of Fort Meade where 30 Hueys were fueled and ready to fly" This doesn't really work to my eye. Perhaps two sentences? One describing Tipton Field's location and the aircraft there, and a second describibg Prestons actions?
  • Sounds better like this? "Shortly after midnight, Preston, on leave, was returning to Tipton Field, south of Fort Meade. Thirty helicopters at the base were fueled and ready to fly; he took off in one".
• "This amounted to a six-month sentence, since he had already been in prison for six months at the time." This does not seem to be factually correct. Do you mean something like 'This meant that Preston had to serve an additional six months, since he... '?
  • Clearer like this: "The duration of his court-martial was given to him as time served; this resulted in a further six months in prison"?
• The source you cite does not seem to support "downhearted due to ... his lack of success in his military career".
  • The source, Air & Space, says: "the 20-year-old private, despondent over his muddied future and a failed relationship, was on his way back..."

Yes, I did check it. The quote mentions "a failed relationship" - fine - and "his muddied future". The article addresses his past "lack of success in his military career".

• Replaced with "unclear future in his military career".

Hmm. OK. Close enough I suppose.

• "He caused one police car to crash with a head-on pass just a few inches above its roof" Suggest 'He caused one police car to crash by executing a head-on pass just a few inches above its roof'.
  • Good idea.
• "then followed the Baltimore–Washington Parkway once again towards Washington, planning to surrender personally to U.S. President Richard Nixon. Preston flew back towards Washington" The second phrase in italics seems redundant.
  • Cut that part out.
• "Shots hit Preston's foot, but he was able to regain control" "regain control" - it hasn't been stated nor suggested that he lost control.
  • Expanded on this.
• "for overnight treatment" I am not sure about "overnight". Perhaps delete, or perhaps 'for treatment, and stayed there overnight'?
  • Removed.
• "his resulted in a further six months in prison. He eventually served two months of hard labor at Fort Riley, Kansas before being granted a general discharge" I am confused. Was the two months in addition to or instead of the 6/12 months previously mentioned?
  • That was instead; I've replace "eventually" with "instead".
• "The Secret Service increased the restricted airspace around the White House." It may be clearer to say 'The Secret Service increased the size of the restricted airspace around the White House.', if that is what is meant.
  • Done.

Overall, a nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. See if my changes are satisfactory. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good. Just the query over the interpretation of the source left. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• See my reply. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good to me. Supporting.

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• On February 17, 1974, U.S. Army Private Robert K. Preston stole Link private and the US Army.
• Link Fort Meade?
• climbed into one of the helicopters, serial number 62–1920 The infobox uses an en dash while this sentence uses a minus hyphen.
• Remove the citation in the infobox because it's already mentioned in the body.
• South Lawn, 300 feet (91 m) from the mansion.[2][5][6][7][3] Re-oder the refs here.
• Pipe President to the US President.
• He died of cancer on July 21, 2009, while living in Ephrata, Washington What kind of cancer?
  • Source doesn't say, and I don't think it particularly relevant to the incident as whole.

That's it I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for this review. Nice catch on the infobox citation, I wasn't really looking there. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Hello, I will leave some comments. I plan to claim WikiCup points for this review.

• two police Bell 206 JetRanger helicopters - shouldn't "police" be before "helicopters"?
  • Good catch.
• United States Secret Service should be in the lead as well.
  • Done.
• This meant he had to serve six additional months, since he had already been in prison for six months at the time. - I suppose this can be flipped around: "Since he had already been in prison for six months at the time, he only had to serve six additional months."
  • Done.
• "Towards" is used in the lead but "toward" in the Background section. It should be consistent.
  • That was a typo.
• Preston left a dance hall and restaurant downhearted - I feel like there should be a comma after "restaurant".
  • Done.
• It would make me feel better because I love flying". - since this is a complete sentence, the period should be before the quote. The page already has a comma before a quotation mark - in the same sentence actually - so this should be changed for consistency.
  • Nice catch.
• Secret Service policy at the time was to fire at aerial intruders, but when and how to do so was vague - this also reads strangely to me, specifically "when and how to do so was vague". There should be a better way of wording this.
  • Removed "when and".
• Washington National Airport (now known as "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport") - genuine question, do we really need the parenthetical note? It doesn't seem important to the narrative.
  • It's in the link so I don't think it is important.

I have to go somewhere but will continue these comments later. So far, it looks good, even if a bit short. epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• First set of points done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are my remaining comments:

• car-top level - the roofs of the cars?
  • Yes.
• At the time of the incident, President Richard Nixon was traveling in Florida, and First Lady Pat Nixon was in Indianapolis, visiting their sick daughter, Julie.[8] - This paragraph is only one sentence. Usually these should be combined with longer paragraphs unless there's a good reason.
  • Merged with previous para.
• It was evaluated by army personnel and found to be flightworthy despite its many bullet holes, and it lifted off in front of cameras from many major TV networks and reporters shortly before noon. It was extensively photographed as part of the investigation, then was repaired and returned to service. It was later put on display at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove.[2] - I suggest replacing some instances of "it" with "the helicopter", otherwise the wording gets repetitive.
  • Done.
• equivalent to $518.42 in 2019, equivalent to $12,442 in 2019 - Generally a source is needed for stuff like this, but you can use inflation-fn in this case.
  • Done.
• Can you link time served?
  • Done.
• this resulted in a further six months in prison - should be rephrased. Because of his time served, he only had six months remaining in his sentence. The current wording implies that six months was appended to the 1-year sentence, which isn't the case.
  • Does this work? "this meant he had to serve a further six months in prison."
    • I suppose this works. epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• The Secret Service increased the size of the restricted airspace around the White House - from what size to what size? Only if you feel this is important, but the previous size of the restricted airspace may be interesting.
  • I do feel it is important, but I can't find a source right now.
• Citation 4, Public Report of the White House security review, Federation of American Scientists. Archived December 2, 2006, at WebCite needs a {{cite web}} or other CS2 template for consistency with other refs.
  • Done.

These are all my comments. Otherwise this looks good. epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, I love this new WikiCup point system! L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No problem. Let me know if you can find a source for the size of the restricted airspace. Otherwise, I support this article for promotion.
  • By the way, can I interest you in taking a look at my own Featured Article nomination? You don't have to do so if you don't want to. epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Support by PM

I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR and have reviewed the changes since. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Support by Kees08

I have read through this a couple times for curiosity's sake, happy to see it here. Have not seen any glaring issues and will give it a full review shortly. Placeholder in case I forget so someone can ping me. Kees08 (Talk) 18:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: - L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Currently using two author name formats (last, first; first last) in the references; consolidate to one
  • changed all to last, first
• If I squint my eyes I think I see an author for "Soldier Lands Stolen Copter on White House Lawn" in the screenshot of the newspaper. I can check it and others through my free local library if you do not have a way. So this is a general comment that all references with authors should have authors
  • I would be really nice if you could do this for me, maybe my computer screen is too small, but I can't see any author. I've checked all the other news cite websites; all but the NYT have extra high resolution but I can't see any authors. Is there a standard place to look for the article author that isn't in the news piece itself?
    • Added (and the others were AP so added those). I can get on NYT easy enough, I just have to enter my library card number, go through a little tutorial thing, and it is valid for one day at a time. No worries, this point is resolved. Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Using webarchive within cite web makes the output different; suggest using archive-url, archive-date, and url-status parameters instead
  • Done, standardized.
• I would add via=Google News to the Kentucky New Era citation
  • Done.
• Is the external link the same as the Federation of American Scientists link?
  • It was. Removed.
    • How about replacing that with the Google Books version? It has page numbers, so you can say page 99. I assumed the whole report was about the incident until I opened it up. Kees08 (Talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • That's a great idea!
• Assassinations, Threats, and the American Presidency: From Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama seems like a good RS to include. You might have to ask at the resource request, Google Books only has one page in the area available.
  • Judging by the top and bottom the page, it seems to be the only page related to Preston.
  • In that short section it says that it is believed Preston inspired Byck. Byck's article says the same thing. Is that something that warrants inclusion in your opinion?
    • Yes, I've added a short mention.
• My Extraordinary Journey with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford also has a mention. Have you done a source search for books? I was surprised to see no books in the sources, I figured RS's had written about the incident and from a cursory look it seems like they have. My other concern was that most of the sources are contemporary and at least some could possibly be replaced with newer book sources.
  • I did some research on google books, but most of the works I've found only include passing 1-paragraph mentions. From what I've seen, they don't contradict the contemporary sources, most of which are more detailed. However, I understand that at least some sources should be new, so I've included the two books you've suggested. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear on the book point, I doubt you will find new information on the incident and I do not think it will be a big deal. Just want to make sure we included recent RS's if available. From WP:FASOURCE Are the main sources reasonably up-to-date, and therefore likely to represent the most recent scholarship? Older sources, particularly contemporaneous primary sources, are often appropriate, but the nominator may need to explain why they've been chosen. (which although an essay, provides good advice). I think the article is in very good shape overall. Kees08 (Talk) 21:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Content

• The dollar sign is usually not wikilinked (looks like once in the intro and once in the body right now)
  • AFAIK, the template, {{US$}}, only allows me to link US$ or nothing.
    • I de-linked it, if you didn't want to for some reason you can revert it. Kees08 (Talk) 17:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with that.
• Your choice to rephrase stole a Bell UH-1B Iroquois helicopter (commonly known as a "Huey") from to stole a Bell UH-1B Iroquois "Huey" helicopter from
  • Yeah, done.
• Could go without 'only' here he only had to serve six additional months.
  • Okay.
• Is there any more information? I assume it was a private pilot's license flying airplanes, but a teeny bit of additional information here, if available, would help the article IMO He earned a pilot's license
  • Changed to "private pilot's license for single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft", from the NYT.
• Could go without the United States Army Airfield wl to avoid two back-to-back; it just goes to a list of airfields of which Tipton is one
  • Good catch.
• It sounds like in the prose that he served hard labor instead of six more months; in the intro it sounds like he served six months
  • This is a bit of a contradiction, because the Kentucky New Era, also claims Preston was originally sentenced to six months of hard labor, where all the other available sources say six months of jail. If that's okay with you, I've removed the "hard labor" mention entirely.
    • Sounds fine, might want to adjust the intro to match what happened. Kees08 (Talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Ajust how? The lead doesn't say he did forced labor, it doesn't go into the specifics of his trial and sentence. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
        • The lead says Since he had already been in prison for six months at the time, he had to serve six additional months. After his release,. Which is twelve months total. The prose says The duration of his court-martial was given to him as time served; this meant he had to serve a further six months in prison.[11] He instead served two months at Fort Riley, which is eight months total. Kees08 (Talk) 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
          • The lead says he was sentenced to serve six more months, the body goes into more detail and explains that he actually only served two. In the US, you almost never serve the full duration a prison sentence, there's all sorts of appeals and paroles, so it's fairly standard for the sentence to be way different from what the dude actually served. I can go into more specifics in the lead if you feel it would be useful to the reader. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
            • I'll leave it to you as to which is better. It could go either way so not a big deal. I think I remember another editor commenting on length of the intro so I get keeping it concise. Kees08 (Talk) 22:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• This might be a good 'see also' link List of White House security breaches
  • Sure, that works.

I think that's all for now. Kees08 (Talk) 20:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for this review! L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oh and also I completely missed your RfA! Congrats! I had no freaking clue you were an admin, you don't have the topicon. You're the stealthiest admin I've ever seen! L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Stealthy too because of my few admin actions! I usually do ITN updates and WP:ERRORS work off and on. And thanks for the congratulations. Kees08 (Talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Supporting now, there are no dedicated books on the incident and the ones that have a bit more detail in them are included in the article. Source formatting is good, images are the best available, seems well-written and provides the complete story without going into too much detail. Might want to address the one note I just added about the intro but that is it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments support by Pendright

Next in the queue! Pendright (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pendright: does that mean it's the next one to be promoted? I'm still somewhat unfamiliar with the FAC process. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is intended to mean that I’m next in line to review the article once the previous review is completed. Now that it is, I’ll start my review. Thanks for asking! Pendright (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead:

• On February 17, 1974, U.S. Army Private Robert K. Preston stole a ...

• The U.S. is spelled out with its first use

• Done.

<>A further review of MOS indicates that common abbreviations need not be expanded even on first use. I withdraw the comment and add my apology!

• Most English dictionaries do not define the word stole in the context in which it is used here. Consider a substitute word that means what you intend.

• Changed to "Preston took off in a Bell UH-1B Iroquois "Huey" helicopter".

<>How about - Preston took off in a [stolen] Bell UH-1B Iroquois "Huey" helicopter?

Sure, that works for me. - L293D

• Was he a private or a private first class?

• I want to keep the first sentence clear and concise. His specific rank is stated in the body. He was a private first class.

<>I can appreciate your desire to keep it clear and concise, but your lead is supposed to be the summary of the body of the article. So if he is a PFC in the body, logically, he is a PFC in the lead. I’m sure you’ll agree that consistency is important in article writing as well as for the Wikipedia readers.

Sure, changed. - L293D

• ... but he did not graduate from the helicopter training course and lost his opportunity to attain the rank of warrant officer pilot.

Link warrant officer

• Done.

• ... and he was sent to Fort Meade as a helicopter mechanic.

Link Fort Meade here and unlink in the next paragraph

• Done.

• He then flew back towards Fort Meade pursued by two Bell 206 JetRanger police helicopters and police cars.

• Add a semicolon after Fort Meade to join the two independent clauses.

• Do you really think that a semicolon is needed? I've changed it to a comma for now, I feel it's more appropriate.

<>The sentence does have two independent clauses. So, according to rule, a comma and a coordinating conjunction, such as and, or a semicolon can join two independent clause

Well, I reworded it so I didn't have to write it weirdly like this. - L293D

• FYI - Towards and toward mean the same, but toward is the preferred spelling in American English.

• Okay, changed now.

• After a chase over Maryland, he reversed course towards Washington again and entered the White House grounds.

Did he actually enter the grounds in the way we generally understand the word enter?

• Yes, I'm pretty sure he entered the grounds in the way we generally would think a person in a helicopter would.

• In a plea bargain at his court-martial, Preston pled guilty to "wrongful appropriation and breach of the peace", was sentenced to one year in prison, and was fined US$2,400 (equivalent to $12,442 in 2019).

• Replace "In a plea" with In the plea - it's specific!

• Sure.

• Add and after the second comma before was - when a comma separates two independent clauses it must be accompanied by a coordinating conjunction such as and.

• Reworded, do you feel is it well written like this, or should I separate the sentence into two.

<>It's a long sentence, but it does flow well. I would consider changing fine to fined because sentenced is past tense.

The word fine is used as a noun. I don't see why writing "he was sentenced to a fined of $2,400" would be better. - L293D

• Deleting the last comma after prison will state his entire sentencing without interuption.
• Done.

• (equivalent to $12,442 in 2019) - Are these equivalents (here and in the body) reported by the source, or was a U.S. Inflation Rate Calculator used?

• A automatic conversion template is used, the conversion is the same in the lead and body.

<>Great, sorry I missed the conversion!

• Preston received a general discharge from the army,

Link general discharge

• Done.

Background:

• After enrolling in the U.S. Army in 1972, he trained to become a helicopter pilot, flying a Hughes TH-55 Osage at Fort Wolters, Texas.

• Enlisting is the common nominclature used when volunteeing for a military service.

• Already done by someone else.

• After flying, change the indefinte article to the definite article.

• Okay.

• He enrolled in the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program at Rutherford High School

One of your sources says he also - "studied aviation management at Gulf Coast Community College." Is this worth adding?

Incident:

• I don't think so, I haven't seen that in other sources so I have doubts about the accuracy of that statement.

<>You'll find it under your Reference note 2, the first web link.

Good point, I've added it to the article. - L293D

• On February 17, 1974, shortly after midnight, Preston left a dance hall and restaurant, downhearted due to a failed relationship and his unclear future in his military career.

Given the incident that followd, I suspect Preston was more likely to have been angry or irate, rather than downhearted? Does the source describe his emotinal state at the time?

• Air & Space, my best source, says "despondent over his muddied future and a failed relationship"

<>Fair enough!

• He returned to United States Army Airfield Tipton Field south of Fort Meade, where thirty Bell UH-1 Huey helicopters were fueled and ready.

• Wouldn't "He returned to Tripton Field" say the same thing in a more direct way?

• I've cut out "United States", but I do feel it's important for the reader to know exactly what Tipton field was, given that it became an airport later.

<>Fair enough!

• Place a comma after field - this phrase is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.

• Sure.

• ... and started pre-flight checks.

Preflight is one word

• There's some disagreement in dictionaries over this one, but fine.

• Preston flew low over the restaurant he had visited earlier, then briefly touched down in a nearby field, where his hat was later recovered.

why the comma after field?

• Removed.

• [The] Secret Service policy[,] at the time[,] was to fire at aerial intruders, but when ...

Add items in brackets [ ]

• Okay

• The helicopter was suddenly illuminated by [the] floodlights, and [the] Secret Service agents opened fire with automatic weapons and shotguns.

Add items in brackets [ ]

• I kinda disagree on this one. Why that so many "the"s? The floodlights were not mentioned previously.

<>The definite article (the) is used before singular and plural nouns when the noun is specific or particular. I suppose one could argue about the first definite article, but the second one leaves no doubt about its appropriateness.

Aftermath:

Sure, I've added a the in the second case. - L293D

• It is believed that Preston's actions influenced Samuel Byck to attempt to hijack a plane five days later, carrying a .22 cal revolver and a gasoline bomb.

Spell out caliber

• Sounds fair.

• His lawyers arranged a plea bargain in which all civil charges would be dropped if the case was transferred to the military.

Change was to were

Pendright (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for this review, feel free to take a look at my changes. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I’ve finished reviewing your responses to my original comments. You’ve covered most of them already, but there are a few left. Thanks for being so prompt. Pendright (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

All of my comments have had a response - supporting! Pendright (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The article failed its first FAC, despite overwhelming support, because I was not able to address the co-ord's closing comments during a brief period of block. Now that I have, and the article has gone through great copyediting, I feel it is more than ready. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Laser brain

I don't think this is ready, sorry. It's evident from the article history that someone went through it, but I still see lots of awkward writing and what looks to be clumsy paraphrasing from sources. Examples:

• "Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935." The word "launched" isn't standard English for when a film is released. Did someone choose that word to paraphrase "released"?

Yes, it was Baffle. It was filming that began in 1935 and is implied to have ended in the same year, yet the release was delayed due to the lawsuit. So can I write, "Principal photography began in 1935"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I've written "Principal photography for Sathi Leelavathi began in 1935". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "the film was made primarily at Vel Pictures Studio" Meaning principal photography was done at that studio? Or it was edited there?

I guess everything; filming and post-production. So should I say shot or filmed? It seems post also happened at the studio as Dungan said, "the Vel Pictures studio manager, Mr. Ramamurthi, used to clean all the exposed negatives by hand – inch by inch, frame by frame" and narrated another incident involving him and the editor, happening at the same studio. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I've written "the film was shot primarily at Vel Pictures Studio, Madras". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "In a 1994 interview with Ananda Vikatan, Dungan said during the first few days of filming" Not even grammatically correct.
• "Dungan corrected this and advised Ramachandran to deliver his lines naturally" This section constructs a narrative suggesting that a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days?

I got the translation from a book I won't use: "During the first few days of the shooting, MGR did not understand the nuances of film acting and was delivering the dialogues aggressively even his acting appeared to be overacting. I corrected and advised him to deliver dialogues with natural acting. He changed his way of acting after that." What do I do? But I do believe "a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days" simply by dropping exaggeration and overacting, and acting naturally like he would in real life. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Dungan wrote in A Guide to Adventure, his 2001 autobiography, most of the cast were theatre actors..." Not grammatically correct, again.

Blame it on Baffle, don't blame it on me. My original writing before Miniapolis' c/e was, Dungan wrote in his 2001 autobiography A Guide to Adventure that, since the majority of cast members were theatre actors, he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions". The source reads, "As was the case with Sathi Leelavathi, the cast came from the stage. So again I had to take on the task of subduing the actors’ voices and facial expressions." Can I restore this writing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

These are just pot-shots from one section. I'd reject this for GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Quite surprising to see the co-ord making comments when the FAC just opened, and not when it is about to close. Anyway, please don't swiftly archive this. I agree with your comments and will try resolving them, provided you give more. And I expected better from Baffle gab 1978, who did the c/e. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm commenting here as a reviewer, not a coordinator. I'm recusing. I'm making comments now because I was surprised to see the nomination appear so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time. The article needs a complete overhaul from someone who has access to the sources and can create a more cohesive and well-written narrative. This is not best done during an open FAC nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay Laser, sorry for the misassumption. In the previous FAC, you gave comments only about "Music" and I solved them. You also said the whole article needed rewriting, but not how some sentences needed to be rephrased. That is why I listed it at the GOCE. But if you have issues with the rewritten prose, please don't blame me but Baffle, for it is his edits that you find appalling. And the second FAC did not appear "so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time", but almost a month later, and that too only after the GOCE editing was complete, and when I believed Baffle solved the issues raised by you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you possibly ease up on the hyperbole? It makes working with you fairly unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes and apologies Laser, I will no longer make hyperboles as the comments are easily solvable and I have enough time to do so. I do not want us to be enemies, so you please take your own time to reply to my questions above. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. To the matter at hand: It is not GOCE or a copyeditor's job to understand your sources and create a cohesive narrative, nor to recognize awkward paraphrasing. They will go through a polish the text and correct obvious grammatical errors (maybe). I've given examples only, but I believe this article should be withdrawn as it requires a substantial revision from someone working from the sources. You may have to partner with a stronger writer. Fixing my examples does not address my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To emphasize a point, I am very disappointed that you continue to drag a good-faith editor's name through the mud (Baffle gab) during this process. Very poor form. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I participated in the previous FAC, and I will do a thorough read-through of the article to hopefully help as much as possible. I can understand Laser brain's comments, and I agree with the parts that they have pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Lead For this sentence (It is based on S. S. Vasan's eponymous novel that was serialised in 1934 in the magazine Ananda Vikatan), I would link "serialised" to the Serial (literature) article as some readers may be unfamiliar with the concept. I would also flip the last part to have the magazine title first and the year last. I do not think the phrase "eponymous novel" is used correctly because the novel is not named S. S. Vasan after the author. I would just say "novel" instead to avoid this. Right now it reads, "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which had been serialised in 1934". Outriggr did some c/e. And serial is linked to what you said. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For the lead's first paragraph, would it be beneficial to put the plot summary before the listing of the ensemble cast? Since the list is quite dense with information, it may be helpful to inform the reader about the plot first before identifying each actor. I do not believe there is a policy or standard for this as I have seen some FAs on films put the plot summary first and others put the actors first so it is up to you. Just thought it was worth asking. Your suggestion is good and worth discussing at WP:FILMLEAD, but I'm following the example used in most MCU articles: "Para 1: introduce the film, its cast and premise"; "Para 2: Behind the scenes"; "Para 3: The film's premiere/release and reception". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Understandable. There is not a set standard/policy so it is really up to you. Either way would work for me so the current wording is good. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the first sentence in the lead's plot summary. The "man named" is a little clunky to me. I would instead go with something like: (Sathi Leelavathi focuses on Krishnamurthy, a wealthy Madras-based man who is lured into drinking alcohol by his friend Ramanthan.). Also, is "friend' the best descriptive phrase for this character? The current phrasing is, "In the film, the wealthy Krishnamurthy, a man from Madras, is lured into drinking alcohol by his acquaintance. Believing he murdered his friend in a drunken stupor, Krishnamurthy flees to Ceylon while his daughter and wife, Leelavathi, are reduced to poverty." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For the second sentence in the lead's plot summary, I would just say "his friend Parasuraman" as "other" seems rather unnecessary to me as it is common for people to have more than one friend. Also, based on my understanding of the story, this is his real friend as opposed to Ramanthan. Ramanathan is now written as "an acquaintance". Still accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I have a suggestion for this sentence (Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the theatrical play Pathi Bhakthi but an adaptation was already being made). I think putting a verb like "realized" before the "an adaption" part would pull the sentence together more. Done: Since this is an Indian film (despite being directed by an American), I've gone with "realised". To avoid ambiguity, can I write, "A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the Madurai Original Boys Company (MOBC) play Pathi Bhakthi but realised an adaptation was already being made". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, who wrote the play, later told Chettiar about Vasan's novel, which had the same storyline), I am wondering if the "who wrote the play" part could be removed as it is somewhat cumbersome. Maybe something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar...). Also, it may be better remove the comma phrases altogether to say something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar suggested Vasan's novel to Chettiar since it had the same story.) instead. Technically, the play was written by Pavalar, but Mudaliar simply rewrote it. So I've gone with you phrasing. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel and Mudaliar began writing a screenplay.), I would add a comma between "novel" and "and". I believe the rule for commas is that if there are two independent clauses joined by "and", then a comma should go before "and". Another example of this is (D. T. Telang and V. J. Shave were the cinematographers and the film was co-edited by Dungan and Sircar.). I am quite bad with commas and punctuation in general so I would encourage you to research this further. Done: It was originally like that, but changed by Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would reduce this part (the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu) to something like the following (the film debut of K. A. Thangavelu and stage actors Radha, Balaiah and Ramachandran) to be more concise. All of them were stage actors. Even Thangavelu was, but with another theatre troupe: Rajambal Company. So can I simply say, "the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I was honestly trying to avoid the dashes so I think it awkwardly cuts off the sentence. But I would be alright with the current wording, but you would need to change "both of whom were stage actors" to "all of whom are stage actors" since you are referencing more than two people. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I was a little confused by this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi was the first film on which Krishnan worked and his second release.) when I read it at first. Maybe a revision to the following (Although Sathi Leelavath was Krishnan's first film, it was his second release after Menaka in 1935.) would make the meaning clearer. The current phrasing is "It was Krishnan's first film appearance and his second release". Accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would say "but his second release" to emphasize the difference further. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi explores temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers), I would link "temperance" to the Temperance movement in India article to give readers a greater context to the word. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I have a few comments for this part (It was one of the earliest Tamil films to become the subject of a court case involving copyright violation; the plaintiffs accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play Pathi Bhakthi.): I would link "copyright violation" to help any reader unfamiliar with the concept. As I said before, "copyright violation" is the writing of Sodabottle, who seems to have retired. I would prefer to say, "It was one of the earliest Tamil films to involved in a plagiarism controversy" (matching Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies), what saith thou? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I agree it seems more like a plagiarism suit so I would go with that wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would clarify what is meant by "the plaintiffs" as it is not immediately clear in the sentence who is suing the filmmakers. According to Wiktionary, a plaintiff is "a party bringing a suit in civil law against a defendant; accusers". So it's clear MOBC are the plaintiffs. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I am well aware of what the word plaintiff means. Both of my parents work in criminal law. It is not clear that MOBC are the plaintiffs because the MOBC is not even introduced in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain who is being referenced by the phrase "the filmmakers". Is it the director, producers, screenwriter, some combination? I would clarify this point. Can I write, "MOBC accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) The MOBC need to be properly introduced in the lead first to provide an explanation for the acronym. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would include the title of the Ellen Wood novel in the lead as you have done in the body of the article. Done: It's Danesbury House, dunno why it was removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) These are my suggestions for the lead. I will review the article section-by-section so I can read through each sentence thoroughly and help as much as possible. I am certainly not a great reviewer, but I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Plot I am a little confused by this sentence (Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector.). It is not made immediately clear (at least at this point in the story) what Rangiah Naidu is doing to help Ramanthan, and without this clear connection, this sentence seems rather random. Is Rangiah Naidu present at the tea party and helping to persuade Krishnamurthy to drink alcohol? I think a better transition or strong connection with the rest of the paragraph would be helpful here. It seems so. The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthy, a rich man of Madras is taught drinking by his friend Ramanathan. He is lured into bad ways... made to indulge in harmful pursuits. A mock tea party is arranged to achieve this end and Ramanathan's collaborator in this is Rangiah, a base individual who disgraced the power entrusted to him." Rangiah is not mentioned again until the end. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. I was curious about this part because Rangiah Naidu seems to come out of nowhere here, but if there is not further information about this part, then this should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I would condense this part (Krishnamurthy is captivated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman with whom he becomes infatuated,) down to (Krishnamurthy becomes infatuated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman,). I have a clarification question about this part (and promises to pay her ₹50,000 (about US$18,700 in 1936). Is he just giving her money or is he paying for her to do something in particularly (i.e. sex)? I would clarify this in the prose if the information is available. The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthi [sic] is made to fall by the wiles of a loose woman named Mohanangi... Infatuated he promises to pay her a sum of Rs 50,000." After this Mohanangi is never mentioned again. But from the looks of it she is indeed a prostitute. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. I was curious if they did anything together or if there was a clearer reason for the payment, but since the source leaves it rather vague, then it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I have a clarification question about this sentence (Parasuraman, Krishnamurthy's true friend, tries but fails to reform him.). I am assuming that Parasuraman is trying to stop Krishnamurthy from drinking alcohol? The later parts of this paragraph make it clear that alcohol has become a habitual behavior for Krishnamurthy, but I am uncertain if that is clear at this point so it may be worthwhile to clarify in this sentence exactly what Parasuraman is trying to help his friend with to avoid any confusion. Yes, the pressbook says, "Parasuram [sic], a family friend of Krishnamurthy tries to reform him. His methods prove to be useless." I think it's already clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) If it is clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic, then I would be more direct and state that in the sentence as I initially misread the mock tea party as being a one time thing until later realizing in the second paragraph that Krishnamurthy had other experiences with alcohol and developed this problem. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Krishnamurthy comes home drunk, sees Parasuraman's umbrella, assaults Leelavathi and goes out to shoot Parasuraman.), I would replace the second instance of "Parasuraman" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the rest of the sentence. To avoid repetition of Parasuraman's name, how about I write, sees the umbrella? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Done exactly as suggested. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about this part (a shot is heard and a man lies dead) as it is very dramatic. I think it may be better to be clearer and say something like (a shot is heard, and the servant is killed) or something along those lines. Something about the tone of the original wording does not really fit with a Wikipedia/encyclopedia article. Just wanted to point out that this has not be addressed. You do not need to use my wording, but the "and a man lies dead" part seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC) See what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (When Krishnamurthy comes to his senses, thinks he has murdered Parasuraman and decides to escape, leaving Leelavathi and Lakshmi in the custody of his servant Govindan.), I would revise the start to (After coming to his sense, Krishnamurth thinks...). The current phrasing is not grammatically correct, specifically the "sense, thinks he has" part. Link Ceylon here to be consistent with the lead. Also a link to tea estate may be helpful. Already linked. And doesn't tea estate fall under MOS:COMMONWORDS? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) That's strange. It was not linked last time I looked at it, but maybe I missed the link somehow. The tea estate link is up to you. I would not consider it a super common word/phrase but I can also understand why the other side of the coin so it does not have to be linked. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I've even linked tea estate to tea processing as the former redirects to it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (and replaced it in Krishnamurthy's hand), I would use "placed" instead of "replaced". The word "replaced" does not really work in this context. Yeah, done. Blame it on Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Not to pile on this, but I have to agree with Laser that it is not a good idea to criticize another editor who was only trying to help. We are all just volunteers and trying our best to contribute and improve the website. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Apologies Aoba47, my bad. Now that I have addressed your comments (please check if I really have), what next? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Cast Is there a reason why Rangiah Naidu's full name is not used here? Because of WP:FILMCAST, which says to use the character's name as seen in the credits ("All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source"). And in the pressbook, he is referred to as "Inspector Rangiah". Thank you for the explanation. I would go by the credits and keep the current wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Since Rangiah is identified as an inspector, I would identify Sreenivasan as a detective. Again, WP:FILMCAST. But am I allowed to avoid the "Master" and "Miss" prefixes that appear in the pressbook? The current phrasing should be fine. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC) I understand since this is a partially lost film, you may not have the answer for this, but is there any information on Balu and Sesha Iyengar's roles in the film? Later in the article, it is mentioned that there is a "comic subplot", but I do not see it represented in the plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I cannot even remotely identify what the comedy subplot may have been about. And I would not say the film is partially lost, but predominantly. Those scenes that you see here appear to be behind-the-scenes footage, although the opening credits are also part of it. So how do I solve this dilemma? If the comic subplot is unavailable, then nothing really can be done since we can only work from the sources that are available to us. Aoba47 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Apologies for the amount of comments as a lot of good work has been put into the article. A lot of these points are minor and more nitpicky than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Aoba47, your comments are not as disturbing as Laser brain's (hereafter Laser); I fully agree with them as well as Laser's. I only fear the FAC will be swiftly archived because of his comments. Since Laser was not detailed during the last FAC, I could not identify what to rewrite. Hence I submitted it to the GOCE. Seeing how Baffle gab 1978's edits appear to have worsened the article, I'm baffled (pun intended) since he is among the most experienced editors of the GOCE (no offense, but Miniapolis often does a far better job than him). But if you are going to give further comments, they should be in line with Laser's existing comments and not contradict them. I still haven't lost hope, and believe I can please Laser brain without sacrificing quality. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Once my above comments are addressed, I will collapse them and move onto the rest of the article. I do not think I am contradicting any of Laser's points though? Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC) I will wait to add further comments until the lead suggestions are resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Production The first two sentences of the "Development" subsection are in passive voice. It may be helpful to rewrite the second sentence (Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and was staged over 150 times.) in a more active voice to keep the reader engaged. Something like the following could be helpful: (Playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar rewrote Pavalar's play for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe, and this production was staged over 150 times.) Now the para goes, "Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s[2] and was successful throughout the Madras Presidency. Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and this production was staged over 150 times". However, I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of this article as it says, "Balaiah joined Rajambal Company, where he met the famous M. Kandaswamy Mudaliar, father of M.K. Radha. They staged Pathi Bhakthi over 150 times and Balaiah’s performance was greatly acclaimed. Sadly, this company too folded up but Kandaswamy Mudaliar roped him in for a film he was writing and where his son was the hero. This was Sathi Leelavathi". Do you think the source is best removed? Because Rajambal Company was evidently not involved, and MOBC did not dissolve as they sued the makers of the Sathi Leelavathi film. Also, I think the "150 times" applies to how many times the play was staged in its lifetime, even before it was rewritten by Mudaliar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Mudaliar told him a novel titled Sathi Leelavathi,), I would just say "the novel Sathi Leelavathi" to avoid the "titled" part. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I would link "serialised" to the Serial (literature) article as I recommended for the lead. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For the last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Development" subsection, I would move Reference 10 to the end of the sentence before Reference 11. The current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence and hinders readability. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think this sentence (Tandon introduced Chettiar to his American friend Ellis R. Dungan and suggested Dungan direct it instead.) could be cut down to be more concise. Something like the following could be helpful: (Tandon suggested that his American friend Ellis R. Dungan could direct it instead.) Done. Is this a better alternative to show coherence? Chettiar wanted Manik Lal Tandon to direct the film but he declined;[c] Tandon instead suggested his American friend Ellis R. Dungan Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think that is a better alternative. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Went ahead. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (but Chettiar was persuaded to hire Dungan because he had worked in Hollywood), I would replace "Dungan" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the sentence who is being referenced here. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) If directorial debut is linked here, then I would do the same for the lead for consistency. Delinked, because it should never have been linked in the first place; Baffle linked it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) As I suggested for the lead, I would link copyright violation here. The current phrasing reads, "Sathi Leelavathi was one of the earliest Tamil films to be involved in a plagiarism controversy", matching the lead. I wonder if there is a way to revise this sentence (Balaiah, who is credited as Baliah, played the antagonist Ramanathan while Krishnan played the comic character Balu) to avoid repeating "played" twice. Now I've written "appeared as the antagonist Ramanathan". --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am confused by this part "because of production delays caused by the lawsuit, Menaka (1935)" since "the lawsuit" part could be read as a descriptive phrase to describe Menaka and it seems rather abrupt. I think the wording is off here. Could you provide a little more detail on the Menaka lawsuit? I think this sentence as a whole could use a little more work for readability and to help inform an unfamiliar reader like myself of the full background with this situation. I think you got it wrong; Sathi Leelavathi was to have been NSK's debut film. Because the Pathi Bhakthi v Sathi Leelavathi lawsuit caused production delays (the trouble with casting Leelavathi happened after the lawsuit), Menaka became NSK's first release. It's common in South Indian cinema that an actor's first film project is not always their first release; Mohanlal, Sathya and Arya are victims like NSK here. So what phrasing do you suggest? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) The current wording seems good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I believe "detective" in this part (Chettiar gave the role of the detective Sreenivasan) should be capitalized as it is done that way in the "Plot" section. This has not been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) How is this what I have written? Chettiar gave the role of Sreenivasan to M. V. Mani without Mudaliar's knowledge. I have amended an earlier sentence to According to Ramachandran, he was told he would play Detective Sreenivasan and later Krishnamurthy's friend Parasuraman. It appears Detective with a capital D is indeed a formal prefix (as mentioned in Criminal investigation department), similar to Justice, Doctor and Inspector. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) I was asking about capitalizing detective in detective Sreenivasan, which you have now done. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Gnanambal, who had retired from acting after her marriage to Radha,), I would remove "to Radha" as it was already clarified in the previous sentence that she is Radha's wife. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Other comic actors were M. S. Murugesan as a Marvadi moneylender), unlink "Marvadi" since it was already linked in the "Plot" section. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I would move References 20 and 21 in this part (K. A. Thangavelu, a theatre artist associated with the Rajambal Company troupe, also made his film-acting debut) to the end of the sentence alongside Reference 22 as the current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence into a long and a small part. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the placement of "uncredited" in this sentence (J. Susheela Devi played an uncredited cabaret dancer.) as the role not the dancer is uncredited. Is this a better sentence? J. Susheela Devi appeared uncredited as a cabaret dancer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think that is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Done. Followed the same type of phrasing in "Cast". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about this sentence (however, he watched the filming and absorbed "the new art form that was cinema"). It seems a little too close to the source's phrasing (But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema). I think it may also be better to somehow incorporate information from this part of the source's sentence (which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931) as it adds more context to why he considered cinema a new art form. This still needs to be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) The source reads, "While MGR took his bow in it, Chakrapani did not because of lack of a proper role. But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema, which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931." That's referencing the first Tamil sound film Kalidas. Since it does not seem to add much (or may be bordering on WP:COATRACK), can I remove the "new art form" sentence and write, "...but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming"? This is to avoid WP:COPYVIO, a charge I do not want to be blocked again for. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Apologies for the delay in my response. I would remove the "new art form" part. It does not really add much to that part so I agree with your suggestion. Once this is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Thank you for your patience with this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935.), I would say "released" instead of "launched". I will not repeat other parts of Laser's comments, but I do agree that the parts that were pointed out need further work. The current phrasing says that "principal photography" began in 1935. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (According to film historian Film News Anandan in the book Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru, filming was also done in Ceylon), I am uncertain if the book title is necessary since the film historian seems notable enough (since he has a Wikipedia article) to stand on his own. Done, removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Themes I would change the temperance link to the Temperance movement in India article to be more specific. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I like this part (the Gandhian concept of selfless service) since you clarify what is meant by "selfless service". I think adding the "the Gandhian concept" part to the lead could be helpful. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Music For the first paragraph, I would put Reference 63 at the end of the sentence with Reference 64 to avoid cutting off the sentence awkwardly. I am uncertain about the "with new lyrics" part and I would suggest removing it. A poem really does not have lyrics so it is an odd comparison to make, and since the sentence emphasizes that the melody was based on the poem, I do not think this part adds anything to the sentence. The source says, "It modified a song of Bharati’s! The poet had composed ‘Karumbu Thottathile’ which was on the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji. This was changed to ‘Theyilai Thottatile,’ depicting the problems of the tea plantation workers in Ceylon." So I've removed the "with new lyrics" part since it is understood that he retained the melody and added new lyrics. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (The original poem is about the plight), I would just say "The poem" since you are not referencing multiple poems here. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji and the song explores the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon), I would use "while" instead of "and" to emphasize the contrast in subject matters and add a comma after "Fiji". Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (The song, which is set in the Carnatic raga known as Chenchurutt), I would remove "known as". Done. Though many Carnatic ragas have Wiki articles, Chenchurutti does not. If it did, at least a section redirect, would this sentence do? {{set in Chenchurutti, a Carnatic raga}}? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) That sentence seems good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Release and reception Is it possible to add a link to "independence-era" in this part (and support by independence-era politicians) to help unfamiliar readers like myself? I guess the author actually means "pre-independence era" since India got independence only in 1947. Would it be better to link to British Raj? Because that's the era he's referring to. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) It would be helpful to somehow incorporate the link into the sentence, but if you are having too much trouble with it, then I would not worry about it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the repetition of "film's" in this sentence (In its January 1937 issue, the art magazine Aadal Paadal praised the film's social setting and acting.) as it was done in a similar way in the previous sentence. I think you can drop "film's" and just say "the social setting and acting" without losing any meaning. Done that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (, a critic of cinema in general,), I do not think "in general" is necessary. Done as suggested. I do not want there to be a mix-up; belief that he was a film critic, but that he did not generally like films. But "a critic of cinema" gives the same impression doesn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) @Kailash29792: Apologies for just seeing this now. I see your point. I would say "a frequent critic of cinema" as that would convey that he often criticizes film in a negative way and not in a journalistic or academic manner. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (and in another he indicated his fear by depicting his twitching fingers and feet. ), I would add a comma between "another" and "his". Done, the comma removal was Baffle's doing. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the word "unsophisticated" in this sentence (however, an unsophisticated audience thought the lighting in the first scene was poor and that the film was stuck in the second) as it seems too much judgmental toward the audience. Since these filmmaking techniques were new, it makes sense that an audience may not understand it so I think a better word choice could be used here. Previously, it had been two separate sentence (Sundararajan claimed these techniques not only helped the actors to emote their characters better but also showcased Dungan's talent, yet the audience believed that the lighting was not clear in the first case and the film was stuck in the second. He opined that this reflected the ignorance of the audience), before Miniapolis made them into what you see now. Do I restore this last sentence? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think the previous wording was much better as it clearly defines the "ignorance" part as Sundararajan's opinion rather than an objective fact. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Legacy For this part (It was the first Tamil film the be successful in overseas markets), I think you mean "to be successful". Yep. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (a documentary about Dungan's career in India that was directed by Karan Bali), I am not sure if the director is important enough to be included here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Yep, removed and kept the paragraph in balance. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for addressing my comments. I have responded to your questions and pointed out a few areas that appear to be missed. I will do a full read-through of the article again sometime tomorrow. Thank you for your patience with this review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and for addressing all of my comments. I support this for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aoba47, I'll read your article today and post comments tomorrow (please remind me on 27 February US time if I forget). Your support is significant progress in my FAC. My next objective: please Laser brain. Otherwise it will end up like Mullum Malarum's fourth FAC: failing based on a single user's unsolved comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Yashthepunisher

• Support my queries were fixed in the prior nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Yash. If you can lure more reviewers, including those who can help with copyediting (in a manner that will please Laser brain), I'll be grateful. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Mr. Smart LION

• Support per above. Mr. Smart LION 04:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Support – I supported the previous nomination and my support still stands. – zmbro _(talk) 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Open Here

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 19:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2018 album by the English rock band Field Music. It is currently a good article. I had previously nominated it for FA, and some changes/improvements were made to the article as part of that review, but it ultimately did not pass in part due to a lack of reviewers in the FAC process itself. I was given little actionable feedback on ways to improve upon the article in the future, except for general remarks that the prose could use some improvement, so I sought out a peer review and a copy edit request with the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which was conducted by Thatoneweirdwikier. I'm hopeful that the article is ready for the FAC process this time around. — Hunter Kahn 19:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Thatoneweirdwikier

I felt that this was an interesting read during my copyedit, so I'll add suggestions over the next few days. (Note: This is the first time I've ever been involved in FAC.) Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lede

• The first paragraph of the lede has many short sentences, similar to the writing of the Simple English Wikipedia.
  • I just combined two of the sentences in this paragraph, if you think that's an improvement? — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Y Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Background

• "Open Here was the sixth studio album..." It still is the sixth studio album.
  • Changed to "is". — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Y Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Field Music is linked again (per WP:REPEATLINK).
• Memphis Industries is also linked again.
  • With regard to both the links to Field Music and Memphis Industries here, I've always been under the assumption wikilinks are usually included in the first reference of both the lead and the body of the article, as I've done in this case? I know a literal reading of WP:REPEATLINK doesn't necessarily say that, but that's always been the practice I've sort of observed here. For example, if you look at Apollo 13 (which I choose as an example only because it's one of the more recent articles promoted to FA), topics like Kennedy Space Center and Apollo program are wikilinked in the first reference of both the lead and the body of the article... — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Musical style and composition

• "the centenary of World War I..." Here, WWI should not be linked, as the centenary page links to WWI.
  • I just made a change so the whole phrase "centenary of World War I" links to First World War centenary, so as to avoid any ambiguity. Does that work for you? — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Y Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• "The opening track, "Time in Joy" begins with..." Quite unclear. Is "The opening track" the subordinate clause, or is it "'Time in Joy'"?
  • Oops, sorry, I think that's a stray comma on my part. lol I removed the comma, which I think clears it up, but let me know if not. — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Y Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• "'Goodbye to the Country' includes what Steven Johnson of musicOMH described as..." Wording seems a bit awkward in my opinion.

Lyrics and themes

Brexit and social privilege

• "about the erosion of faith in people, in institutions, and in shared experiences..." The two "in"s after "institutions" and "shared experiences" should be removed.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• "They are from Sunderland, which was noted for being..." Who noted it?
  • Looking back on this sentence, I think the phrasing "which was noted for being" is actually altogether unnecessary. I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Peter Brewis has said of the two brothers, David felt the most strongly..." Missing a comma after "said".
  • Added. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Parenthood and gender roles

No problems that I could find.

Joy and optimism

• "'Its 12/8 swagger admirably refuses..." Here, 12/8 is written as ¹²
  ₈. Is this correct? Only checking as I'm not sure myself.
  • Yes, that is correct. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• "'I've been through dark times (and) I find.." I believe the brackets around "and" should be square.
  • Changed the parentheses to square brackets here, as well as a couple other spots elsewhere in the article. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Recording and production

• "Liz Corney of The Cornshed Sisters, a band with Memphis Industries, the same label as Field Music." After "The Cornshed Sisters", the wording feels awkward. Removing it entirely may be better.
  • Removed it. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Release

• "they had considered shooting in parts of Sunderland either especially affluent or poor..." Change to "they had considered shooting in parts of Sunderland that were affluent or poor..." (or any other better versions of that).
  • Implemented your suggested wording. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Sarah Hayes and saxophonist Pete Fraser..." Pete Fraser has already been introduced. The word "saxophonist" can be removed.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "John Freeman of The Quietus called the Open House Field Music's most expansive..." Why "Open House"? I'm assuming it's meant to be "Open Here" (without the extra "the").
  • Oops, yes. LOL Fixed that. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That's everything I could find. Once it's all sorted I'll change my vote. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 03:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Thatoneweirdwikier! — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

​Nice. Changing my vote to a Support. Well done! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• The fair-use rationales for all three sound clips need to be completed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria} I think I've completed this now, but I don't often upload audio clips, so if I've left anything out or done anything incorrectly, please do let me know. — Hunter Kahn 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

Weak Oppose. The "Critical reception" section suffers from the "A said B" problem; see WP:RECEPTION for an explanation and suggestions on how to fix it. As written it's just a list of opinions quoted one after another with little attempt to form a readable narrative from it. It looks as though you've collected the negative comments into a single paragraph, which is a start, but more needs to be done to avoid this reading like a list of quotes. I haven't yet read the whole article but will do so once this is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mike Christie I'm prepared to make more changes if you think it necessary, but for starters I restructured the section a bit, organizing each paragraph to represent a thematic element, per WP:RECEPTION. As it stands now, the section includes the introductory paragraph, then includes five distinct sections based upon the reviews: 1) among the best album of the year, 2) fresh new direction for the band, 3) well-crafted, stylistically diverse album, 4) commented on the political themes, 5) too challenging or over-stuffed. And then the section ends with the year-end lists and comparisons to other bands, as before. Thoughts on this? — Hunter Kahn 12:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  At a quick glance that looks like a real improvement; the topic sentences for each paragraph seem like a minor point but they really help the reader. I will have a longer look when I have a chance; possibly in the morning but it might be the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've read through again, and though the topic sentences certainly help, there's still too much "A said B" -- or to put it another way, the topic sentences give the reader a narrative at the section level, but within each paragraph I think more should be done. For example, the third paragraph is structured as follows:

Topic sentence. A of B called Open Here "X", praising Y and lamenting Z. C of D praised X, writing "Y". E of D said Open Here was X, calling it "Y". F called Open Here X, and said Y and Z. G of H called a song X.

There's a little variation in rhythm, but a reader still feels like the topic sentence is just the heading for a bullet list. The examples in WP:RECEPTION try to show ways to assemble a narrative inside each paragraph by pulling together fragments of each review to support the points made. Including full names and publications for every reviewer makes it a lot harder to get the sentences to flow, so I would consider cutting them unless they're notable in some way -- e.g. a notable journalist, or a very high profile publication, might be worth mentioning; and sometimes it's useful to mention a publication or reviewer just to tie together particular comments.

I've changed to weak oppose as this is definitely more readable now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mike Christie I've made some additional edits based upon your feedback, so please let me know if this is a step in the right direction. I tried to follow some of the advice in WP:RECEPTION, so in addition to organizing the section by thematic element as I did before, I tried to vary the sentence rhythms slightly, cut the names of reviewers on occasion (which was difficult for me because I usually default to including such attribution), cut back on direct quotations, and tried to consolidate details. The paragraphs do still weave thoughts from various reviews, but I think the flow and readability has improved... — Hunter Kahn 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that's moving in the right direction. Looking at the first two paragraphs, here's what I see:

• Album of the year, best pop music, intelligent, recommended -- Record Collector, AllMusic, Junkee, Drowned in Sound
• Praise for mixing and compositions -- Record Collector
• Expansive and bright, positive, exciting -- The Quietus, Pitchfork
• Fresh, different, new direction, milestone -- Drowned in Sound, Pitchfork, Sentireascoltare, AllMusic

What would you think of moving the Record Collector comments ("apposite openness of sound" not just in the mixing of the songs, but in the original compositions themselves) to the third paragraph, about specific compliments? Then I think the remaining material could be combined into a single paragraph. Perhaps something like this would work:

The album was praised by several reviewers, with Record Collector suggesting it might be the album of the year, and AllMusic arguing that it stood with Field Music's best work. The album was included on Junkee's list of "2018 Albums That Deserved More Love", where it was described as the band's most ambitious effort to date due to its art-rock compositions and new-wave grooves. Drowned in Sound writer Paul Brown singled out "Count It Up" as one of the best songs released in recent years, and complimented the Brewis brothers for constantly creating fresh material. Other reviews agreed that it was a milestone for the band, with intelligent songs that went in unexpected directions, and Pitchfork suggested that it was the influence of David and Peter Brewis' children that gave the album a new sense of earnest direction. The Quietus was also positive, calling it Field Music's most expansive and brightest album to date, adding: "Amongst the carnage, Field Music have created a magical musical bubble. Anger has rarely sounded so positive."

I don't mean this is better than what you have, or that you have to drop the reviewer names as I've done (in some cases I've dropped the publication name too); I'm just trying to indicate the direction I think the writing needs to go in. This version starts with a topic sentence, or half a sentence, and gives two immediate examples, followed by the Junkee listing. Paul Brown's mention of "Count It Up' is for a single song, so that has to come after the comments about the overall album, and that allows a segue to Brown's other comment which in turn lets us introduce the "freshness" theme. Then a couple more illustrations, finishing with "expansive and bright". I probably cut a bit more than necessary, but that's the basic approach I'm suggesting. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mike Christie I think I begin to more clearly see where you're coming from here. I've made another effort to condense this section a bit, cutting a bit more than my instincts would tell me to otherwise, but I think this gets closer to the kind of direction you are suggesting, without eliminating any major themes or overarching points that the section had been conveying before. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  Much better. Thank you! I do still have some comments on this section, below, but I've struck the oppose. I hope you agree that this is an improvement -- and if you don't, please say why; I'd like WP:RECEPTION to reflect consensus, not just the viewpoint of a couple of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple more points:

• Can you confirm that the citations are all still in the right place? When you move fragments of sentences around, it's easy for them to get disconnected. The particular fragment that caught my eye was "intelligent", which in this version was cited to AllMusic, but is now cited to Pitchfork.
  • Mike Christie I see what you mean, and I've gone back and added a citation tag so now both sources cite that particular sentence fragment. I double checked and am fairly certain the other citations are correct. — Hunter Kahn 03:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Some reviewers noted the complexity of particular songs; Uproxx called the song "Time in Joy" a "six minute explosion of unbridled pop perfection".. A couple of things here. First, "noted" tends to imply that something is not an opinion, so it's worth avoiding it except for factual statements. Second, does the quote really represent an example of complexity? It's straightforward praise. Or is there more to the source than this quote?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mike Christie I agree with you about the use of the word "noted" and I've changed it to "highlighted". As for your other question, if you look at the full paragraph in that review, the writer talks about the various complex elements that go into that song, and I felt the statement that I quoted spoke to those complexities, and so was appropriate to quote in the context of the sentence as I used it. That being said, if you'd like me to cut that bit altogether and just leave in the general part about reviewing highlighting the complexity of particular songs, I'm OK with that. — Hunter Kahn 03:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've struck both points; I'm not sure I fully agree with you on the second one but I think different readers could read it in different ways so I'm striking it. If I get a chance I'll read the whole article and comment, but that may not happen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks Mike Christie! — Hunter Kahn 14:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Saving Light

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 Uplifting Trance song "Saving Light". After numerous featured article nominations, two peer reviews, and help from PresN as a mentor, I am certain that this article is finally ready to become a featured article. The article was also significantly improved and expanded upon compared to its last FAN, including a composition section, more photos, an audio sample and even an entire section on live performances. All in all, the article should be ready to become a featured article. Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

Removed. Is there anything I can replace them with or are they fine as they are now?

You can use |upright= to set a size that respects the user's preference settings. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added one to the photo in "Writing and production", it seems to be a good size now.

• Is there a reason to use FilePath for images here?

• Not entirely sure myself, I think they were put in during a peer review or I just copied them over from a FA. I've removed them.

• File:HALIENE_performing_at_EDC_2017_live_(cropped).jpg: source should include a link to the source file

• I can't seem to find the source image, not from the authors or singer's website or social media. To avoid any problems, I've simply replaced it.

• File:Gareth_Emery_Standerwick_-_Saving_Light.ogg needs a more expansive FUR. Same with File:Saving_Light_music_video_screenshot.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Done, borrowed from two FA articles so it should be good now. Micro (Talk) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you copied a piece that doesn't apply here for File:Saving_Light_music_video_screenshot.jpg - I don't see any mention of copyright infringement in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't believe I missed that. Fixed. Micro (Talk) 01:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comments by David Fuchs: I'll try to give this a full review this weekend (I'm going to read through the old FACs too which will take some time.) In the meantime, a quick hit:
  • Sources:
    • What makes The Nocturnal Times, Your EDM, We Rave You, EDM Identity, Dance Music NW, Dancing Astronaut, DJ Times, EDM Sauce, DJ Mag high-quality reliable sources?

-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

All sources used have been previously reviewed in the articles good article nomination. I've determined that all sites used as a source on this article were good and reliable enough to be used on a featured article. This meant to prove and show that each site had staff and editorial oversite to show that the articles weren't just some kind of blogs. Most sites listed their CEO, Editor-in-chief, staff reviewers/writers, etc on their "about" or "staff" pages on their sites. Most sites, such as Dancing Astronaut, Your EDM, and DJ Mag had been determined to be reliable sources by the Electronic Music WikiProject, though the list is far from being completed. Listing the staff of the listed sites:

• The Nocturnal Times - http://www.thenocturnaltimes.com/about-us/

Founder & CEO - Mark Mancino, Social Media Coordinator - Mason Siegel, Editor-at-Large & Ad Sales - Kris Kallenbach, Senior Editor - Caroline O'Keefe, Writer - Ariana O'Keefe, Writer - Charlie McMillan, Writer - Maria Marcano, Writer - Rebecca Sirota

• Your EDM - https://www.youredm.com/about-us/

CEO - Elliot Sachs, CFO - Nick Ward, Editor-in-Chief - Matthew Meadow, Label Director - Greg Sills, Chief Content & Social Media Manager - Lucas, Content Curator - Ben Jacobs, 15 other staff.

• We Rave You - https://weraveyou.com/the-crew/

CEO & Founder - Yotam Dov, CO-Manager - Tim Olsson, Editor - Shantanu Singh, Instagram Manager - Antonio Di Giorgio, Writer - Abhinav Manmohan, Editor - Florito Maniego, Spotify Manager - Tomas Zboril, Youtube Manager - Petar Lazarevic, Writer - Raymond Murphy, Brand Manager - Branka Maxim, Twitter Manager - Henry Wallis, Editor - Amy Martine Shaw, Writer - Alexander Costello, Writer - Sean Wolfe, Writer - Keith Warren, Writer - James Todoroski, Editor - Jake Gable, Video Manager / Writer - Johan de Kock

• EDM Identity - https://edmidentity.com/about/team/

Co-Founder / Editor-In-Chief - Grant Gilmore, Managing Editor - Erin Cropper, Content Strategist - Matt Schaitel, Senior editors - Abisola Oseni, Cassey Varvel, Maria Clinton, Editor - Jayce Ullah-Blocks, Webmasters - Connor Taylor, Tim Goth, 8 Correspondents

• Dance Music Northwest - https://rocketreach.co/dance-music-northwest-management_b44897fafced0565

Founder - Joshua Schweigert, Public Relations Liaison - Valerie White, Reviews Editor - Pete Zachara, Music Journalist - Vanessa Crestejo, Staff Writer - Ashley Kiah Beehler, 19 other employees.

• Dancing Astronaut - https://dancingastronaut.com/about/

Chief Executive Officer - Senthil Chidambaram, Editor-in-Chief - David Klemow, Managing Editors - Christina Hernandez, Robyn Dexter, Bella Bagshaw, Editor-at-Large - Will McCarthy, Senior Editors - achel Narozniak, Farrell Sweeney, Staff Writers - Chris Stack, Jessica Mao, Harry Levin, Josh Stewart, Mitchell Rose, Rugby Scruggs

• DJ Times - https://www.djtimes.com/contact/

Editor - Jim Tremayne, Editor-at-Large - Brian O’Connor, Assistant Editor & Digital Content Editor - Brian Bonavoglia, Chart Coordinator - Dan Miller, Around 20 article Contributors, Art Director - Janice Pupelis, Digital Art Director - Fred Gumm, Production Manager - Steve Thorakos, Director of Integrated Advertising - Paul Bozikis, Advertising Assistant - Rickey Pimentel, Operations Manager - Robin Hazan,President/Publisher - Vincent P. Testa

• EDM Sauce - https://www.edmsauce.com/about-us/staff/

Founder & CEO - Steven Jacobs, Editor in Chief - Erik Mahal, VP of Events - Kris Novak, Director of Photography - Joseph D'Oria, VP of HR Operations - Bruce Genovese

• DJ Mag - https://djmag.com/staff

Managing Director - Martin Carvell, Editor-In-Chief - Carl Loben, Deputy Editor - Ben Hindle, Tech Editor - Mick Wilson, Production Coordinator - Becca Antoon, Commercial Director - Heath Holmes, Deputy Digital Editor - Rob McCallum, Digital Staff Writer - Amy Fielding

Micro (Talk) 23:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

While it's good they have staff and aren't just blogs, Featured article criteria requires a higher threshold than just that sources meet WP:RS; specifically, "high-quality" reliable sources. Essentially, what makes these publications the best available in the field? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Going off of what WP:FACS indicates what a high-quality source is:

• Do the sources represent the best available for this particular subject?

Yes. Other sources that say the same information exist do exist, but are considerably less-reliable. These sources most notably included EDMTunes, which writes and is generally similar to to the other sources used, but was determined to be of worse quality. Sources currently used, including Your EDM, DJ Mag, DJ Times, Dancing Astronaut, and EDM Sauce are the best sources within the list and all have been operating for years (DJ Mag has been since the 90s). More notably high-quality sources, such as MixMag, Triple J, Complex, and Stereogum do exist and would have been used, but they never wrote about this song.

• Is the source that supports each point the most appropriate for that point?

Yes. In a lot of cases, text is supported by multiple citations when needed, usually in bundles of two to four to make sure the information is absolutely 100% reliable and verifiable. For example, the text that’s says that Saving Light was the highest-selling trance song of 2017 on Beatport has two sources on it, while the text that says that the lyrics are about standing up to bullying and prejudice, suicide, and being a victim's "saving light" has three sources on it.

• Are the main sources reasonably up-to-date, and therefore likely to represent the most recent scholarship? Older sources, particularly contemporaneous primary sources, are often appropriate, but the nominator may need to explain why they've been chosen.

Definitely. Most sources were written usually a couple days to a few weeks after the song, it’s remixes, the acoustic version, etc, were released. A few articles though were not written in conjunction, though are still relatively new and up-to-date for the subject, usually no more than 2 years old.

• In the case of anything contentious, are primary sources being used in accordance with the secondary literature?

Yes. A few Primary sources exist, but are always accompanied by a third-party source. An example of this is the part that’s says the dog marked the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award. A State of Trance (primary source) was used alongside Your EDM (secondary source).

• Do the sources appear collectively to provide a comprehensive account of the subject, or is there over-reliance on a particular source or group of like-minded sources? Reviewers should be aware that even the highest-quality sources can be used selectively in a way that affects the neutrality of the article.

A lot of sources are used multiple times and some standalone articles are used two or three times. The most used single reference is the only Billboard one, with it having used 11 times throughout he entire Wiki article (it is used alongside various other sources/reference as a verified/extra source many of those times) and the most used single source is Your EDM, which has 7 articles used throughout.

This should be good enough to prove that they are good enough to be used in a featured article.Micro (Talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song)

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's finally ready for review. I've been working on this on-and-off for years and was content with it at GA status, but a movie about the song was released in 2018 and that helped flesh out a lot of elements that had been unclear before, and the promotion of Almost There to FA helped give it a push. For those unfamiliar, this is the best-selling and most-played contemporary Christian song of all time and the signature song of the band MercyMe, one of the most successful Christian bands of all time. Oddly enough, it's had three distinct chart runs since its release in 2001: in 2001-02 it was on Christian radio, peaking at #1 on the Christian charts, then it crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003-04, becoming a big hit on AC stations, and finally, in 2018, it re-entered again, peaking at #1 on the Billboard Christian Songs chart and #10 on the Digital Songs chart. Along the way it has briefly charted in France, been adapted into a film that was the highest-grossing independent movie of 2018, and has been covered by other artists, with several versions charting on their own. It's an unusually long-lasting song and I think it would be a really excellent and unique addition to our FAs. Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

• the band's independent album should perhaps be linked to the article independent music to clarify it; as such, per WP:DUPLINKS, the link in the body should thus be removed.

  Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• it would be like to be before God in heaven should be "in front of" to avoid confusion with the temporal sense of that word.

  Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• with just a piano before building to include perhaps the "just" should be removed, though I'll see how other reviewers respond to it.

  My justification here is to clarify that the song begins with only piano and vocals. Saying just "piano and vocals" might imply there are other instruments there; the "just" is to clarify that the song opens only with them. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Chart positions should be written as "number one", "number 71", etc., per MOS:NUMBER, rather than "No. 71", if I'm not mistaken.

  Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• The second linked instance of 33rd GMA Dove Awards should be removed per DUPLINKS.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: I must mention that I intend to claim WikiCup points for this review. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Independent dates, such as October 12, 2001, are followed by a comma per the MOS (unless followed by other punctuation) even when one is not otherwise warranted.

  This should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• There should be more citations in the second paragraph of the "Background and recording" section; while it's not a dealbreaker as it currently is, it'd be better to have such citations.

  I added an additional citation in one of the more lengthy sections. To my recollection, longer sections drawn from the same source don’t require multiple citations unless there’s a direct quote, however. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  It is standard practice in FAs, although by no means mandatory, for a citation to follow every sentence.

That's all I can think of, otherwise I'd be inclined to support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I’ve addressed both of these now, I think, John M WolfsonToa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Looks good, support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

Addressed comments

I would avoid repeating "written" twice in this part: (Written and composed by lead singer Bart Millard, the song was originally written for the band's 1999 independent album The Worship Project). Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph because they both have a similar structure with "the song...". It may be helpful to change it up to keep the reader engaged in the prose. Changed one of them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I agree with John M Wolfson's comment about that chart positions should be written out in full rather than "No. 71". I also agree with their comments that "just" in this part "it opens with just a piano before building to include guitar and drums." is unnecessary. This was fixed but got reverted. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I have a comment about this sentence: ("I Can Only Imagine" received positive reviews from critics, with some calling it the best song on Almost There). I have often see the sentence structure, "with X verb-ing", discouraged in FACs so it may be beneficial to revise this. I personally do not have a strong opinion either way, but just something worth noting. I've modified this; let me know if you like it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (and as of April 2018 it has sold over 2.5 million copies.), I would add a comma between "2018" and "it". Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Link MercyMe the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (In the last phases of the album's production, MercyMe needed one more song to include on the album.), I would avoid repeating "the album" twice in the same sentence. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Millard began to write a song, basing it off on his personal feelings about his father Arthur's death.), I think you can replace "Millard" with "He" since it is clear from the context of the previous sentence. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (but after several failed attempts Millard talked with), I would add a comma between "attempts" and "Millard". Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC) There are instances where heaven is capitalized (In the song, the narrator wonders what it would be like to stand before God in Heaven.) and not capitalized (Lyrically, it imagines what it would be like to be before God in heaven). I honestly do not know which way is "correct", but I would be consistent with one way or the other. I’ve changed the first usage; all other usages are now in lowercase with one exception, which was part of a quote so we probably don’t want to modify that one. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this part ("I Can Only Imagine" was named the official inspirational song for the state of Oklahoma in 2018), I am uncertain if state needs to be linked. Unlinked for now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) This part (the movie was released to theaters on March 16, 2018) is missing a period. Corrected now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (It received mixed to positive reviews from critics), I would add a comma after "critics". Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) There are instances where the Oxford/serial comma is used (behind only The Passion of the Christ, Son of God, and Heaven Is for Real) and is not used (behind Bohemian Rhapsody, Straight Outta Compton and Walk the Line) so I would make sure to consistent with one way or the other. Corrected to use the serial comma consistently here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (And was also the highest-grossing independent film of 2018), I do not believe "and" should be capitalized. Good catch, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) The citation used for this sentence "It ranks as the fourth-highest grossing music biopic of all-time in the United States (behind Bohemian Rhapsody, Straight Outta Compton and Walk the Line)." redirects to the Box Office Mojo homepage so I would mark the reference as dead so the citation defaults to the archived version. Good catch, corrected it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I am confused by the Box Office Mojo ranking. For instance, the archive version used in the article (here) places I Can Only Imagine as the fifth-highest grossing after Coal Miner's Daughter, but later versions of the list (like this one) place it as the fifth-highest grossing after Rocketman. I am not sure how to address this though. I’m not sure about this either. It’s also hard to get clarity since Box Office Mojo redesigned and nerfed the site. I’ve gone ahead and updated to the most current version. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I would add something like "As of (insert date of the archived version of the website)" as this ranking is liable to change in the future as more and more music biopics are released in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Good idea, done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (After consulting with his pastor, who felt Millard should accept the opportunity, Millard began to reconsider), I would replace the second instance of "Millard" with "he" to avoid repetition. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I do not think "finally" is necessary in this part (and finally agreed to let her cover it after talking with Grant over the phone). Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I have a question about this part (Grant had planned to release her version of the song as the first single from her upcoming album). Do we know what this upcoming album was? Considering the timing, I am assuming it is Legacy... Hymns and Faith, but it would be nice to get clarification in the prose. I would assume so but I don’t think it’s explicitly stated in the book. I can go back and check. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) If it is not explicitly stated either in the book or in other sources, then it would be better to keep the current wording. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Grant had planned to release her version of the song as the first single from her upcoming album and MercyMe would release a different song as their first single, hoping to capitalize on having written what would presumably become a major hit for Grant.), is there a way to avoid repeating "first single"? Changed one use to “lead single”. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Would there be a way to avoid repeating "second single" in this sentence (Grant gave MercyMe her blessing to release the song as their second single and signed the rights back to the band; "I Can Only Imagine" was released on October 12, 2001 as the album's second single.)? Modified slightly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I would move the link to the movie from this part (In March 2018, following the release of the film I Can Only Imagine,) to here (The story behind "I Can Only Imagine" was adapted into a film.) since it is the first time the film is mentioned in the article. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I will leave this up to whoever does the image review, but I am uncertain of the necessity of the music video screenshot. I have also been told to keep non-free media usage to a minimal unless it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed with text alone or is something that was the subject of critical commentary. The screenshot does not fit either to me. I am not saying you have to remove it as again, I will leave that up to the image review, but it is something to think about it. The main function of this image is to demonstrate what it means by picture frames. The picture clearly shows a person holding a picture frame, one of the main motifs of the video. I can understand if it needs to go, however. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. That makes more sense to me then. Since the picture frame concept was an important part of not only the music video, but also of the concert performances, then I can see a stronger reason for inclusion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC) In the "Other versions" section, the first paragraph includes several instances of "version"/"versions", particularly in the first paragraph. Would there be a way to avoid this? I've changed several usages to "recording" to try and vary things. Does this work? Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC) I would simplify this (in promotion of the upcoming film release) to (to promote the film). Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Is this part (Millard was also interviewed after the performance) necessary as it does not really add any information about the song? This is a good point; I've removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC) I hope that my comments are helpful. Apologies for the length of the review, as I am just trying to be thorough and help as much as possible. You have done an excellent job with the article. Let me know if you need any clarification about anything. Hope you have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC) No, I appreciate it! I'll try and dig through this shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would recommend adding alternative text to the infobox image and for all of the other images in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• All images should have alt text now. Toa Nidhiki05 03:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• It seems like the ALT text has been removed. I will leave this point up to the editor who conducts the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. Otherwise, I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Alts have been restored. Toa Nidhiki05 15:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

• Fixed the one image that had that issue. Toa Nidhiki05 15:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• File:Imagine_Bart_Millard.PNG needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I’ve strengthened the FUR. Let me know what you think now, Nikkimaria. Toa Nidhiki05 15:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'd like to see the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section improved per the advice at WP:RECEPTION. Currently it's just a list of opinions -- see the "A said B" problem discussion in WP:RECEPTION, which makes for dull reading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've made some minor adjustments here, Mike Christie to make it more interesting. Let me know what you think of it now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a slight improvement, but the first paragraph still reads like a list of opinions, rather than a natural overall description of the reviews. For example, three separate comments specifically praise the lyrics; wouldn't it be more natural to put those together, quoting or citing them? Similarly, two comments say the song was the highlight of the album; you simply repeat that point in different parts of the paragraph as if they were unrelated points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ghostbusters II

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 1989 film Ghostbusters II. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

My comments

(DISCLAIMER:I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.) Unfortunately, I do not believe I can do anything but oppose this nomination at this time. It appears you had a bit of a spat with Laser brain the first time this was at FAC about incorporation of sources regarding the themes of the film; while I wasn't one to comment on the sources as I didn't see any from a cursory GSearch and would have procrastinated a deeper search, I looked further in that FAC and saw that Josh Milburn provided you with sources to that effect, which you appeared to rebuff and have not added. Given that those appear to be high-quality sources, I must oppose and suggest withdrawal of this FAC to work on their incorporation. (I messed that up incredibly, see below.) On an unrelated note, there should be NBSPs between such figures as "$215.4 million", etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) @John M Wolfson: I'm glad you agree with Laser brain and I that scholarly sources need to be incorporated, but I do note that of the four sources I identified in the previous FAC, three are now cited several times in the article, as is a scholarly book identified by Aoba47. (One of the four sources I identified isn't cited; perhaps Darkwarriorblake couldn't get hold of it, or perhaps the contents weren't useful.) Am I misunderstanding your reason for opposition? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC) I went through every source given and included every one that had any relevant information. There's a giant section called "Thematic analysis" now in the article. If a source wasn't used it was mainly because Ghostbusters II was literally only mentioned in regards to the main topic of discussion and otherwise not analysed. I'd suggest reading it before opposing it. Thanks for your review. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Well, this is extremely embarrassing. I had looked through the sources in the source code and it appears that the one I selected for checking is the one that didn't appear. Consider my oppose suspended for a further look and accept my apologies for any offense you might have taken from the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Okay, here's my real review (I still intend to take WikiCup points): As said above, there should be NBSPs for such figures as "$215.4 million", etc. on the Manhattan borough's Second Avenue I believe "on Second Avenue" is sufficient given that we already know that filming was in NYC. If there's doubt to the borough just say "on Manhattan's Second Avenue". "Los Angeles, California" should just be "Los Angeles" per the MoS 100,000 gallons of slime should include a conversion to metric; ditto to any other units that don't currently have one. I agree with TheJoebro64 in not using "contemporary" to mean "present-day"; in art it usually means the opposite, "at the time", and indeed "contemporaneous" is used in the article to that effect. Use "retrospective", "present-day", "modern", or other words as needed. Better yet, consider rewording them to be more temporally specific per MOS:CURRENT, but I don't think that's needed. Any material likely to become dated should, however, be marked with {{As of}} templates. I have to disagree with TheJoebro64 on not including the "many variations" of the script. Even if it is common knowledge that movie scripts change a lot in their lifetimes (which it might not be), the radical changes of the script detailed in the section warrants special note of it. A lot of the images have empty alt texts; this needs to be fixed for accessibility purposes. That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Done all of these as far as I can tell. I left the Manhattan part in (as in Manhattan's Second Avenue) because for some people, myself included, I can confuse Manhattan with another name for New York City, like the Big Apple. Might just be I'm bad at geography though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC) John M Wolfson 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks okay to me now. Support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

Imma skip the plot, since I've never seen the Ghostbusters movies (beyond the first ten minutes of this one), but I'll try to do a thorough prose review. I might be slow over the weekend because I'm busy but I'll make time. JOEBRO64 20:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Whole lotta comments

"As with the first film, Aykroyd and Ramis collaborated on the script, which went through many variations." The fact that it went through many variations should be obvious even if it's not stated. It's common knowledge that film scripts go through many drafts. "... large sections of the film were scrapped after poorly received test screenings." I could be incorrect, but should there be a hyphen in "poorly received"? Again, if you don't agree just ignore this, but I think a hyphen could be added since the "-ly" adverb is part of a larger compound adjective. "... family-friendly. The performances of ..." There's nothing in particular wrong here, but I think these two sentences could benefit from a better transition. Maybe something across the lines of "... family-friendly, although the performances of..." "... making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year." Link to 1989_in_film#Highest-grossing_films? "Although some contemporary retrospective audiences appreciated the film..." I know you're talking about contemporary as in the present here, but I think "retrospective" is better because it's more clear that you're referring to modern-day audiences. More soon. JOEBRO64 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Done all except the first. I understand what you're saying but there are script variations and then effectively a completely different film. Some films don't have much script turmoil at all but there are significant differences between what was originally proposed versus what we got. Also watch both films soon Joe, jeez. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC) TheJoebro64 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. Just busy—will get to more soon (and this is a promise). JOEBRO64 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) "After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability inevitable even though that the film had been developed as a stand-alone project." Just some copyediting that could help "Columbia had experienced a long series of box-office failures since Ghostbusters,[ref] and Ghostbusters II was seen as the best way of reversing their fortunes." "... with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release." "Summer" should be replaced per MOS:SEASONS More later today JOEBRO64 12:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Done, thanks JB.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC) "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast..." I'm a huge fan of the Oxford comma, but it's fine if you aren't. "He chose to avoid making movies films until he returned for Scrooged." Just for some formality. "... was restricted because of the visit of leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union." I just think this flows nicer "Freezing temperatures combined with the liquid slime made the actors very uncomfortable." "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." - Mark Twain "Filming officially concluded on March 7, 1989." I don't think anyone will assume it was unofficial. Link to test screening at the beginning of the post-production section Perhaps link to Independence Day (United States) at "Ghostbusters II had been scheduled for release on the July 4th holiday weekend..."? I know it isn't just celebrated in the US (my parents went to Ireland for their honeymoon and they say that for some inexplicable reason they celebrate it there) but some readers who aren't familiar with America may not recognize its significance. "The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely." Missing conjunction? JOEBRO64 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Done. I like that Mark Twain quote. I put "July 4th Independence Day holiday weekend", I don't know if that's too unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who had had a recent..." "Food coloring was added; the colors included green (to match Slimer) and blue." I think this would just read better with parentheses. "The film required approximately 100,000 US gallons (380,000 litres)..." I'm just bolding because I'm pretty sure this article is written in American English (aka a real man's English), but "litres" is British English. "Dane revised the designs of the proton pack weapons, the ghost trap;, and also revised the Ectomobile, which became the Ectomobile 1A." "... makes it the eighth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1989..." Same as I said before in the lede "Ghostbusters II received generally negative reviews on release." "Upon release" or "on release" is redundant 99% of the time "He noted that MacNicol and Moranis were the highlights of the film..." Incorrect use of "note". "Note" should only be used when stating an objective fact. For example, "He noted it was raining" is OK, but "He noted the film was good" is not. "He also noted that Murray's normally comedic indifference seemed to be lacking commitment." Again with "note". "... genuine human warmth, which he Thomas felt did not work." Clarification "... and the addition of an infant to add novelty..." The two "add"s in such close proximity is a bit distracting, I think you can just chop off the second without losing any meaning "... of the original, and singled out MacNicol's performance." "The reviewer noted that Murray is central to the film because of his ad-libbed dialog." Another "note" Almost there. Should be done by the weekend. JOEBRO64 23:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Done. Hard to find other words than "said". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Just finished reading and there wasn't really anything significant that stood out to me. Consider this my declaration of support. Now I just need to go watch the movies. JOEBRO64 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Indrian

Support. I did an extensive review of the prose in the last FAC and worked closely with Darkwarriorblake over several weeks to make improvements, so this is not a drive-by support. I am glad to see this back again and that a good compromise appears to have been reached on the disagreements in round one. I am satisfied that my concerns were addressed in the previous FAC, and I am happy to support. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Indrian. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Oppose. I've only looked at the critical response section and I think this is not yet at FA quality. Almost the entire section is structured as a bullet list of opinions converted to prose. This is the "A said B" problem (see WP:RECEPTION). I think this can be fixed fairly easily (WP:RECEPTION has some worked examples): there has to be some sense in reading the commentary that it has been organized for the purposes of the article, usually by grouping reviews with related opinions together and then wordsmithing to avoid simply listing each opinion. Once that's fixed I'll be happy to strike the oppose and will look at the rest of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reworked the entire section Mike Christie, please let me know what you think. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, though I think some prose tweaks could still be made. I've struck the oppose and will try to find time today to read through today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hola Mike_Christie, gentle ping reminder. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading through now; I'll make notes as I go through. Please revert any copyedits I make that you don't agree with.

• After this, the film was rushed into production, with filming scheduled for summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release. Months of negotiations followed the lunch with Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis to negotiate a minimal salary in exchange for a percentage of the box office profits. A couple of things here.
  • Was it a lunch or a dinner? For many readers these are not synonyms.

    Changed to "meeting", it doesn't specify what time of day it was and what meal was being eaten. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • How can it have been rushed into production if the dinner had to be followed with months of negotiations, which presumably had to precede production?

    Casting is part of production, negotiation included. At least is my understanding. It was already well into development because they'd been trying to get this far for 5 years. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The pair wanted negative emotions to have consequences and found humor in New York City having to be nice or face destruction, though at this point they did know what form the destructor would take. Presumably this should be "...did not know..."? And "destructor" is a bit clumsy; can we just make it "...what form that would take"?

  • Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest changing the section title "Cast and crew" to "Cast"; there's nothing about crew in there, is there?

  • Done, I think it used to have crew info in it but that was moved elsehwere. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reitman began working on Ghostbusters II almost immediately after concluding directing his comedy film Twins (1988). That "(1988)" is ugly and seems unnecesary. And can we rephrase to avoid "...ing ...ing"?

  • Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• realized there were issues with the film that had to be changed: wordy; can we cut this to something like "realized changes would be needed"? Or even cut the sentence completely? It doesn't say anything not covered by the following sentences, though it does serve as a topic sentence for the paragraph.

  • Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Medjuck said the test screenings identified that audiences liked the film but felt: suggest "The test screenings made it clear that audiences liked the film but felt" -- the citation will tell the reader who said this, if they care; it's not useful information in this sentence.

  • Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• the audiences were not aware of the concepts of positive and negative slime: this makes it sound as though these are real concepts. Perhaps "the audiences did not realize that the slime in the film could be either positive or negative"?

  • DoneDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The ghost train was added to add a sense of an unseen force trying to keep the Ghostbusters away. The scene was filmed at the Tunnel night club in New York. These are from two sources, but it would flow more smoothly to make it something like "The ghost train scene, which was filmed at the Tunnel night club in New York, was added to give a sense of an unseen force trying to keep the Ghostbusters away." (Regardless of how you rephrase it, please get rid of "added to add".)

  • Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely. Suggest: "The film's final battle with Vigo was reshot, and the way that Vigo left the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely."

  • Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Editor Sheldon Kahn was responsible for the idea of the "Five Years Later" opening credit at the start of the film. This seems out of place at the end of the Post-production section; was it added as a late idea? Is it even worth mentioning?

  • I thought it was a nice nod to the individual responsible, but you're the second person to bring this up so I'll remove it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Afterman offered Brown's music label, MCA Records, the lucrative rights to the soundtrack in exchange for Brown's participation: much too closely paraphrased from the source, which is: "Afterman went to MCA Records, Brown’s label, with an offer: MCA could have the lucrative rights to the Ghostbusters II soundtrack if Brown agreed to participate".

  • I've reworded this bit. It is difficult to rephrase a relatively short factoid in a drastically different way. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• That made me take a closer look at sourcing for that paragraph, and I have a couple more concerns:
  • Aiming to replicate the success of the original, soundtrack producer Peter Afterman wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who was at the peak of his popularity following a succession of hit songs: several minor things wrong here. The source can't say he was at his peak -- it's a contemporary source and from 2020 that statement implicitly refers to his whole career. I'm perfectly willing to believe it's true, but it can't be sourced by a 1989 article.

    Got rid of "peak". I might try to find a 1989 source later but it isn't vital. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Also, this sentence, which precedes the one I just quoted above, doesn't stand on any additional sourcing -- the sentence above starting "Afterman went to..." supports both the sentences in the article. It's not exactly wrong as it is but I see no reason why we should expand into two sentences with no additional information.

    I'm gonna be honest, I'm a bit confused with this one. Can you elaborate? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Then we have "Brown agreed on the condition he would receive a cameo in the film"; he got a cameo but the source only says he asked for a role -- perhaps he asked for more than a cameo.

    Changed to "role" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Is "cameo" the right word for the music video appearances? A music video is so short that it seems unnecessary to draw the distinction. If this is common practice, though, that's fine.

    I don't know if it's common practice, I just consider random appearances by non primary performers to be cameos, but I've changed the word to "appearances by". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Ray Parker, Jr. helped write an updated version of his hit song "Ghostbusters", which was co-written and performed by hip hop group Run-DMC. Again some unnecessary duplication; we don't need both "helped write" and "co-written". And was the co-writer Run-DMC? The source doesn't seem to explicitly say so, unless I'm missing something.

    The Collider source says co-written by parker and performed by RunDMC. Run DMC were writers on it, I'll try to find a clearer source. Changed "help write" to "develop". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

-- More to come; looks OK so far. a bit concerned by that last paragraph. The sourcing is not completely wrong, but it feels imprecise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• • You'll have to be more precise here, I looked at the last paragraph of music and all the sources seem fine with what is there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I decided to pick a couple more sentences and random and take a look at the sourcing.

• The concept for both the painting and physical form of the central villain Vigo went through many changes, including a plan to transform him into a large monstrosity.
  • The first clause is sourced to this, which says "The whole Vigo concept went through various design changes" and then adds some details. This is a bit too closely paraphrased, and as above I don't think is very precise -- the concept for the painting did not go through design changes. If you mean that at one point Vigo was supposed to emerge from the painting, that's not clear.

• The second part comes from page 45 of this pdf, but I don't see clear support there for this. There's a discussion of elaborate makeup and horrendous drawings, and the concept was toned down, but not of a "large monstrosity". I don't think it's fair to say that "the concept for both the painting and physical form of the central villain Vigo went through many changes", is close to "The whole Vigo concept went through various design changes.", it's a basic fact, you couldn't say it many other ways but the two sentences are wildly different. I removed mention of the painting, I personally consider mention of him moving out of the painting to be discussion relating to the painting, but it is discussed further down so nothing is lost. The second source needed an additional page number, but it says separately in the last paragraph "monstrous" and "huge", it is of course paraphrased because otherwise there are issues with too close paraphrasing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another issue was the quantity of films being released close together and unexpected successes that meant films were staying in theaters longer than anticipated. By only mid-July, some theaters were alternating Ghostbusters II and The Karate Kid III on the same screen because of their diminishing returns to play Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 on other screens.
  • This is sourced to this. I see more imprecision here; it wasn't the overall quantity of films being released that was the issue, it was the unexpected successes.

    I think reading the source that both quantity and success is established there, they don't literally use the word "quantity", but the opening in particular discusses the "glut" of films, that films are open, other studios want them to open but there's no space, Peter Pan causing James Bond to delay, "crunch", and the latter paragraph states that the summer season is barely over and there's this huge list of films incoming. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Why "only" mid-July? That's not in the source, and I don't see other dates in the discussion in our articles that make it apparent why we should say "only".

    The article was written in mid-July and mentions Lethal Weapon 2, which was only released on July 7. The "only" is because this was just under a month of release later it was flailing despite being a follow up to this huge blockbuster. I can remove the "only" if it is an issue though.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • The "diminishing returns" is supported in the source, but you can't say "some theaters" -- the article is talking about one small market; I think one cineplex, in fact.

    Changed to one theater. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

OpposeWeak oppose. I'm sorry to oppose here, because I think there's been a good-faith effort to use relevant sources, and I think there's a lot of good material here. I'm opposing because looking at these last three examples makes me concerned that some sources are imprecisely represented in the article. I think the fix will not require major changes to the text, but it will require some tedious work to review each source's use and to be sure it's been accurately used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I do hope you will give it another chance Mike Christie, you have to remember that it's been copy edited about three times since I wrote it, meaning can get lost sometimes from what I originally wrote, but the examples you're finding should be few and far between. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Changed to weak oppose as none of what I found was terrible -- I just don't think it's our best work. I certainly have sympathy for the effects of multiple copyeditors on source-text integrity; I've seen that problem many times and it is hard to manage.

We had a COVID-19 case at one of the offices I work in so I'm having to deal with setting up scores of people to work from home, which is just to say I don't know how available I'll be to review this again. To be honest I would like to get another opinion from someone with a lot of FAC experience. David Fuchs, would you mind taking a look? If David has time to look, and if his spot checks find nothing similar to what I'm complaining about, I'd be willing to strike the oppose, and I would then try to go through again and, I hope, support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I can try and take a look tomorrow or Thursday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from NowIsntItTime

• In the lead's third paragraph is this quote: Critics responded unfavorably to what they perceived as largely a copy of the original and a softening of its cynical, dark humor to be more family-friendly. although the performances of Peter MacNicol and Moranis were repeatedly singled out for praise. There is a period between "family-friendly" and "although" instead of a comma.
• Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works alongside Winston Zeddemore as unpopular children's entertainers. Does Zeddemore and Stantz both own the bookstore, or just Stantz? Elaborate further.

Changed to "Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works a side job alongside Winston Zeddemore as unpopular children's entertainers. " Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Vigo orders Janosz to bring him a child to possess, allowing him to live again and rule the world. How does possessing a child = being able to rule the world? Or does he want to rule the world and inhabit a kid's body while he's at it? This sentence is incredibly confusing on its own. Please include the main idea of Oscar (I think that's the kid's name) into the plot to better explain this feat.

I changed it to this "Vigo orders Janosz to bring him a child to possess, allowing him to escape the confines of his painting and live again to conquer the world. Because of his infatuation with Dana, Janosz chooses Oscar." Any better? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• [...] Aykroyd's niece Karen Humber portrays a schoolchild, and director Ivan Reitman's children Jason and Catherine portray, respectively, the rude child at the opening birthday party and a girl with a puppy that is part of Egon's experiments is the girl or the puppy part of Egon's experiments?

I removed the bit about the puppy, couldn't think how to reword it, as she is the subject not the puppy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything else in the article looks good besides these issues that stuck out to me. Interesting article too. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 23:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting film, the failure despite everything working for it allows for a much more interesting backstory than the unmitigated success of the original. Thanks for taking the time to review it NowIsntItTime Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Awesome; you addressed the issues. Support. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

INTERFET logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999-2000. This is an unusual case of a multinational coalition not lead by a great power. The politics of the operation, the diplomacy involved in assembling the coalition, and of course the operations are all fascinating subjects, but my interest as always is in the logistics. The official history of the intervention in East Timor, although written, has yet to appear, and I'm not expecting a great deal on logistics, as the World War II and Vietnam volumes are very poor in this regard. (The US volume on logistics in Vietnam has also failed to appear.) So this article represents my best effort. It has passed GA and A-class reviews, and the latter included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find anything to nag about except WP:NBSP work needed. Good luck here, Hawkeye! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support, everything looks good here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

Overall: Well-written and well-researched article, no major red flags in terms of quality, neutrality and copyright, and it is well-referenced. As I read the article from top to bottom, here's what I found can be improved:

• "was a highly complex, and ultimately successful, endeavour": I wonder if we should skip including this conclusion in the first sentence and let the facts below stand for themselves.

  Sure. Why not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Eleven nations contributed transport aircraft to the ..., but over 90 per cent of the cargo and most of the passengers travelled by sea …" If the sea is the primary means of transport shouldn't that be mentioned ahead of the airlift?

  Swapped them around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• "transported by a naval task force that included the high-speed catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay and landing ship HMAS Tobruk, which brought supplies from Australia by sea. Crucial support came from the replenishment oiler HMAS Success and tankers HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur." What is the difference between the roles of the first 2 ships and the last 3 ships, that they needed to be listed separately?

  The first two were moving troops and cargo, the latter providing logistical support. With the exception of the UK, English-speaking people have to travel long distances to get anywhere much, so at-sea refuelling and logistic support are essential; but many other navies lack this capability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• The logistical support units spent the next two months catching up and eliminating backlogs: which months were these? The start date of the mission wasn't mentioned at this point.

  Changed to "October and November"

• I think the leads are missing these info: when the mission starts and ends (in months if not dates), as well as a brief background of East Timor's status (did it already gain independence, or is in transition?) as well as why INTERFET was deployed.

  Added: "INTERFET deployed to East Timor in September 1999"

• The island was formally divided between the Netherlands and Portugal in 1637: 1661 is the year mentioned by the reference?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• the first Portuguese governor of East Timor was appointed in 1702: The ref says 1701

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Any idea who were on the island or ruled it before the Europeans came? I'd suggest 1-2 sentences for the sake of completeness because paragraph 1 of background seems to focus on the colonial history, and begins with the Portuguese establishing a settlement which seems very European-centric for a non-European island.

  The East Timorese of course; my main concern was not with colonialism, but explaining how the island came to be divided in two. Added a couple of sentences: "The island of Timor has been populated for up to 40,000 years, populated by successive waves of immigrants from southern India, Malaysia and Melanesia. It was ruled by small kingdoms that traded spices, slaves and sandalwood with their neighbours."

• "the preferential allocation of resources to combat capabilities and the acceptance of risk in logistics functions brought the Army to the precipice of operational failure.": name the source of this quote inline

  Any reason why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • In my view, this quote is an opinion, and WP:WIKIVOICE recommends that opinions are not stated in Wikipedia's voice (already done, by using quotation marks) and attributed to the source making the opinion. HaEr48 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

    • @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

      Very well. The point is that liked the quote, which neatly sums up the consensus among historians; but the author of the quote is less of an authority than the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Planning and organization: I understand that because Australia is the coalition leader it merits more coverage, but can we please find something about the other nations, especially those that sent large contingents ? I think this is important for the comprehensiveness criteria because other nations account for about half the troops.

• Added a paragraph on New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Alternatively, if Australia was actually responsible for all logistics in the mission, we should add more info about how it came to be that way, e.g. was there any coordination or discussion among the other nations that decided it this way? I think it's important both for comprehensiveness and to provide context to readers on why the rest of the article is so Australian-centric. Right now, Australia's almost exclusive role is presented as a given without much context.

• The codename Operation Stabilise was given to operations in and around East Timor, while Operation Warden included its logistic support activities in Australia: The second part is a little ambiguous, does Warden include or exclude operations in East Timor? If it is excluded, maybe the preceding sentence should be reworded because it gives the impression that Warden is entire intervention.

  Added "also" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• However, due to its isolation, Darwin had better facilities than other cities of similar size: suggest explaining the causal relation between isolation and better facilities, it is not very obvious for the general reader like me.

  "Due to its isolation, Darwin had to be more self-supporting, and therefore had better facilities, than other cities of similar size" ?

  • Sounds good. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• The outsourcing of "non-core" logistical functions in the ADF had created critical shortages of many essential trades ranging from cooks to port terminal handlers: Isn't the point of outsourcing to expand the workforce? why does it cause shortage?

  No, the purpise is to contract the workforce. Added: "as many of these jobs were no longer performed by military personnel" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• In "planning" Wilkinson was appointed Logistic Component Commander on 26 August, but in "organization" the date is 30 August - any reason for the different dates?

  It is not uncommon for a commander to be designated

• Stapleton was "dual-hatted" as both NCC (Commander, Task Group 645.1), answerable to both Cosgrove (Commander, Task Force 645) as COMFLOT (Commander, Task Group 627.1), and to COMAST's Maritime Commander, Rear Admiral John Lord (Commander, Task Force 627): Are there to many "both"s in this sentence? Could it be reworded to clarify?

  Got rid of one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Spell out the full form of COMFLOT when first mentioned.

  Spelt out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Barrie announced: The operation will be Operation Stabilise…: is there any date of this announcement?

  19 September. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• "An important concern was the Japanese encephalitis vaccine regime": is it because the disease is endemic in East Timor, because there was an outbreak at the time, or…?

  Added that the disease is endemic to East Timor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Deployment: suggest reordering "Sealift" before "Airlift", because sealift seems to have had bigger contribution.

  Yes, but the airlift comes first chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Deployment: Did other non-Australian troops (especially outside Commonwealth countries) also deploy via Darwin/Australia? Could we add some explanation?

  The Canadians, New Zealanders and Kenyans are mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the landing ships HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, purchased in 1994: Suggest removing "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• The heliport was found abandoned: "The heliport" hasn't been mentioned before. Is it in Comoro, in the UNAMET compound, or somewhere else?

  It's in Dili. I supplied a map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Christianson went to the control tower and explained, through an interpreter since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia,: "Bahasa Indonesia" is the Indonesian name of the language, which seems weird in an English sentence. Suggest using the English word "Indonesian". Compare "he did not speak Español" (seems weird) vs "he did not speak Spanish"
  • Alternatively we can also get rid of "since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia" because it is implied from the use of translator

    Australians always refer to it that way. It's not obvious. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

    • @Hawkeye7: I know "Bahasa Indonesia" is often used colloquially, but I think in academic texts it tends to be "Indonesian". Started a discussion to get consensus here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Indonesian_vs_Bahasa_guideline, feel free to chime in too. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

      I wouldn't know; that is outside my area of expertise. The article has been changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• No. 381 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF assumed responsibility for the operation of the airport at Dili, while No. 382 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF operated Cakung Airport at Baucau: Did they take over all operations at the airports, or just INTERFET-related?

• All operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• " It was augmented by three French Air Force C-130Hs…" Suggest splitting the sentence because it is too long.

  Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Curious, is "C-130H" short for C-130 Hercules, or is it a variant of the aircraft? It seems both C-130H and C-130 are used in the text

  It is the model of the C-130. Everyone was flying the H model except the British, who had the K model See Lockheed C-130 Hercules#Further developments for all the technical details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "In order to effect Cosgrove's operational concept of flooding East Timor with as many combat troops as possible, Evans deployed ..." Suggest adding the roles of Cosgrove and Evans in INTERFET, here or before, as context to this statement.

  They are detailed earlier. In case someone is unsure which Evans is referred to, the text says "his brigade" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• as had occurred in the Vietnam War in 1966: Just to clarify: did this occur to Australia in 1966 or to the US-led coalition overall?

  We're talking about Australian forces here. Added a bit.

• ADF cargo was tracked using three computer systems, the Standard Defence Supply System (SDSS), Lotus Notes Interim Demand System (LNIDS), and the Cargo Visibility System (CVS): Given it mentions Lotus Notes as the developer of LNIDS, also mention those of SDSS and CVS for completeness?

  No, all were developed by DoD. The LNIDS is just an applicationuses Lotus notes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Each soldier had to carry a day's supply: is this Australian regulation applying to Australian soldiers or a general rule of thumb for everyone? Suggest clarifying because not all troops are Australian.

  No, everyone. At this point though, the foreign contingent consisted of the Gurkhas, SBS and NZ SAS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• the ADF had no ship-to-shore refuelling capability: Is there a good link for " ship-to-shore refuelling capability", to help understanding what that usually requires?

  No, unfortunately Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• With limited stocks of ammunition on hand, the 1,500 soldiers of the 3rd Brigade confronted some 15,000 TNI troops, who presumably had plenty of ammunition:
  • Not sure if confronted is the best word here, given that the mission was Indonesian-sanctioned? How about something like "In comparison, TNI had 15,000 troops in the area who presumably had plenty of ammunition"?

    Hmmm. Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Is the 3rd brigade singled out because they were the first one to be deployed?

    Yes. All INTERFET troops were assigned or attached the 3rd Brigade for operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• The first phase of this was Operation Lavarack, in which 2 RAR moved by air and armoured personnel carriers of B Squadron, 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment, by sea, to occupy Balibo, which was secured on 5 October
  • Can this be reworded to be easier to parse? Did 2 RAR move by air and APC, or did 2 RAR move by air and the APCs moved by sea (if the latter, why were only the APCs moved and not the squadrons themselves)?

    That wasn't what I meant; I just meant that B Squadron moved by sea with its APCs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• " He was assisted by students from the...": Is "he" Cavanaugh or Wilkinson?

  Wilkinson. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• The main body arrived in Dili on 3 December, but the ship carrying its heavy plant and equipment did not reach Brisbane until 27 November: 27 November is still before 3 December, so why is it a "but"?

  Because Brisbane is not Dili. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "There was no vaccine" and "Nor was there any treatment other than rest": are these for both diseases or just dengue?

  Dengue. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "One Malaysian UN observer died from malaria.": suggest moving it before "A particular concern with dengue…" because (1) the death seems more significant than the nine soldiers getting treated (but alive) (2) the Malaysian sentence doesn't seem to be connected with the rest of the paragraph it is in.

  Added a bridge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "A prophylactic regime was instituted whereby personnel were given a daily dose of 100 milligrams (1.5 gr) of doxycycline commencing two days before departure from Australia and continuing for two weeks after returning": Who instituted it? INTERFET or Australian military? Is it for all INTERFET troops, or just Australian ones?

  Australians, although it is true of New Zealanders as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• three weeks after return from Australia: How about Australian soldiers, when did they get this primaquine?

  From the RMO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• told a CMOC meeting : what's a CMOC?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Postal: Interesting info, any info for mails from/to other countries further than Australia?

  No, but I'd be surprised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• took advantage of free mail delivery: Is it free due to the military mission, or due to Christmas? does the free delivery apply to soldiers from all over the world or just Australian?

  Just to Australians, but for the whole time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Indonesia recognised East Timor as an independent nation on 19 October, and TNI forces withdrew on 31 October, leaving INTERFET in charge: I think this is better placed as background than "end of mission" as it was closer to the beginning? Also, while reading the article body I kept wondering about when the status of East Timor change or if INTERFET interacted with TNI at all. This part provides the important clarification and I think is better to be mentioned in the beginning.

  You can see that the two overlapped by a considerable amount. This article being on logistics, the fighting is not described. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• End of mission: Could we have more info on when the troops started leaving and how? I am assuming there should be logistical aspects related to returning troops and their supplies

  Yes, but the scope of the article is INTERFET. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Hawkeye7: Shouldn't the scope include the return of INTERFET troops, then? HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

    Well, the article says that 10 FSB handed over to 9 FSB, and that INTERFET handed over to UNTAET. The treatment of diseases picked up in Timor is mentioned. The washing of vehicles and equipment is mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Or did the troops not return at this point because they also made up UNTAET's forces? If yes, it could be mentioned also

• 2 and 3 RAR returned to Australia leaving 5/7 RAR behind with UNTAET.

• End of mission: Suggest switching the order of the sentences starting with "On 20 February 2000" and "Australian logistical support". The former sentence is a bit surprising without context (why would you switch units with just 3 days left?), but the latter sentence provides that context and is better to be first, IMO.

  It will be out of chronological order then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• While the troops had good reason to be critical of a lack of spare parts, medical supplies and amenities, they still received logistical support on a scale that many other armies could only dream about: The last part reads quite hyperbolic, suggest either rewording or using quotation mark if it's a verbatim quote

  Switched to a quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Cosgrove had the resources he needed to carry out his mission: "INTERFET had the resources he needed to carry out its mission" to avoid focusing on just one person?

I'm talking about command and generalship here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Retrospect: Can we add perspective from other nations about the support they received in East Timor?

  Added some more about New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Hawkeye7: Anything for the retrospect section? HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

    Don't have anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Picture: HMAS Tobruk: is the ship the left one or the right one?

• The one on the right. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Picture: "HMCS Protecteur in 2014": is the ship the one in front or back?

  Foreground. It is being towed by the tugboat USNS Sioux, Embarassing for the ship, but it's a nice image of it.

• Some sources need more complete info for example author, date, and more precise description of publisher: footnotes 14, 20, 29, 33, 42, 43, 53, 61, 110

  @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this too. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  {{cite web}} requires, url, access-date, title and publisher only. These have been supplied. No other details are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have also edited lightly when I am confident about the needed improvement, feel free to modify any if it's not appropriate.

• Disclaimer: I am competing in WikiCup and planning to claim points from this review.

  Well deserved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope I don't bore you with too much feedback, and hope they are useful. Good job and thank you for your work. HaEr48 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I should see if I can get Zawed to check the New Zealand section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a gander and made a few edits to correct some typos. There was one sentence (being on 28 days readiness) that I wasn't sure of, so please check my edit there is correct. I have the Crawford & Harper ref, will doublecheck it later today/tomorrow. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for the excellent responses. I have some follow up comments which I marked in blue above to make them easy to find. Please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support the article is in great shape and I do not have further suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "brought troops and supplies from Australia by sea" You do not need "by sea" as you have said it on the line above and named ships.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur" I would specify New Zealand and Canadian. NZ is obvious but I had to check what C referred to.

  I don't think the redundancy would be appropriate in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• You show the statistics in the 2nd paragraph in different ways. 90% and most for sea, and exact quantities for air. I suggest giving the exact numbers by sea in brackets if the information is available.

  I regret that the exact figure is not available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• You have logistics or logistical six times in the final paragraph of the lead. Would it be correct to replace "vehicles and logistical support" with "vehicles and other supplies" and "inadequate logistics" with "inadequate supplies"?

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think the early history of Timor is relevant in such a specialist article, although that is personal opinion.

  I agree, but see the comments above from other reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Your explanation of the situation before independence is very unclear. If I understand correctly, before WW2 West Timor was part of the Dutch East Indies and East Timor was a Portuguese colony. The whole island was occupied by Japan during the war and handed back to the colonial powers after the war. West Timor became part of Indonesia in 1949, but the east stayed Portuguese until 1974. A civil war then broke out between the pro-independence Fretilin and the UDT, which opposed independence except during a short period of cooperation with Fretilin. This should be spelled out if correct.

  Sounds like you understood correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Indonesia should be wikilinked, but should it be at the first mention of the country, which is as "Indonesian" or the first mention of "Indonesia"?.

  We don't wiki-link present-day countries like Australia and Indonesia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Oecussi enclave". The article on Oecussi describes it as an exclave. I have never heard of this word before, but it is correct and enclave wrong according to Enclave and exclave.

  Except for the sea border, it is entirely surrounded by Indonesia, hence is a semi-enclave. It is also a semi-exclave. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• ""teeth-to-tail" ratio". Is there an article you can link to?

  Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "the very same cuts in logistic capability rendered this impossible" I am not clear what you are saying here. I assume you are referring to the "administrative cuts", but I would take this to mean in desk personnel rather than logistical capabilities (which presumably means mainly transport and storage facilities and stocks).

  Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "which based in Sydney" "which was based in Sydney"?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "developing plans for Operation Spitfire, the evacuation of foreign nationals and selected East Timorese". I think it would be clearer to start the paragraph with something like "The first task, which was to evacuate foreign nationals and selected East Timorese, was designated as Operation Spitfire."

  I don't see how that would work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I realise that Australia and NZ took the lead roles, but it seems unbalanced to give an extremely (excessively?) detailed account of their preparations, down to who attended which meeting, and not a word of the logistical preparations of the other 21 countries which took part.

  The article also covers the United States and Canada. These four countries accounted for nearly all the in-theatre logistics. I have accounts from Thailand and the Philippines, but only Kenya contributed to the logistical effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "and joined the TNI personnel there". The very high use of initials makes the article difficult to follow for non-experts. It would, for example, make it easier for readers if you wrote here "and joined the Indonesian army personnel there".

  TNI is the Indonesian armed forces, the Indonesian equivalent of the ADF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Singaporean RSS Intrepid, and the Danish civilian ship Arktis Atlantic". No change needed, but is the first ship redlinked and not the second on the principle that every naval ship deserves its own article but not every civilian one?

  That and the fact that it is already red-linked in other articles. Two of its sister ships have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• "we saw pallets of beer being loaded on hercs" The next sentence refers to Darwin but I am not clear whehter the whole Canadian quote refers to Darwin.

  Added "in Darwin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• " black and grey water". These could be linked to Blackwater (waste) and Greywater.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a first rate article. I found it difficult to follow due to the excessive use of initials, but I assume that this is standard in this type of article. The only major fault is the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the background section, which are a collection of facts rather than a clear explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  A clear explanation of what? The purpose of the background section is to fill the reader in on how the situation came about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I pointed out above that you have not clearly explained the history and suggested what needs to be covered. You agreed that my summary is correct, but did not amend the article. It is not relevant that the Japanese invaded on 19 February 1942, or that Australia supported Indonesian independence and proposed that East Timor become a UN trusteeship. What is relevant is that after the war West Timor became part of Indonesia and East Timor reverted to being a Portuguese colony, but you have not said so. I would delete the whole first paragraph as too off topic, but if you do give the earlier history you need to state it clearly. I would start the background something like: "Timor is an island of 30,777 square kilometres, 700 kilometres north-east of Darwin in Australia. After WW2, West Timor became part of Indonesia and East Timor was a Portuguese colony." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• The early history is about how East Timor became a Portuguese colony, and how it became politically separated from ethnically identical West Timor. It is relevant that the island was occupied by the Japanese as it was this that created the sense of obligation between Australia and East Timor without which INTERFET would never have occurred. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles and Hawkeye7: How are we doing at resolving this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

As a disclaimer, I originally suggested to Hawkeye that he develop this article. As I've noted elsewhere, the results have been great, even by Hawkeye's usual standards. I reviewed this at ACR, and the changes since then look good. I have the following comments, all of which are minor:

• "The ADF had not anticipated commitment to such a large peacekeeping mission" - the tense is a bit off here ("The ADF had not anticipated being committed to such a large peacekeeping mission", perhaps?)

  Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie, centralised strategic and operational planning for the projection of forces to East Timor at ADF Headquarters, bypassing the service chiefs." - Was this a change in procedures? I thought that the arrangements where the service chiefs are responsible for "raise and sustain" functions only and don't have operational control of their forces were in place by this time.

  You're quite right; they don't have operational control. But the service chiefs retained a role as "senior environmental advisors", so it was indeed a change in process. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• "in case one had to make an emergency landing" - should this be " in case any had to make an emergency landing", or was there only a capacity to respond to a single incident?

  Changed to "any" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The 198th Works Section deployed on 2 and 5 October." - I'd suggest noting the role of this unit

  Added: "This was a unit that planned, coordinated and managed construction tasks." Hope that is clear enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Support My comments are now all addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this fine article's promotion to FA status. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

SMS Roon

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an article I'm quite pleased to see finally make it to FAC - it's come a long way since August 2007. Part of the Armored cruisers of Germany good topic, this article covers one of the later vessels, which had an interesting career, serving as a flagship of the German scouting force, seeing action during World War I in the Baltic, and ending up slated to be converted into a seaplane carrier, although the war ended before the conversion could be carried out. As I alluded to earlier, this was a fairly old article I wrote back in 2008–2009 that I overhauled last year, after which it passed a Milhist A-class review. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

I'll do this one as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CPA-5, are you still planning to stop by? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Did it, sorry for the delay.

• SMS Roon was the lead ship of her class of armored cruisers No SMS note?
  • Added
• had a top speed of 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph) Unlink the common units here.
  • Done
• in several operations against Russian forces Pipe Russians to the Russian Empire.
  • Done
• 2,000 metric horsepower (2,000 ihp) and speed by .5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) This isn't an American-related article so add a nought in the knots.
  • Done
• She carried up to 1,570 t (1,550 long tons; 1,730 short tons) of coal Other sentences don't use short tons.
  • Removed
• Roon spent the following years participating in various --> "She spent the following years participating in various"
  • Done
• Link knots in the infobox same for nmi.
  • Done
• "SMS Roon in the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, c. 1910" Needs a circa template.
  • Added
• Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit numbers in the ISBNs?
  • Done

@Parsecboy: Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nice work, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

The references are all appropriately formatted, and the sources are of high quality, exactly what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Spotchecks not conducted due to nominator's long record at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR so only have a few minor things to add here:

• in the first sentence I suggest adding "in the 1900s" after "(Imperial Navy)"
  • Good idea
• link knots in the lead
  • Done
• drop the comma in "In September 1911,"
  • Done
• were the 8.8 cm guns in the superstructure open mounts?
  • Clarified
• suggest being consistent with the deck armour measurements between the infobox and body, one in mm the other in cm
  • Fixed
• full stop after Fritz Hoffmann
  • Good catch
• Eugen Kalau vomn Hofe
  • Eugen Kalau vom Hofe is correct - "vom" is a contraction of "von dem"
• perhaps state that HMS New Zealand was a battlecruiser
  • Done

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: - anything else you'd like to see addressed? Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, thanks for the ping. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Llammakey

• The length is not converted to feet/inches, only feet in both text and infobox
  • Good catch
• Metric horsepower linked in infobox but not text
  • It is, in the first para of the design section
• In Service history section, would rewrite the sentence "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" as "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship Roon, after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" otherwise it sounds like von Waldersee took a turn christening the ship after von Roon.
  • Good point
• Since you use ship and Roon in that sentence, would suggest changing "the ship" in the following sentence to "the cruiser" to break up repetition (since "ship" is also used in the word "flagship".)
  • Works for me
• Are the two minelaying cruisers named Albatross different ships? If they are not, the second link in the Baltic operations section can go, as well as the "minelaying cruiser"
  • Fixed - didn't catch it since the first link lacked the dab
• "retreat of the Albatross" - remove the definite article
  • Fixed
• "break into the Gulf" - no need to capitalize gulf there.
  • Fixed

That's all I could find. Otherwise good stuff. Llammakey (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support - no problem Llammakey (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Suggest scaling up the plan
  • Done
• File:Roon_linedrawing.png is tagged as lacking author and description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Added. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

I reviewed this article during its A-class review, and by and large I have little to add.

• Use {{lang}} templates for foreign-language terms please.
  • Done
• "..with the belt armor being 10 cm.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
  • Reworded
• In the lead it says that "There, she formed part of the reconnaissance screen during the raid on Yarmouth in November.." and in the body of the article, this is described as "The ships then escorted the main body of the High Seas Fleet during the raid on Yarmouth on 2–3 November." It's not immediately apparent to me if those two descriptions are exactly synonymous. Assuming that they are, I vastly prefer the plain phrasing used in the body; consider adopting similar in the lead, as "reconnaissance screen" is not accessible to a layperson.
  • Works for me
• "Roon was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Kaiser.." If I've learnt anything from these articles, that means she was replacing a ship called Kaiser, right? Can that be mentioned explicitly?
  • Done
• "Prince Heinrich had pressed for such a cruise the previous year.." It would be worth providing context of why Prince Heinrich's opinion mattered. (A quick look suggests he was commander of the High Seas Fleet?)
  • Good idea
• "..the armored cruiser Blücher, which had been transferred to I Scouting Group, and on 25 August.." It's not that important either way, but I'm not sure the explanation of why Blücher needed replacing is necessary in this article.
  • I think we could safely lose that.
• I wonder if so much detail is necessary in the Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby paragraph. Including all the specific times seems to me to give the impression that it is very important information, and I felt like I had to pay very close attention. The stylistic difference to the rest of the article makes it stand out, and I'm not sure the content warrants it. Harrias ^talk 15:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• That's a fair point - I've trimmed the times. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Nice work; I don't have any further concerns with this article. (Disclaimer; I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review.) Harrias ^talk 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review etc. from Shearonink

• Permissions/sources for images look good, all check out.
• All images (except infobox one) need alt-text
• short description ("ship") is...well...kind of too short.
• Personal observation - she was a beautiful ship. Wow. Shearonink (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi Nate, I know this isn't Harrias' area in terms of MilHist FAs (or indeed FAs in general given his cricketing interest) but I think we'd benefit from a quick look from someone outside the MilHist fraternity, if you could try and scare one up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wales national football team home stadium

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the history of home venues used by the Wales national football team. This article was started quite sometime ago and was on my list of possible improvements for sometime before I finally got round to it. I think it makes for a relatively interesting read and is now up to the standard required to be a FA. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Move south and pre-war success: In "made it the last Wales International held at a rugby ground until 1989", why is "International" capitalized? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just a typo, thanks for spotting that. Kosack (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• You overuse "host", sometimes twice in one sentence. I realise there's bound to be some repetition, but a bit more variation is possible

• I've removed around a quarter of the uses and replaced them with alternatives. Let me know if there are anymore that seem particularly repetitive that I may have missed. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• alternate venues—unless you are writing in US English, I think you mean "alternative". If the word is what you meant, say which venues are alternating - Done
• one English newspaper—no harm to name it here

• Unfourtantley, the source itself only refers to an English newspaper rather than the specific title. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Crowd control was an issue again as large numbers of spectators watched the game for free—not sure that this is a crowd control issue, just free spectating

• I've replaced crowd control with gate control to hopefully reflect the situation clearer. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau—perhaps a Saesneg translation too? - Done
• dramatic drop in attendance for international matches due to Welsh results in qualifying competitions—insert "poor"? - Done

@Jimfbleak: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No other queries, supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• Just doing a random sampling of online sources.

  Ref 5--Used accurately, no close paraphrasing

  Ref 8 (also checked #7 as both are paired)--Information present, used appropriately. Happy with these.

  Ref 33--Mentions the stand being destroyed by fire but I can't see any reference to thieves with explosives; where did this part come from?

  Added a source for that. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ref 45--Source doesn't mention that the attendance record stood for 40 years, but does state that it was a record for the venue. I would assume the length of the record may be mentioned in the previous ref (44) but this is an offline print source which I can't check. If it is, consider appending an inline citation after the "40 years" claim.

  Added an inline cite. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ref 67--On its first use, it's used appropriately, but it might be worth noting why the Taylor Report lead to a decrease in capacity (converting standing to all seated) as this information is in the source to be used. Second use is appropriate too.

  Added the conversion to seating info. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ref 83--Not sure of this one. The article specifically mentions success in the 2016 Euros which the source doesn't specify ("In the intervening seven years, fans have packed the smaller Cardiff City Stadium to create a fervent atmosphere, which has been an important factor in recent Welsh success", but that doesn't attribute anything to any one tournament). This may need either reworded or an additional source used to back up the specific claim.

  Added a source that mentions the atmosphere as a positive during the qualifying campaign. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ref 85--Seems fine. Perhaps a degree of reading between the lines for the claim of Cardiff's capacity being an issue but it does mention increased crowd size definitively and the claim of future matches for large crowds is there in black and white.

• Seems like there are a few issues which could be looked at here; I can take another look at this once these have been addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Grapple X: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  The additions seem fine; AGF on the new print source as always. I'll check another few at random shortly just to make sure nothing else has slipped through the cracks. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Round two:

  The current ref 83 (Grauniad article) points to a "page not found" error. It might be possible to relocate it on their site or try an archival link.

  Fixed url. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ref 9--fine

  Ref 71--fine

  Ref 68--Source doesn't mention the claim that "the side suffered its first defeat at the site of the National Stadium since its original incarnation in 1910".

  Added further cite. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ref 6--Source doesn't mention Hampden Park nor when it hosted any international matches; only that the Racecourse is the record-holder.

  This was actually from the previous ref but a copy editor suggested splitting the refs to separate sentences. I've moved them back together now so this covers the info. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Having taken two passes at the sources here, it unfortunately seems to me that although this article is well-researched and put together, it isn't necessarily reflective of its sources--I'm sure a lot of this information is true but it's been fairly common to see information attributed to sources which make no mention of it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's a little unfair to suggest that given the points I've addressed in the second pass. A handful of positioning fixes has fixed the majority of your points, that doesn't suggest the sources are not reflected correctly. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, every instance raised has been addressed so far but there have been several instances of sources used to cite information which they don't mention, which is more than a "positioning fix". I haven't gone as far as opposing, as the prose and comprehensiveness all seem more than good enough, but it's at least fair to point out the teething problems with sourcing so any passing co-ord can judge whether they're satisfied that it's been adequately addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 13:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Grapple X: I've gone through every reference in the article over the last two days (both online and offline) and tightened where possible, adding extra refs for anything remotely borderline and splitting extended page numbers into more precise sections. I'd appreciate if you could take a further look which will hopefully change your mind. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Lee Vilenski

I did the GA review of the article, and outside of the comments I made then, there's not much to show this isn't suitable for promotion. The only thing I would like is either all the images to show on one side, or that they alternate. Nothing stopping me from supporting though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

This still needs an image review and further comprehensive commentary before we consider for promotion. I've listed at FAC Urgents but if we don't get much more in the next week or two I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Herbert Maryon

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK

• This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.

• Our article and the source provided there seem to support the Commons claim. Do you have any alternate sources suggesting that signatures aren't protected by copyright in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Statue of Industry at the North East Coast Exhibition after tarring.jpg: do we know why this is believed to be PD?

• Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).

• I understand that, I'm just wondering why they have that belief in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Valsgärde 6 (Greta Arwidsson) - Taf. 1 - Helmet.png needs a US PD tag

• Added.

• File:Maryon - Dalí Colossus.png: are both of the images believed to be non-free? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• There are a bunch of duplinks in rather close succession throughout.

• Thanks, FunkMonk. Good point about the links—removed other than the post-nominal in the first paragraph, where the first link might get overlooked. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?

• Exactly.

• "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?

• Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.

• "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.

• Added. It's now The University of Reading War Memorial, designed by Maryon and dedicated in 1924

• "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?

• Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).

• "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[12][13]

• Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.

• "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?

• Linked to handbook.

• Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?

• Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini

• Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.

• W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.

• "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...

• Done.

• "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?

• Nope, removed.

• "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?

• 1933, added.

• "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?

• Added: These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson in 1929, and Sir Charles Parsons in 1932

• "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?

• Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.

• "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?

• Done.

• "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?

• Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".

• "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?

• Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935

• The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?

• Done.

Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?

• Done.

• "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?

• Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.

Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?

• Done.

• "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.

• Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."

• "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?

• Done.

• You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time

• Fixed.

• I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.

I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.

• " J. C. Orelli's" Full?

• Done.

• "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?

• Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.

Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I think I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Last tiny issue, I don't see this specifically stated in the article body: "and began an around-the-world trip lecturing and researching Chinese magic mirrors".

• FunkMonk, it's in Herbert Maryon#Later years: Before his departure Maryon had been planning a trip around the world, and at the end of 1961 he left for Fremantle ... From Australia Maryon departed for San Francisco ... Maryon devoted much of his time during the American stage of his trip to visiting museums and the study of Chinese magic mirrors ... His trip also included guest lectures, such as his talk "Metal Working in the Ancient World" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 2 May 1962 ... Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I read it as if the trip around the world was for researching Chinese magic mirrors and lecturing about them. Maybe the text can be clarified a bit. Anyhow, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I assume this would be a difficult subject to get a coherent story from if an actual biography hasn't been published, but I think it succeeds. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.

• I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.

• Footnote 8: The vast number of news sources is completely unnecessary. List one or two per country explicitly stating which country. That's much more useful and better for showing "international attention".

• How does it look now, with the cites now as external links rather than footnotes? Numerous newspaper articles were published, including in the United Kindom, Canada, and the United States. See § Colossus articles.

• Is it really necessary to cite five different obituaries? Just one probably suffices for this information. Move others to external links if they are providing unique info not in the article already. (per WP:EL) buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Necessary is perhaps the wrong word, but (I think) they add some interesting color. As I mention below, the five citations are hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier.

• Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.

• This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library.

• I would consider moving the complete list to a talk page or other non-mainspace location, just a suggestion. buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Although personal preferences certainly vary, the list is something that I think adds value, and that (in keeping with my prior practice—see for example Caroline Brady § Publications and D. H. Turner § Publications) I would prefer to add. And though WP:NOT does not appear to say anything about the issue, WP:MOS § list of works actively supports its inclusion: "Complete lists of works ... are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet."

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Buidhe, and sorry it's taken some time to get back to you on them. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Buidhe, just wanted to check in to see if any have any further comments. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• "by 1954 Herbert Maryon had spent 60 years tracing back the history of the family." is cited to a self-published source which doesn't meet WP:SPS. Nominator added this back after it was removed by another user. buidhe 03:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Buidhe, I’m sorry if you thought I meant to overlook your thoughts regarding the self-published work that you removed. I realize that undoing an edit is sometimes an overly abrupt maneuver, and I could have been more clear about why I did it. Did you happen to see my edit summary? I agree that it could be problematic to rely on it for whatever genealogical records are recorded within; I only meant to rely on for the discrete fact that Herbert Maryon had, as of 1954, spent some 60 years researching his family’s past. I don’t think it’s a controversial point—he probably just told the author as much in a letter, and the copious amount of material at the Essex Records Office makes clear that Maryon was indeed an amateur genealogist. But please let me know if you see it differently. By the way, I hope to respond to your other points later today. Best, —Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Buidhe, further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• It may well be true, but that doesn't exempt it from WP:RS. There's no evidence that the author of this work (who is not Maryon) meets the requirements for WP:SPS. Deriving the same information from Maryon's personal papers is original research, of course. buidhe 04:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Buidhe, one of the explicit exceptions to the general disfavoring of self-published sources is for uncontroversial information about which an author would be expected to have personal knowledge. The spirit of that exception would seem to hold true here. But rather than belabor an exceedingly minor point, I've removed that source and sentence. Hopefully that will allow us to turn to any further comments on the article you may have. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned non-free content criterion 2.

• I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.

What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.

• In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?

• Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...

• "coined the term pattern welding to" Words as words; you should use italics.

• Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.

• Have you seen File:Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in Kentmere Church.jpg? It need a FOP tag, but it might be a good addition to the early sections as a demonstration of his arts and crafts work.

• Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

Ok, more:

• Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?

• italicized, and changed to One such note.

• "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.

• Yep, done.

• "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??

• Fixed.

• "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?

• It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.

• "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?

• The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.

• That's a comma splice, I think. How about Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber. Plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?

• I think that's still a little ambiguous. It's just not clear what the this refers to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?

• I thought it was just the plaster? Not "the mixture [of plaster and umber]"? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.

• "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.

• No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."

• "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here

• The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?

• Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?

• Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.

• This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.

• Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.

• At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.

• Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, J Milburn—I appreciate the review. With apologies for tackling it piecemeal, I think I've finally responded to everything. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, yes, I was surprised to see your initial comments touch on only two thirds of the fair use/logical quotation/lead length trifecta! I’ve taken some more out of the first paragraph, although as noted above, I’ve had some difficulty in shortening it further; the guy did a lot of things in his 91 years & 2 careers, and a lot of it is noteworthy. Is there anything In particular you would consider removing from the lead? —Usernameunique (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Images (again, sorry): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy with your explanation for the lead image. If we've definitely no free image, that one's probably usable.
• File:University of Reading War Memorial.jpg: If this is a Maryon-designed building, we probably need a FOP tag. I think there's some confusion about "Andrew Smith" on the image page.

• Done. And removed the "Andrew Smith" link; looks like a bot put that in 2012.

• File:Statue of Industry at the North East Coast Exhibition after tarring.jpg This probably also needs a FOP tag, as the statue is no doubt copyrighted.

• Done.

• File:Valsgärde 6 (Greta Arwidsson) - Taf. 1 - Helmet.png Was this definitely published in the US, as the PD tag claims?

• Yes. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey J Milburn, just wanted to see if you have any further comments on this. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: The Winged Victory image will need a FOP tag - as well as some details about its location! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

J Milburn, I'm not sure we'll need a FOP tag for that one, as any copyright appears to have lapsed through publication. Its style—taken from Maryon's teacher Alexander Fisher—was published at least as early as 1900, and the one distinguishing characteristic of Maryon's design—the cast of Nike—was published in 1904. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If the work is PD, that's fine - you're right that no FOP tag would be required. But perhaps you could explain that on the image page? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

J Milburn, done. —Usernameunique (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Leaning support on prose and images. I still think the leads too long (and by the letter of WP:LEADLENGTH, it is) but that concern doesn't seem to hold as much water at FAC as some others. I've not looked into the lengthy bibliography, further reading, etc. sections, so this support is basically conditional on checks there coming back OK. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting reading. A few things.

• The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.

• I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."

• "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".

• Reworded.

• "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.

• Reworded: At the following year's exhibition a copper jug he designed was purchased by the Manchester School of Art for its Arts and Crafts Museum.

• "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.

• I'm not sure there's a link directly on point. Warden (college) seems to refer to a head of an institution, not the head of a hall. And Resident assistant#United Kingdom appears to refer to students, not faculty/staff.

• "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?

• I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.

• "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.

• Done.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above.

• Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Comments by Tim riley

Just booking my place. I'll be back with detailed comments after a proper read-through. (I happen to be working on an overhaul of Canon Rawnsley's article at present, and so this article is of particular interest.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. This is a splendidly researched article, focused on the subject with no excessive digression. The sourcing is wide and looks impressive. The illustrations are spot-on. I read the text with pleasure. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support but you may like to consider:

• I might prune the formulaic "tendered her resignation" to plain "resigned".

• Done.

• I wonder why in the same sentence The Bookman and The Spectator have a capitalised definite article but the Staggers doesn't.

• Fixed.

• "Maryon's time at Armstrong coincided with an interest in archaeology" – it isn't immediately obvious that the interest was on Maryon's part rather than that of the world in general.

• Reworded: Maryon's expressed an interest in archaeology while at Armstrong.

• "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943" – given that the World War II years were from 1939 to 1945 it might be smoother to redraw on the lines of "During WW2 he spent the years 1939 to 1943" or some such.

• Reworded: He spent most of World War II, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work.

• "Trustees of the British Museum to serve as a Technical Attaché" – rather a lot of capital letters there. Not sure trustees, technical and attaché need capitalising. There are a few other (over-reverential?) capitalisations elsewhere, such as "Director" in footnote 4. I do not press the point.

• It's a valid point—I generally kept the capitals from the sources, but that—if not over-reverential—preserves what is probably overly self-important. I've changed them except for "Technical Attaché," which perhaps(?) makes clear that it was his title, rather than a description. But I'm not wedded to that, and if you don't think it adds anything am happy to change it.

• "Harbor" – surely "harbour" in a BrE article?

• Fixed.

• As a G&S buff I really, really wouldn't refer to Frampton's subject as "Sir William Gilbert". "W. S. Gilbert" is what is wanted here, I am quite sure.

• Done. I changed a few of these due to FunkMonk's point about consistency (either initials or full names), but if people went by their initials, that makes sense to me.

• Australia – WP:OVERLINK

• Removed.

Those are my meagre gleanings. Nothing there to stop me adding my support. A fine article, fully meeting the FA criteria in my view. An interesting and remarkable man, and the nominator has done him justice. Tim riley talk 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and support, Tim riley. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to seeing Maryon on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 23:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources review

I won't pretend I checked every one of the numerous works, but here are my comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't much like links that don't go to any viewable content, eg "The Bernard Gilpin Memorial in Kentmere Church". Personally I only link to text that is either free to read or paywalled, but not to non-pages

• This may depend on one's location. In the US, where that source has spent decades in the public domain, Google Books allows one to view that content.

• As far as I can see, all the sources are appropriate, I looked at a few and they were correctly used.
• Two refs read identically as "statue". The British Museum Collection Online. The British Museum. Retrieved 8 January 2020. but link to different pages, perhaps add the museum number to differentiate

• I've changed to "Statue (Comedy)" and "Statue (Tragedy)".

• Arwidsson 1942, p. Taf. 1. I don't know what Taf means and I can't see the content, perhaps write in full/translate or whatever

• It's the German abbreviation for "Tafel", i.e., "Plate". In English, it would be "Pl." Here, given that the citation is in a photo caption, and the photo itself shows the abbreviation ("Taf. 1"), I think it's probably fine as is.

• But I can't see the content, so it's not obvious to all non-German speaking readers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's right here; "Taf. 1" is in the upper right.

• p. 312 & n.4. elsewhere you have separated non-consecutive pages with commas

• This cites to content in both page 312, and footnote 4 on page 312.

• There seems to be massive overlinking of people like Rupert Bruce-Mitford, and titles like "Studio Talk: Keswick" and The Studio. . Not clear why you aren't linking just once, per MOS

• Links seem to be treated differently in an article body, and in a bibliography; in the latter case, hardly any people read straight through, but rather look at sources selectively based on which citation brought them there. The long line of Bruce-Mitford citations does stand out, although I'd be hesitant to change the overall style based on one outlier.

• Review of Der Überfangguss. Ein Beitrag zur vergeschichtlichen Metalltechnik perhaps add translation of the German, but your call

• No objection to doing so, although I wouldn't trust my own translation of this. It also looks as if "vergeschichtlichen" might be a typo (for "vorgeschichtlichen"). Gerda Arendt, do you have any idea how this would be translated?

• Check title case, eg "Colossus of Rhodes Is Described As Hollow Sham". which has of...Is...As. In fact, several of the Colossus titles are incorrectly title cased, best check them all, need changing even if you have followed the original formatting

• Done.

• "MARYON, Herbert". shouldn't be full caps even if that's what source had, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital_letters

• Done.

• Schoolboys unearth golden hair tress more than 4,000 years old". other titles use title case

• Done.

• I may have another run through later, easy to miss something with so many

Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak. I've now responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

All looks OK now, I'll leave the translation with you, since that's your call anyway, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

SG

Not ready; the overcitation in the lead needs attention, as does the WP:NOT list of works at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've already responded to these specific points above. If you have any further comments about the content of this article, I would be happy to address them. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't agree on either point. The lead is overcited (does it not properly summarize the article?) and WP:NOT should be respected. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the MOS says that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Do you take issue with that, or is there another section you think is more relevant? Likewise, could you please point to the section of WP:NOT that you think guides against a comprehensive list of a subject's publications? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I see the overcitation is throughout the article, not just the lead, and there are prose issues ... I will review further tomorrow as this will take more time than I have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay; starting over now, as there is more to address here than I realized on my first pass. My usual procedure is to start review at the bottom of the article first, since some reviewers never make it down there. I also prefer to address the lead last. In process now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations

• There are two Harvard Ref errors (at Bruce-Mitford1983b and Pudney2000). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• Could you please explain the citation style? Perhaps I am just missing it, but here are just a few samples from only a few of the citations (please review throughout, this is only a sample list): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is inconsistent use of last retrieval dates. Journals do not require a last access date, but some newspapers have them while others don't?
    • I've removed about half of these, for the ones that have a stable underlying source (primarily a piece of paper such as a newspaper which will never change). I've left them for the other sources—mostly websites, including a few newspaper websites where I'm not sure what the print version (if it existed) looks like.
  • There is inconsistency on Volumes/Issues in the citations: most citations include volume when available, while the first citation for example (Annual report on Royal Ontario Museum) leaves it off.
    • Added. I think that one was missing due to unfamiliarity with using the {{cite report}} template. I didn't see another journal/report/similar missing volume information, but I've added volume/issue information for a number of newspaper articles.
  • Some citations use roman numerals for volume, even when the source does not: example https://www.jstor.org/stable/865852?seq=1
    • I use what the actual journal used. So if you look at the title page for that one, it uses Roman numerals. I've actually put a fair amount of time in trying to figure out how each journal numbers itself; every so often I'm unable to find the answer for a particular journal/date (some change over time), and in those cases I default to Arabic numerals.
• See WP:NOTCATALOG on this source. Since this is only covered in a Note (not in text), and there is independent coverage, the sales catalogue is not overly problematic, but you might consider whether to remove that link and stick with the independent source. I'm not fussed either way on this, other than noting external criticism that FAC needs to keep a better eye on WP:NOT, which we have historically neglected.
  • It's not a big deal, but the main add for that source is that it gives a color photograph of the casket. Theoretically it could also serve to give the sale price, but I've been unable to retrieve that information so far as I don't have a subscription to the website.
• What makes K Simon a reliable source? [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Also not a big deal, but it adds another work by Maryon, with a nice photograph to boot. The fact that the citation is being used for ('Maryon made this work') is also uncontroversial, especially since "H Maryon" is visible at the bottom right of the photograph. But feel free to push back if you disagree.
  • On second thought I've taken this out. Given that the date of the plaque isn't known, it's too speculative to group it in with the 1929/1932 plaques; it's better suited in Works of Herbert Maryon for now.
• A large amount of the citations are to Maryon himself: it might be helpful to have Ealdgyth or Johnbod review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is discussed more directly below, but what are you suggesting the review look for?

Works and Layout

• See MOS:BIB. One expects to find a list of works in the article, before See also, Notes and References, per WP:LAYOUT and MOS:ORDER. MOS:WORKS discusses books, but never mentions journal articles (curiously), but it does say "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". There are instances in the article where the relevance of his publications are mentioned, and others that are sourced to himself (example, and in 1939 he wrote articles about an ancient hand-anvil discovered in Thomastown,[145]; Maryon published the finished reconstruction in a 1947 issue of Antiquity.[180])
  The article says, "He also wrote some thirty archaeological and technical papers.[2][4][9][10]" so although I cannot access those sources, there is apparently some reliably sourced scholarship about his list of Works. Considering his theory on the Colussus was rejected by others, I am unsure if the entire list of his publications is warranted, but at minimum, could you follow LAYOUT and move it all to a Works section (as it initially read to me as a long WP:NOT list of External links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Do you have any suggestions for how to structure this? The reason it's at the bottom is so that the "Maryon 19##" references link down (like everything else), not up. But a few upward links may be worth it, especially here, where his works are somewhat hidden. One possibility would be to move "Publications" to after "Personal life", with books/articles/other becoming subsections of "Publications". Another possibility would be to make "Works by Maryon" a standalone section after "Personal life"; that would create a bit of redundancy in section titles, but be more in line with what you are suggesting.

Taking your other points in order, most of not all of the cites to Maryon's articles could be supplemented with another cite saying he did, indeed, write them. But they are uncontroversial points, the main utility of the cites is to give an interested reader a way to find the article, and there are certainly enough citations as it is. Paraphrased, sources [2][4][9][10] just say 'he wrote approximately # papers', sometimes mentioning one or two of them; they don't list them, giving extra utility to the list in the article. And it may be more fair to say that the Colossus article didn't catch on, than that it was rejected (see the bottom of footnote 9), but in any event, I'm not sure why scholarly disagreement over a nonetheless-influential paper would be a reason to not list an author's other publications.

MOS

• Please have a look at MOS:OVERLINK and review throughout. For example, San Francisco, World War (either; probably the most overlinked terms on Wikipedia-- everyone knows what World War I, and no one is likely to click on that article from this one) are low-value links that are not likely to be clicked on. Tailor is probably understood to most English speakers, as is a world fair. This is not a big deal or something I would oppose over, but it should be reviewed; please doublecheck throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delinked tailor, clock tower, world's fair (that one was particularly bad), Toronto, San Francisco, New York City. I left the world wars on the theory that—much as everyone knows what they are—someone might want to click over to learn more/start a new wormhole.
    • (talk page stalker) Food for thought: The sentence following the first appearance of World War I has a link to Minister of Munitions. That article links to World War I in its lead sentence. With MoM linking to the more general WWI, the link to WWI might not be needed. Your call. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Checking image captions, which look fine, but I encountered "The Valsgärde 6 helmet was one of the few published exemplar helmets at the time of Maryon's reconstruction." It is confusing that this helmet is never mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a subtle point, but compare it with the image and caption in the infobox; it's the same helmet (in fact the very same photograph in the very same book) that Maryon has open in front of him.
• I added samples of WP:NBSP; please review throughout.
  • I assume links are automatically non-breaking, so no need to do so for WWI/II/Elizabeth II? "25 workers" now has one, as do "350 odd", "356 plates", "1300 years", "500 pieces", and "526 examples". There are probably some other places they could be added (e.g., dates), although personally, breaking spaces have never annoyed me; the occasional break where there shouldn't be a space (e.g., when a quotation mark and the bracket that leads off the quotation find themselves are separate lines) are more of an issue.
    • I believe it was Reidgreg who indicated elsewhere that links aren't non-breaking and do need nbsps; perhaps they will weigh in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) Linked phrases will line wrap. I'll almost always use [[World War&nbsp;II]], the non-breaking space works fine in a link, it doesn't have to be piped. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the heads up, Reidgreg. Just adjusted accordingly. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• MOS:LQ generally looks fine, but could you check this one: yet added that "[b]y a system of grouping, however, according to some primarily aesthetic aim ... their inclusion is justified."
  • Will do, although it might take me a day or two to pull the source. What looks off about it?
  • Well spotted; what caused you to catch that? With the sentence before and after added, it reads in full: Apart from similar wise sayings his book is remarkable for its extraordinary catholicity, admitting works which we should find it hard to defend, often cheek by jowl, in the illustrations, with works of great merit. By a system of grouping, however, according to some primary aesthetic aim—as unity of line, on the one hand, or by historical or literary connexion, on the other—their inclusion is justified; and we agree with Mr. Maryon when he says that, though literary qualities alone cannot make great sculpture, they can make a work of sculpture more widely understood and appreciated. As he says, in conclusion, "The strongest roots of art are to be found, not in technical problems, but in life itself."
    • Ha, you think I can remember how I spotted something five days ago ? :) :) Generally, at this stage, I am just scanning the page for the standard stuff I check. Are you all caught up and should I kick up the speed here? My plate is full today, but I should be able to step up the pace tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks, SandyGeorgia—yes, given my own propensity to forget things from five minutes ago, that might be a bit of a stretch. Anyways, hope the VBB (Very Big Birthday) was fun. I just need to respond to the "Overcitation" section, but will get to that today. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I will continue in a bit with prose and citations, then to the lead; out of time for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Prose

A bit more time now for some prose redundancy checking.

• There are 20 instances of the word also (almost always redundant), including one paragraph with three instances of the word. Some are useful/necessary, but many are redundant. (Watch for "in addition", too.) Some samples only:

• Now down to only 10 uses of the word. The remainder are predominantly used to try to maintain flow, although I'm open to any suggestions you may have on rewording those.
• Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four designers who also taught drawing:

• four other drawing designers?

• Designing and teaching are distinct roles here: the former was about creating designs for the school to produce en masse, and the latter about teaching others how to draw. How about Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four employees who created designs and taught drawing:?

• He also had the help of his sisters:

• Removing this one seems to interrupt the flow; the "also" is used to provide continuity with the preceding sentencing, which also discuss the role of assistants at the school.

• Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee,

• Reworded: Maryon was often in conflict with the school's management committee

• The word subsequently. The article has nothing like the dreaded "He was mortally wounded and subsequently died" (d'oh), but not all of the uses are needed:

• Perhaps not, although "subsequent papers ... followed" isn't much better! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• He has subsequently been termed "[o]ne of the finest exemplars" of a conservator with a deep technical, as well as artistic and historical, understanding of the objects he worked with. (also, passive voice in the lead)

• Reworded: He has been remembered as. In my mind the passive voice helps focus on the point of the sentence (Maryon), rather than the less important part of who's doing the remembering (which is specified lower down).

• Maryon's account of the excavation was published in 1936, and subsequent papers on archaeology and prehistoric metalworking followed. … subsequent … followed, redundant.

• Removed.

• Much of his work has seen subsequent revision, … revision has to be subsequent, it can't be prior.

• Removed.

• … in 1951 a young Larry Burrows was dispatched to the British Museum by Life, which subsequently published a full page photograph of the helmet alongside a photo of Maryon. Subsequently adds nothing here.

• Removed.

• Overuse of the word however

• Its importance had not been realized during excavation, however, and no photographs of it were taken in situ …

• Changed to "Yet its importance..."

• Other opportunities to vary the prose:

• frequently … frequently: Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee, which was chaired by Edith Rawnsley and frequently made decisions without his knowledge.

• Now "often ... frequently".

• exhibited … exhibition: Maryon exhibited a child's bowl with signs of the zodiac at the ninth Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society exhibition in 1910

• Now "displayed ... exhibition". "Exhibition Society exhibition" remains a bit ugly, but perhaps unavoidable.

These are samples, to be checked throughout. More as I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Overcitation

Starting at the bottom of the article, with one sample, so we can work up to the lead. The "Personal life" section has five sentences of what appear to be basic fact, and fifteen citations:

In July 1903 Maryon married Annie Elizabeth Maryon (née Stones).[278][279][2] They had a daughter, Kathleen Rotha Maryon.[280][281][282] Annie Maryon died on 8 February 1908. A second marriage, to Muriel Dore Wood in September 1920,[2][283] produced two children, son John and daughter Margaret.[34][284] Maryon lived the majority of his life in London, and died in his 92nd year at a nursing home in Edinburgh.[34][285][286][287][288]

None of that looks controversial or difficult to source; is it? What are the excess citations adding? I cannot access many of the sources, but why add primary sources-- or multiple sources-- when secondary sources are available? Independently, is there a source for Annie's death date? Also, I can't find any mention of either her father's name or mother's name in Margaret Sawatksky's obit to verify who she is; possibly it's there and I'm just not seeing it, but that source doesn't seem to verify the text. Why does the final sentence need five sources? Several of the sources seem to say the same thing. If I can understand the citation here it might be a time-saver before digging in to other sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

None of that is controversial; rather, the different citations combine to provide extra information. The recurring theme here and elsewhere is citations used not just to support the facts in the article, but to provide a gateway to further information. See WP:CITE (noting the benefit of using citations to "help users find additional information on the subject").

Here, in the first string ("[278][279][2]") the first two citations are closer to the event in question, and (though there are no discrepancies), probably generally more reliable than the third, Who Was Who. The third nevertheless gives the imprimatur of a secondary source. In the second string ("[280][281][282]"), each citation provides different information; the first gives familial/occupation information, the second gives background information, and the third is a good secondary source with some added details. I've added the best source I can find (so far) for Annie Maryon's death. The third string ("[2][283]") is controlled by the same logic as the first. In the fourth string, ("[34][284]") 34 sustains the facts in the clause and 284 is background information on Margaret Sawatksky; among other details both sources mention her first husband's name (George Bowman), demonstrating that Margaret Sawatksky was the daughter of Maryon. The five-citation fifth string is hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have just come across this post, which leads to this chart, which calls into question whether ancestry.com should be used here. Are all uses of ancestry.com backed by a secondary source where appropriate, or can their use be minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We're lucky with Maryon that much of the information available in primary sources is also reflected in secondary sources. A prominent example of this from the article is the phrase Mildred Maryon, who the 1901 census listed as living with her sister [Edith],[77][78]; the second citation is to the census, and the first is to a secondary source which states Edith's sister, Mildred (born c.1881) is listed as an art student, designer and living at the same address in the Census of 1901. The half-dozen ancestry.com sources thus do little independent work, but serve to confirm secondary sources, show their work, and provide launching pads for interested readers. That is to say, the article would be substantially the same without them, but is marginally better with them. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• New note: MOS:DATERANGE does not like the way the year ranges are expressed in the section headings. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, SandyGeorgia. Changed. —Usernameunique (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good ... I've added a new section below to talk about the lead; the nitpicks here have all been dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Not entirely sure where this has got to, but I wanted to add my Support. It's beautifully written, comprehensive and immaculately sourced. I shared my concern regarding the over-citation, and the over-listing of articles particularly in relation to the Colossus, at the GA, which I did, and I think the adjustments that have been made subsequently have much improved it. There may still be a few instances where there are more than I'd personally use but, for me, that's not a deal-breaker. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, KJP1, and the support. Though it’s steadily worked its way down the page—which I assume is what you mean by not being sure where this nomination has got to—I think it’s in fairly good shape overall. All the comments so far have been addressed; fingers crossed, but I think the only open issue is whether SandyGeorgia has further thoughts. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the lead and overcitation

The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed; I have procrastinated on returning to this FAC because I have not found the words to express my discomfort and confusion about why the lead is written as it is. My discomfort would be much easier to express if Usernameunique weren't such a nice person and fine writer :) It would be so much easier to be opposed to a FAC if the nominator were a poor writer and an uncooperative person, but such is not the case here. Nonetheless, I feel I must go on record as being dissatisifed with the lead here.

Usernameunique, one of the main reasons I engaged this FAC was what you wrote in the FAC introduction:

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

That-- written free-form by you without the need to carefully cite and overcite each clause-- drew me in. It did the main thing a lead is supposed to do; it summarized to me why this fellow was interesting and worth knowing about and cultivated my interest in reading on.

But then, I hit the article and found a lead that did no such thing, and forced me to read around boatloads of little numbers, making me wonder why this fellow was so controversial and what the problem was. LEAD neither requires nor discourages citation, but it does tell us to "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". No balance has been struck here, we go the opposite direction in helping the reader when we give them too much, and the result is text that is a chore to read, compared to the brilliant introduction to this FAC. By writing it that way, it feels like you (the writer) have been constrained, and could not deliver the compelling introduction that you have at the top of the FAC. I visited all of your older FAs, and found this is atypical for your style-- the other leads were excellent-- and I cannot understand why you have chosen to do this here.

I have procrastinated to the point of rudeness in returning to this FAC, but I feel that I must oppose on the spirit of WIAFA: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. A lead like this does not exemplify Usernameunique's best work, or Wikipedia's best work. I am concerned that the Coords will see that as a non-actionable oppose, but the overriding principle of WIAFA should count as much as any individual point. If this overcited lead passes FAC, FA writers in the future will point to this citation as acceptable and hold it up as an example and think they should write this way. And after all this time, I still can't discern what it is accomplishing. I can't see why this is necessary and why we would want to encourage others to write a lead like this. It would be such a pleasing article if the lead read more like what you wrote freeform at the top of this FAC. I wish you all the best, and leave it to the Coords to decide what to make of this comment vis-a-vis WIAFA. (This is the hardest thing I have ever had to write at FAC.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Alas, I must second this comment. I had the same thoughts on the article but SandyGeorgia has expressed them much better than I could. buidhe 05:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

My issue with the list of Works is similar; what does this mean an an example for future FA writers? We have a guideline page that tells us about how to list Works (and the writers of that guideline probably had books in mind, not every single thing ever written by a given author). On the other hand we have a policy page at WP:NOT that tells us Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere". I have two highly reliable sources indicating that James F. Leckman took the reigns of Tourette syndrome research and is one of the most highly published authors ever on TS:

• Robertson MM, Eapen V (October 2014). "Tourette's: syndrome, disorder or spectrum? Classificatory challenges and an appraisal of the DSM criteria" (PDF). Asian J Psychiatr (Review). 11: 106–13. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2014.05.010 PMID 25453712.
• Mariam N, Cavanna AE (October 2012). "The most cited works in Tourette syndrome". J. Child Neurol. 27 (10): 1250–9. doi:10.1177/0883073811432887 PMID 23007298.

so should I add all 473 papers written by James Leckman to his article?[15] I have a clear case, backed by highest quality sources from experts in the field, about how significant James Leckman's body of work is. If I interpret the guideline pages as is being done here, I can create a web directory of all of Leckman's work. If I do that on an FA, everyone will then do that. I am still unclear what is being accomplished by listing all of those works, particularly when the premise behind a huge bunch of them was ultimately rejected. I don't want to stand in the way of the promotion of this article, but I just do not understand what is being accomplished here, and worry what it will mean as an example for future FAs. If an overwhelming reason for the need to do this were explained, perhaps I could get on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, again I have to concur with SG (also see my comments above). I also think that NOTDIR should usually trump the MOS in cases like these. buidhe 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, if I'm reading you correctly, your advice is to write worse FAC blurbs so as to lessen the expectations of reviewers? Joking aside, the reason that most of my other featured articles don't have citations in the lead (if not all) is because this isn't a hill I have much interest in dying on; so please see this edit.

I'm more surprised to see your renewed comments regarding the list of Maryon's works, which I had thought covered in your line above that The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed. Maryon, of course, does not have 473 publications; nor does he have 400, or 300, or 200, or 100, or even 50. If he did have as many publications as Leckman, handling them would require some thought. But his 48 books, chapters, and articles represent barely a tenth of that output, and while there are two handy non-Wikipedia articles cluing one in to all of Leckman's works, there is no such list for Maryon absent the one here. On a broader level I understand the reluctance to have citations in the lead, as it is the first thing a reader sees. Yet there is no such danger that a reader is going to make it down nine sections in the article, then suddenly be turned away because the publications section lists 48 works, not 35. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Most happy to see the overcitation gone from the lead: I would offer you my first-born, but I think I have already given him to about three other editors :) OK, on the remaining issue (the list of Works), how will we answer the medical bio editors who do attempt to add every published paper from a researcher if they can then point to this FA as an example? This is a serious problem in POV-pushing medical bios. Give me a compelling reason that will work across the board for this not to become an example that others might follow? Why not make it just the books and the most significant publications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, phew—I hear those things are expensive. I think the way we answer it is easy: this article stands only for the proposition that when a) a subject has fewer than 50 works, b) a list of those works is not available elsewhere, and c) there are no concerns that a list of works is behind used to advance a particular point of view, then including a complete list may be acceptable. If one of those factors is not met, then an alternative may be appropriate. Taking Leckman as an example, he fails the first two (and perhaps third) factors; an easy solution would be to include a curated list of significant works and link to his cv for the remainder. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, having something like that on record would satisfy me, so we would have a place to point if someone tries to do same in the future for someone with hundreds of entries. Now, we need to ask @WP:FAC coordinators: how to get more feedback to this aspect of this FAC, or if this is enough to satisfy them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Nearing support and enjoying reading up enormously. This seems odd -

• He had both an older brother, John Ernest, and an older sister, Louisa Edith, the latter of whom preceded him in his vocation as a sculptor. One brother and three sisters would follow—in order, George Christian, Flora Mabel, Mildred Jessie, and Violet Mary—although Flora Maryon, born in 1878, would die in her second year. - "both" and then "the latter" only explained...and then we say four others followed into sculpture? Or were they just younger? "follow—in order" is a bit vague. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ceoil. Good point. Edith and Herbert Maryon were the only sculptors; the others were just siblings. I've dropped the "both," and changed "would follow" to "came after." --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Have read through it all now, and made trivial edits along the way. Very impressed. My only remaining comment is re over citing, similar to Sandy above. I see why you are dong it (to direct readers to relevant sources), but it hampers readability, sets a poor precident, and per Johnbod's Law, undermines the claims. To take a random eg "Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto, where his son John Maryon, a civil engineer, lived.[156][227]". Could not be less contentious, but as stated I auto think, hmm. Your assembled sources already stand as an excellent biblography for those that want to read deeper. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Also I would seriously trim the external links, especially on the colossus. Separating the wheat from chaff is a worthwhile editorial activity. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the praise, Ceoil. Fair point re: citations. I've gone through again and taken a look at each time three or more refs are stacked. I've been able to cut back on a decent number of these, and certainly some of the uglier ones. Two citations, on the other hand, doesn't bother me; in the example you give above, [156] is the primary driver of the sentence but [227] is needed for the name of Maryon's son. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Grand, and thanks for addressing other points. Pleased to Support. Ceoil (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• ps I agree with Josh above that the lead is a little long. Not because it contains too many claims, but that they are a bit wordy (eg "Maryon published two books while teaching, including the standard Metalwork and Enamelling"...you cant say "two" and then say "including X & Y"), and "numerous utilitarian and decorative Arts and Crafts works, etc

• Removed the second part, and some other pieces. "Metalwork and Enamelling" is actually one book (despite the "and"); the other book is "Modern Sculpture," which is not mentioned in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article size is 139,086 bytes, but contains only 4,500 words...mostly due I guess to the large biblio and ext links sections. Recommend that you spin there out to a separate article. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wolf

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• What's the difference between lime and green?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality

Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work

I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Chinook2.gif needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Grenier_Saint_Martin_loup_MdlaC.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Tim riley, still reviewing? LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Lead

• "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.

Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.

We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?

No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".

Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

• "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Rest

• "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• more later Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, resuming. Sorry for the delay. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• These paras are too long & should be split: "The wolf has very dense and fluffy winter fur ..." (? at "In cold climates,..") and "A wolf's coat colour is determined by its guard hairs..." (at "In North America..."?)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ecology

• "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Behaviour

• Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yup:
• "An Iberian wolf in the Community of Madrid trotting in summer fur." - reads a bit wierdly. This is just the local authority area round the city. Better piped to "near Madrid".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Their vision is as good as that of humans" - including colour vision? Is so, should be said.

No. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• North America populations - I added Asian links - I think several states etc here need lks. plse check
• "having been exterminated in the British Isles in the 18th century" - the usual date given is 1680, in Scotland. In England they were extinct much earlier.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "In culture / Further information: List of fictional wolves" - better merge this with the "In fable and literature" hatnotes.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• break para at " Isengrim the wolf,". The following para needs a break too, prob before Kipling.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "considered to have had more influence than any other literary work in forging the wolf's negative reputation in the western world." Seems very overstated! The wolf hardly had a positive reputation in 1696.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "memoir Never Cry Wolf is widely considered to be the most popular book on wolves" - evidently big in Canada, and published in Russia, but was it ever published in the US or UK? Perhaps needs qualifying.

Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The wolf is a frequent charge in English armory" - heraldry is the word, indeed English heraldry.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Break para at "The wolf is featured on the flags of the Confederated Tribes ..."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Livestock depredation has been one of ..." another long para - brk at "The majority of losses..."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Small farmers surprised by a wolf" - "Petis paysans" = literally "small/young peasants/country people" Use "Country children" or something?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's it. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Happy to Support. All points fixed. Article meet FA standards. Nice read. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dank

• Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sainsf

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?

There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link territorial, pathogens

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the infobox,

• do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?

Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

• ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?

I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?

Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section

I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link divergence

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

• Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?

I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Diet

• In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Social structure

• The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article

The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Disablement

• deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Infections

• a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Status and conservation

• Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Relationships with humans

• would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere

It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.

Done. LittleJerry (talk)

• "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Support - I had my say at the peer review, which I conducted with FAC in mind. I wonder whether William Harris is co-nominator, as he is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey LittleJerry, sorry for the delay. I'll add all my comments by this weekend.. there shouldn't be many left though. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

• Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?

It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• dhole needs a link.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.

Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?

I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".

It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?

Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?

Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?

Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.

Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)

• Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?

Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.

Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.

• The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?

It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• please link "lagomorph".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?

They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [16])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.

See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Another important practical information that could be included is tracks, as these can be commonly found. I could add a sentence if you wish, but I'm not sure where it would fit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Tracks are not important. No other FA mammal article describes them. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Tracks are arguably important, as you are much likely to find tracks then to actually see a wolf in the wild. But I don't insist; the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Annoyingly I lost my notes. Will have to read the last part of the article again … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• For the Pawnee, Sirius was the wolf star – If we find the association with wolves in so many cultures, can it have a single origin?

Or maybe independent people notice the constellation is shaped like a dog/wolf. This is more relevant to the article on Sirius. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Although portrayed as loyal, honest and moral, Isengrim is forever the victim of Reynard's wit and cruelty – So Isengrim is the good, and Reynard is the bad? This does not really reflect the poem, where Isengrim is also characterised as greedy and dumb.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• The wolf in this story is portrayed as an allegorical sexual predator – only in a few very early versions there are elements of a sexual predator. I'm not sure if this interpretation is generally accepted, and the sentence "is portrayed as an … predator" is imo wrong. I would be more prudent and use "antrophomized" instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Being the most abundant carnivores, free-ranging dogs – this needs to be "the most abundant large carnivores", as there are smaller carnivores which are certainly more abundant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Support promotion with a proviso, or withdrawal without prejudice from Fowler&fowler

Note Please see the reasons for a change of vote at the end of the source-check section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11

51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I won't have time for a proper review but will do one of the lead. Here are a few questions:

• The wolf is also distinguished from other Canis species by its less pointed features, particularly the ears and muzzle.

• What other features are there in Canis species that can be assigned a degree of pointedness?

• If there aren't or if there are, but not readily identified by a common reader, would it be simpler to say, "... by its less pointed ears and muzzle."

• The wolf is nonetheless closely related enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and the golden jackal, to produce fertile hybrids with them.

• Is there a reason that the (presumably) post-Crick-and-Watson expression "closely related enough" is preferred to the more common "related closely enough?"

• The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur.

• And the summer coat?
• What is bushy other than the tail?
• Would it be better to say, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier? That way you get around having to say anything about the summer coat.
• "although" is not needed with "predominantly."
• Gray mottled with what? Predominantly brown?

• Up to 38 subspecies of wolf have been recognized including the domestic dog.

• This is probably obivous, but for rank beginners like me, it may help if you tell us, "recognized by whom."

• My error. It was late at night. My tired eyes did not see the Wikilink. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• The wolf is the most specialized member of the genus Canis for cooperative big game hunting, as demonstrated by its physical adaptations to tackling large prey, its more social nature, and its highly advanced expressive behaviour.

• Would it be clearer to say, "Of all members of the genus Canis, the wolf is most specialized for cooperative game hunting; this is demonstrated by ..."

More coming soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I fixed a few of the things that you asked but I will not be doing anymore, sorry. This article has had a copyedit pre-FAC and during this review has had four text reviews. At this point, reviewing wording is tedious. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes in the first few sentences. As for your refusal to make other changes, neither copy editors nor FAC reviewers typically review for coherence in relation to the sources. The sentence, "The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur," for example, as you must know, has been in the article for years, taken from the IUCN status survey (2004), p. 124, which says, " General appearance and proportions are not unlike a large German shepherd dog except legs longer, feet larger, ears shorter, eyes slanted, tail curled, and winter fur longer and bushier, and with chin tufts in winter. Fur is thick and usually mottled grey, but can vary from nearly pure white, red, or brown to black." When you say, "Winter fur is bushy," it is a statement of contrast. That is why I asked about the summer coat and suggested, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier." I could see incoherence, but at that point did not know the source. Now that I know, I can see that the sentence is not faithful to the source it is taken from. Why don't you paraphrase the IUCN description in some loose manner? I am trying to help you. :) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed all. Who recognizes the 38 subspecies is in the body. I was already told to remove Mammal Species of the World from the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I realized that. Please see my scratched bit above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have now carefully read the lead and see no further issues. I have skimmed the rest of the article. It meets all the FA criteria. I'm delighted to see a vital article, the kind whose absence I typically bemoan. My only regret is that (for some reason) I did not see this FAC submission earlier. I'm happy to support this article for promotion to an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Unless I missed something, I think we're still waiting for source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I reached out to a few people. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Axl? Casliber? Nikkimaria?? Ian Rose has stated on the FAC talk page that I just need a source review for reliability and formatting. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

See my note about about the IUCN source paraphrase. I don't have time to do a proper source review, but will make sure that the lead is reliably based on sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The source is not cited for fur color. A different source is used in the body. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review

I have now done a source check of the rest of the lead by comparing it with this version of May 2019 (in which the sentences were cited). I believe this is enough, as many sentences in the lead have not changed substantially since. The sentences are reliably sourced. I have also done spot checks for a dozen sentences in the rest of the article. I'm happy to report the sources are reliable and have been paraphrased faithfully. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95 has also looked at source formatting before the FAC submission. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I tidied a bit of the formatting just now. Source 122 (as of this writing) had no page number. It might exist in the page history; sometimes these things are inadvertently deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Tks F&F. I hope you understand my pedantry but I need to confirm whether the source reliability check was for the references in general (per our usual source reviews for reliability and formatting) or just for those used in the citations that were spotchecked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Ian Rose: No probs at all. The check involved checking every sentence in the lead (by going back in the article's history to the time when the sentences had citations and then checking the reliability of the source and the accuracy of the paraphrasing) and spot-checking nearly a dozen citations for the same in the later sections. If you tell me how the usual source review is done, I'm happy to do that. (Does it involve using the citation bot?") I don't know what checking the format involves. I did notice that some citations are in Harv/Sfn format and others in "Citation/Cite-book-etc" format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The "harv vs citation" difference is because some books are being used extensively throughout and others are used for only a specific page or page range. I have done this in my other FACs with no problem (see pinniped and bat for examples). LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Totally understandable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: @Johnbod: Ian hasn't answered. What are the usual source reviews for reliability and formatting? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like what you did was what we refer to as a spotcheck. See first para here: User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing_featured_article_candidates#Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Will attend tomorrow AM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is somewhat tricky for me to check the sourcing, because many references are books to which I don't have access. The reference "Larson" does support the statement at the end of "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The references to Freedman and fan all support the article's text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks but Fowler already did a spotcheck. We just need checking for formatting and reliability. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've had my coffee. Will attend, with industry and application today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review by F&f continued

There are a total of 314 citations to 205 sources-pages.

• There are eight books for which the "Sfn" format has been employed.

• Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have ISBN information and have been published by reliable publishers:

• Exceptions: None

• These books have been cited 163 times.

• The two most cited books are:

• Mech & Biotani, cited 64 times, and Heptner & Naumov, cited 39 times

• In a Reference section of 314 citations, neither of these two sources constitutes an instance of over-reliance.

• Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:

• Exceptions: None

• There are 34 other books for which the "cite book" format has been employed.

• Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have been published by reliable publishers, have ISBN information, and have been cited no more than a few times:

• Exceptions: None

• These books have been cited 54 times.

• Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:
• Exceptions: None

• There are 49 journal articles for which the "cite journal" format has been employed.

• Except in instances mentioned below, all articles have been published in reputable journals, have the usual format of volume, issue, page numbers, and DOI information (other than old articles, field reports):

• Exceptions: None

• There are 16 web sites for which the "cite web" format has been employed.

• Except in instances listed below, all web sites are live, reliable, and their citations have access dates.

• Exceptions:

• Tucker, P.; Weide, B. (1998). "Can You Turn a Wolf into a Dog" (PDF). Wild Sentry. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-12-08. (no access date)
• Woodford, Riley. "Alaska's Salmon-Eating Wolves". Wildlifenews.alaska.gov. Archived from the original on July 26, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019. (dead link)

Please fix the last two LittleJerry. This completes my source review, Ian. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I will redo the spot checks, as I'm seeing issues in the Etymology section. Should be done later today. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked the Etymology section, there are no issues. The article has already has spotchecks from you and Axl. It doesn't need anymore. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note from F&f

Ian and LittleJerry I am very sorry. I made a huge effort to do the source review right. As you will have noticed, I have examined each of the 213 cited sources for issues of general reliability, wiki-layout etc. That part of the review is finished. However, I had an uncomfortable feeling about the spot checks I had done. I had done them hurriedly because the article was languishing and I consider it to be the kind of vital article I exhort people to write; LittleJerry had worked hard on it, and I wanted to help him. Unfortunately, I didn't do such a good job of spot-checking the Etymology section; the Status and Conservation section and the Relationships with human section. So, I examined them more carefully. There is an issue, one of WP:DUE. Greater weight is assigned to North American sources and interpretations, and a more generally to Euro-American ones in each of these sections. Here are but three examples:

Etymology. The source says this; the page says this What the Saxon clans called themselves is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "wolf." But it was the second paragraph that began to bother me. It had colloquial names in (historical) north America. I wondered where the other names were, that the complete etymology above would posit existing in a large swathe of Indo-European-speaking belt in Europe and Asia, not to mention in other linguistic cultures.

Status and Conservation. I noticed that the population of only the Himalayan wolf was mentioned in India. A WP page listing various national populations was linked, but it is sourced to: Mech, L. David; Boitani, Luigi (2010), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, University of Chicago Press, pp. 323–, ISBN 978-0-226-51698-1, Note: This information was obtained by assembling data from available bibliographic sources and the informed and subjective estimates provided by the experts of the IUCN/SSC Wolf Specialist Group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (Boitani 2000). Except for a few local situations that are well known, most of the numerical estimates should be considered no more than indicative of the general status of the populations. There are no recent reliable estimates for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. At this point, I did become concerned but thought I/LJ can fix this—it is a matter of finding an updated source. So, I moved on to the next section:

Relationship with human section. The wolf is a creature of many cultures. I can't speak for all cultures, but I am conversant with South Asian culture, having edited SA-related WP articles for the greater part of 13 years. The wolf has been a part of Indian culture going back its (and humanities) earliest extant texts in Indo-European languages, the Rigveda. There is a goddess Sarama; the wolf makes appearances in the Ramayana and Mahabharata; it is a part of the ancient Jataka tales (see here); of records of various political dispensations, e.g. 100,000 were killed in the 19th-century before Kipling wrote about the Law of the Jungle ("... the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack"). Even today, daily in India, the wolf makes news. Here is just one example from one newspaper, The Hindu, from the last few days: Wolfing down watermelons. If you read the RWHC section, however, you would have little clue. This is when I began to have a sinking feeling about the article. And, mind you, South Asia is just one region. These sections, especially the last, need more work than can be done now. Ian, I would like to support this article's promotion, but am worried about these issues. Please tell me how I can help LJ. I know he has worked hard. I would support a provisional promotion subject to LJ fixing these issues during the next month. If that is not possible, sadly, I would have to urge the nominator to withdraw the article and resubmit in a month after he has fixed these issues—which I would really hate to do. Sorry, I tried, made a big effort to make it happen. My respect for LittleJerry has not diminished one whit. This is a complex topic and it needs an enormous amount of work. I will shortly change my support above to Support promotion with a proviso, or withdrawal without prejudice I don't know if it is allowed but this is my considered view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There are other issues. There are 17 pictures of wolves from Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia). There are 4 from Asia. Yet Asia has more wolves according to the International Wolf Cener than Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia) put together. The contiguous states of the US have 5,500 wolves; China has 6,000 wolves, India has 4,400 to 7,100 wolves. There are 5 wolves shown from the lower 48 states, 1 from India, none from China. This is not looking promising in terms of being representative in other aspects as well. It may be that none are available demonstrating some aspect (diet, behavior), but then they should be compensated somewhat in other aspects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I made the necessary changes. Given this is English Wikipedia, I'm going to look at English-speaking sources. North American and European wolves are also more well-studied than wolves from other parts, The main bibliography is sourced to the top books on wolves and what they cover is reflected in the article. I noted that the PIE may be the root word also for "lupus" and did not mention the others because "lupus" is the species scientific name. There are also way more wiki images of wolves in NA and Europe compared to India and China. And I can't reference wolves in other cultures if I can't find reliable sources. I tried to find more sources on the wolf in Indian mythology but the they were either low quality or I can't have access to them to verify their accuracy (I looked at the culture section of the Indian wolf article) However, these sections now cover Europe, NA, India, Central Asia and East Asia. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you. Kipling's doggerel references the Wolf as an essential part of the Jungle, its law, about which he wrote his books; although I've known it by heart for years, I don't think it is clever. The wolf appears as Akela in the frontispiece of the Jungle books, drawn by John Lockwood Kipling. There is Mowgli, himself, the wolf-boy. Kipling would not have been making wolves such an integral part of the Jungle Books if they weren't an integral part of the culture about which he was writing. The wolf is referenced in 21st-century scholarly references on the the Rigveda, among the oldest Indo-European texts; in the Mahabharata; in the Ramayana; in the Indian Buddhist Jataka tales in Mughal art or literature You are not helping your case when you say, "The most well-studied cultures (Greeks, Romans, Norse, Navajo)" I have made an inordinate effort doing your source review; I did so because I wanted to see it promoted, to give proof that the sourcing was water tight. Why would I now have reservations about the ideology of this article if didn't think they were serious, not amenable to quick bandaid fixes? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That is why I have suggested a provisional promotion subject to your resolving these issues over the next month. It will take that much time. I don't want to see a vital article come this far and not make it. I understand your frustration. Again, it needs your commitment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I really would like more opinions on this. FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Johnbod, Sainsf, Axl? Their are a billion things that reference the wolf. I checked the links you give and none of them are helpful. The first book on "Mughal art/literature" merely references "Who wanted to be struck down by a lion's paw, to be torn by a wolf's fangs?" You can't expect me to think that is significant enough to put in the article. The first book for "Mahabharata" states "In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger". Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like "the wolf is referenced in text x". I already put more stuff on the wolf in East Asian and Indian culture to balance things out and a reference to the Jataka tales. I even add more stuff on Indian wolves in the "attacks" and "hunting" subsections and the population of wolves in India. What more do you want? We already have an article on the Indian wolf were the culture section can be expanded. We also have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" article forks. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I frankly don't know how to engage you, when you blank out portions of your statements above, after I have very specifically replied to them. See here. The various book links are not meant to be examples of usage of the word "wolf" in Sanskrit literate, but a pointer to the wealth of references that underlie the importance of the animal in the culture. The specific examples in the Mahabharata for example are the name "wolf-belly" for one of the protagonists, Bhima, see here, from an old reference Again, the issues are deeper than can be figured out by your nickel and diming the links I'm giving you as pointers to just one kind of Asian literature, in this instance one that predates the Latin, for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Btw, it is not "India" that I want in there; India came to mind because I know something about South Asian culture. There is a whole swath of Asia, the stomping ground both of the wolf and and of Indo-European languages, that is underrepresented. Other non-IE cultures are probably also under-represented. I already mentioned this: there are more wolves in Asia (including Russia) than there are in the US, Canada, and Europe. (The demography of the page is all wrong, by the author's own acknowledgement.) Reading this page one could easily come away thinking that the wolf is primarily a north American mammal, and the few that are not in north America are in Europe. Look, I want to see this article as an FA, but I don't want to see it as a biased FA, because those are not easily fixed. I am offering you an option: give us some committment that you will spend some serious time fixing these issues in the month after promotion. The others you have pinged can be a part of this enterprise as well. The problem is there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The "Mythology/Folklore" and "Fable/Literature" subsections now contain references to North America, Europe, Russia, Central Asia, India and East Asia. That is a wide enough net. Not everything can make it into the article. That's why we have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" fork. Nothing about the population of wolves in an area tells us about what is significant. The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves. The conservation of wolves in Yellowstone is more studied and talked about than most other places. There is more to talk about with wolves in the lower 48 US, where wolves have been exterminated and brought back and have expanded, than Russia. which has had consistently large population throughout history that has maintained its historical range. LittleJerry (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves." According to whom? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As for conservation of reintroduced species, such as in the US, it too can go into spinoff articles such as you are advocating for folklore. Rewilding (conservation biology), for example. There is no reason to make America's atoning for its past sins (still much in evidence around where I live; only coyotes are here not wolves) the blue eyed boy of wolf conservation around the world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

How about the fact that its easier to find discussions of the Capitoline Wolf in the wolf literature including books on wolves in culture like Lopez and Marvin, while I have to dig around to find things on the references you what me too. Sarama seems to be more associated with dogs than wolves. And again, there's more to talk about with regards to certain countries conservation then others, regardless of population size. Let's see what the others say. LittleJerry (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You have done nothing thus far. As I probe the article more, I'm finding the bias to be more extensive and deeper than I had hitherto thought. You stated above, "The first book for 'Mahabharata' states 'In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger'. Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like 'the wolf is referenced in text x'?" But your text already has that: "The Bible contains 13 references to wolves, usually as metaphors for greed and destructiveness. In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have used wolves as illustrations of the dangers his followers, whom he represents as sheep, would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16 and Acts 20:29).[173]" " To this you have now added, as an afterthought: "Wolves are also mentioned in texts of the Far East. ..." In other words, you have listed references in the Bible, a much later text, written in the lands that constitute the fringes of the wolves range; yet you are objecting to the Rigveda composed 1500 BCE, containing content of earlier Indo-European mythology from Central Asia.

Again, India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia. Yet there are an order of magnitude (factor of ten) more references to Europe (in the pictures chosen, in the other mention) in the article. Again the wolf is as much an Asian animal as it is North American or European. Asia has had longstanding stable populatiosn that are larger than North America and Europe combined. Yet there is a picture of a wolf from Sweden (which shares a population of 400 with Norway) than one from China or India. It is not like those pictures are not available, and I can easily upload half a dozen more from Flickr creative commons. As I probe more, I see that the bias is relentless, throughout the article, in the topics chosen, in the photographs chosen. I have been again and again encouraging you to agree to make the non-trivian changes needed in the article with a firm promise. But nothing has changed. I am therefore changing my vote to an oppose, for I don't expect you will make the needed changes after if you are not even acknowledging them. I'm sorry no reasonable person can say I did not try to help you. Again, issues of bias are highly problematic, much more so than other violations of the FAC criteria. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As I was asked for opinion: I personally can't see any bias, Asia is represented to the right extent. You say "India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia", but that would mean that the section should be mostly about wolves from Russia, where most wolves life. No, this can't be a criterion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And as stated before, there far are more image available of wolves in Europe and North America than in other places. The main picture was chosen because of the quality of the image and the fact that the Eurasian wolf is the nominate subspecies. The Bible is used because there is actually a tertiary source that describes what how the Bible portrays wolves. The idea that wolves should be represented by population in this article is absurd. Wolves from certain populations are studied more than those from others. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR) This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Photon

Notified: WillowW, Physics, article talk 2020-02-21

This article obtained FA over thirteen years ago. Since then the standards for citations in Featured Articles have improved. The article is now found wanting in this regard. There are substantial sections that are not supported by citations and dated citations for others. There has been no response to a notice I place on the articles Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick look at the references. The photon is an elementary particle, it doesn't change over time, so naturally many references are about the initial discovery of things - they are decades old and perfectly fine. Similarly, many things can be found in text books, and several textbooks are used as references for whole sections. One could repeat the same reference for every paragraph but that wouldn't improve the article quality. Overall the article isn't controversial in any way, so a direct citation for every single statement shouldn't be necessary. In some cases it could be useful to give specific pages. --mfb (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Which sections aren't supported by citations? I see plenty of refs for everything. I also don't see what's outdated either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated where I think more citations are expected in a Featured Article, using the "" template. Graham Beards (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the vast majority of those. That stuff is common knowledge widely available in the further reading sections, or directly supported by the nearby references (same/previous sentence). I have left a few things that actually need citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not enough to retain FA status. These days we expect most statements to be directly supported by reliable sources. At the very least, there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph. Graham Beards (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to convince a majority of people that "That process is the reverse of "annihilation to one photon [i.e. e⁺e⁻→γ]" allowed in the electric field of an atomic nucleus." is a thing that needs a citation to begin with, given that literally the sentence before you have a citation for pair production [i.e. γ→e⁺e⁻]. If I write James is a Canadian.[ref] That is James is a citizen from Canada., the second part doesn't need a ref. It's an explanation/contextualization of what you already cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So, the citation is in the wrong place. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Poetry

Notified: WikiProject Poetry

Note on closing—already listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted; if demoted, does not get added to tally, rather moved.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced statements, statements needing verification, single sentence paragraphs and vague or ambiguous times. It has been tagged for expansion for 6 months. DrKay (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is a very important topic, but on the other hand it is currently very, very far from FA standard. I agree with the recent comment on the talk page by EmilyReNew that the history section is particularly unsatisfactory. buidhe 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I dispute this nomination. Some doofus walks off the street in August, adds a "Subjects" section and an expansion tag, and we are to FAR it? The logical response is to remove the random addition which I have just done. As for the other issues, sure they are there, but they are easily fixed. I looked at some of them with inline tags, and there are many sources that can be cited for those statements. As for EmilyReNew's post, she says, Biblical Poetry is not represented? Does she mean Psalms, Proverbs and Job? I never heard anyone compare those in poetic achievement to Gilgamesh, Rig Veda, Mahabharata, Illiad, Odyssey, Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Canterbury Tales, Faerie Queen, Paradise Lost, ... Where is Step 1: Raise issues at the article's talk page? Has Dr Kay made any attempt to improve the article him/her-self? There are some easy fixes anyone can make. Please remove this from FAR. Please first post on the talk page, and give the regulars there and others a month or thereabout to improve the article. I mean seriously we can't make these unilateral single-person judgments without attempting to discuss transparently and in some detail why we think the article does not meet the FA criteria. The article passed FAR in 2011. It is not even ten years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think proponents of keeping the article as a FA should make a case as to why it meets the criteria as interpreted in 2020. Default state of an article is not to be an FA. buidhe 03:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is an FA. Its every state is FA right now. Someone comes traipsing on the talk page and pronounces that it is not. Well, they have to tell me why, especially when they haven't lifted their pinky to figure out where that expansion tag came from. Then you come along and pronounce your agreement with a talk page post. Well, tell me what history, or are you too bemoaning the absence of Biblical Poetry? Which Bible and which poetry? Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV, Quaker, RSV, ... Psalms, Proverbs, Job, like I've already asked? You guys have to do better than that, or do you have an inspector's badge certified by the Poet Laureate? We are all abiding by WP's rules. The rules are cited when an article enters FA-land; they need to be cited, when it is being pushed out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If the default state is not to be an FA, i.e. every FA is presumed not to be an FA until and unless proven otherwise, then why would FAR be needed? What meaning would delist have when something is not on the list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please keep process discussions on FAR talk, so we can focus on improvements needed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I can see both sides - Buidhe and DrKay are correct in that Featured Articles have to fulfil criteria, and if there is a lack of consensus then they are defeatured. But that does not mean ZAP - defeatured, that means there is time given to review the article systematically to see if issues have arisen, which is where we are now. I note that the last FAR was in 2011, which is a fair while ago. It is a broad subject so let's just look at it neutrally and go from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok comments - the article has 47kb of prose so some (slight) wiggle room for enlargement. Surely we can expand a bit on the first two sentences in History section - like some explanation underpinning the assumptions of the first two sentences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues

• There are numerous maintenance tags, that have been there for almost a year. This 2006 FA has never had a serious review. Practically no one showed up for the 2007 review, and the review it got in 2011 was quite abbreviated. Attention to this article should then be as thorough as it would be at FAC.

Prose

• There is vague, unattributed writing throughout, sample: Some scholars believe that the art of poetry may predate literacy.[9][10] Others, however, suggest that poetry did not necessarily predate writing.
• There is a problem throughout with terms related to time ... recently, later, etc ... that need clarification.
• Overuse of however should be reviewed.
• There are throwaway sentences that could be better phrased, samples:
  • The types and use of differing rhyming schemes are discussed further in the main article.
  • See the article on line breaks for information about the division between lines.
  • Additional forms of poetry may be found in the discussions of the poetry of particular cultures or periods and in the glossary.
• In fact, there are entire unsourced paragraphs which aren't adding much. Could we not do a better job at not bouncing the reader around all over the Wikipedia?

Sourcing

• There are entire unsourced paragraphs and list of who's who and who is important or known for certain styles or factors that need some sort of citation or attribution as in "according to whom". Notable poets of certain styles according to whom? There should be ample textbooks for attributing these opinions.

Comprehensive

As indicated by a student editor on talk, the article does mention Biblical poetry but that is not covered in history; considering the number of universities that offer courses on same, sourcing something for History should not be difficult.

MOS

• There are too many images, they are sandwiching text, and their captions are inadequate. Considering how old this FA is, once they are pruned, the images should probably be reviewed as they would at FAC, and alt text checked.
• On layout, hatnotes in sections should go before images.
• MOS:LQ review needed.
• A hyphen used where there should be a dash, check throughout.

That's enough for a start. For all the defense this article has gotten it was a weak 2006 promotion, promoted over several Opposes, never seriously reviewed since, and IMO has never been an example of Wikipedia's best work. User:Nihil novi has been active recently at the article and should have been pinged. I suggest that unless someone is willing to seriously rework this article, it is not likely to retain its star. I don't know why DrKay brought it to FAR without notifying talk, but it is abundantly clear that a talk notification would not have yielded the needed improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SandyGeorgia This is a much better critique. An editor with knowledge or interest can work with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone reworking the article should probably take a look at Britannica's poetry page, written by Howard Nemerov, twice poet laureate of the US. Before they make significant mention of Biblical poetry, which is about the Hebrew Bible, they should add something about the English Bible (KJV, that is) which has had a profound effect on English literature both poetry (Milton, ...) and prose (Bunyan, ...). Nemerov alludes to this too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And please don't neglect translations of the Bible into languages other than English, which translations have likewise influenced their respective languages! Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic poetry

That's a wise remark. @Nihil novi: Why don't you fix the article? You have the knowledge, the wisdom, and a long record of edits Between the conception And the creation Between the emotion And the response What shadow Falls? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC) A beautifully phrased sentiment! A quotation, or your own words? I'll be content to mostly kibitz, and defer to those with more systematic knowledge of the subject. Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC) No, its Eliot's The Hollow Men, with a twist, for making my point. I memorized it in middle school, along with Eliot's Preludes, Portia's "Quality of Mercy," Mark Antony's "Oh What a fall there was my countrymen," and "Friends, Romans and Countrymen," (speaking of which, it is the Ides of March today,) Brutus's "There is a tide in the affairs of men," long passages from Gray's Elegy, Shelly's Ode to the West Wind, Tennyson's Unwatched the garden bough shall sway, Hardy's Darkling Thrush, Masefield's Sea Fever, ... and lord knows what else. They mostly stay subliminal until "a fresh association blow"s (Tennyson). All this is off-topic, of course, but consider them traditional examples that the eventual restorer of this page might want to keep in mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

War of the League of Cambrai

Notified: User talk:Kirill Lokshin, MILHIST

I am nominating this featured article, nominated by Kirill Lokshin in 2005, for review because notification was made more than a month ago on the talk page of some issues with the article, especially missing citations, and no one has stepped up to fix them. It's not in as bad shape as many FAs from that era, so I'm hoping it can be rescued. buidhe 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I do not see a notification at User talk:Kirill Lokshin; people can have pings disabled, and Kirill is an active editor, so should be notified using the subst notification in the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? It would be easier to place the template yourself. buidhe 15:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

To make sure you (and others) know how to do it in the future. FAR has been moribund for so long that folks don't know the procedure. It's important to use the notification template because newcomers here don't always read the instructions. Also, in some cases, there are dozens of notifications to be done, and it's not easier for another editor to do them (although we should be able to check that they have been done). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is within Cplakidas's area of expertise, based on past nominations? FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've addressed the {{fact}} tags, and have gone through the rest of the text and added citations throughout. Please let me know if there are any other concerns with the article, and I'll be happy to address them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hooray! I will go through tomorrow or the next day, Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

History of the City of Burnside

Notified: WP Australia notice board

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editor, Beneaththelandslide has not edited for ten years. It's second-highest editor, YellowMonkey (former FAR delegate) is also gone. Since the FAR needed notification on 28 January, there have been minor cleanup attempts, but the article still has uncited text, MOS cleanup needs, and Buidhe's comments on talk need to be looked into. If someone could take an interest in this article, it should be an easy FAR save; the work needed here does not seem insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have advocated for trimming and merging the article to City of Burnside based on its short length and lack of independent RS. (Other users agreed with me on the merge). I disagree that it can be rescued under today's FA standards. buidhe 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would not oppose a merger with City of Burnside. That said, I'll see what I can do with copyediting. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I still disagree with merging, particularly strongly if perfectly good history content is pruned to do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I am unsure here, and suggest that Casliber might provide guidance. There are four books listed in the sources. Only one of them has an ISBN, but all four are listed as being available through the National Library of Australia. But the publishers on all of them are the City or the Club, so not independent, and readers outside of Australia cannot verify text. So, yes, we seem to have very few independent reliable sources here. Need an opinion from both Cas and Ealdgyth on whether we can salvage this as an FA. On the history of a city, do we care if all sources are from that city, and cannot be obtained by readers outside of Australia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article is also using a 2006 archived version of the City's website, when we have an updated version. Frankly, I'd almost rather de-feature this than try to fix it, when we have no current active editor to help sort all of this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've got access to three of the four sources (not the golf club) if I'm willing to head across town to the specialist history library. It largely depends on how severe people think the problems with this are - it's not worth the time if it's not salvagable, and I'm not a great lover of long-form writing so I might need a bit more guidance than usual if I did. I would note that any decision that the sorts of arrangements where a municipality funds a historian to write a local history and then publishes the book are "not independent" and not usable in FAs effectively means that virtually any history on this or similar geographic place could never be taken to FA due to a lack of publisher interest. (For example, the history of anywhere in the entire region I'm from or it overall would be in exactly the same sourcing situation as this article.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I feel much better knowing that we can verify something to a source, then, if needed; if that is the case, then, I don't believe a merge is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that local history sources can't be used. All sourcing requirements are guidelines and WP:MED is alot stricter than other areas. To satisfy comprehensiveness there are many occasions we have to resort to primary sources in more esoteric areas, and a large number of fairly uncontroversial facts about a local district's history are not extreme enough to absolutely necessitate secondary sourcing 100% of the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good enough for me; so unless we can cite the uncited portions to the City's website, we have to rely on Drover to cite the uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Could you perhaps run over the article with CN tags for anywhere that needs a cite in your opinion? (I don't know if the way I would do things usually meets FA standards and if I'm going to head across town I'd like to only do it once). Most of the "establishment of district councils" section actually probably doesn't need book sources (I'm the one who wrote most of our SA council articles) so I might try and fix that up a bit right now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I went through. We will need to get a consistent citation style when you are done, but this looks doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh. I just had a crack at sourcing some of the district councils section and I think this article has bigger problems than I thought: I sourced one paragraph and found three minor errors of fact and one claim that's dubious (the original gazetted boundaries are more complex than the article suggests and as I'm not a local I can't really tell how far out they are). I expect the rest of the article is a bit better given the book sourcing but I don't know that I'm interested enough to through with that fine-toothed a comb: I don't think this is a case of merely double-checking the existing sources and filling in a few gaps. We have much better digitised sources than we did in 2006 (all legislation, all gazettals, an early Adelaide newspaper covering the area) and I'm concerned that enough liberties and assumptions were taken in their absence to make fixing this to FA standard a difficult job. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• I also went through and found some dubious sourcing. We have several choices at this point, since articles stay in the FAR phase for two weeks. We can fix it ourselves, or we can hope someone shows up who will. If not, it moves to FARC in two weeks. I am always willing to do cleanup, if someone else can do the text and sourcing-- otherwise … let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

MissingNo.

Notified: Kung Fu Man, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Pokémon

I am nominating this featured article for review because the information that was contained on this page when it was submitted for featured article status was not substantially correct and was in part based on information that did not appear in cited sources, and attempts to improve it since in a way that adds content (as opposed to simply removing incorrect content) have failed due to a lack of reliable sources that could be used to correct it and a lack of any indication that new ones will appear in the future. That is, it is not comprehensive and cannot be. Blah2 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reading the talk page for MissingNo. this seems like content dispute issue, which has not been through standard dispute resolution channels; FAR should not be used for DR. --Masem (t) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Unless I'm misreading what Blah2 means, I interpret it as they are saying the article cannot be made comprehensive due to a lack of reliable sources. So that would be a good reason for FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Between this and the talk page, the issue appears to be that there's "facts" about MissingNo that "gamers" know about, but not at all documented in any type of RS. We can't add information that's not from RS, even if its presumed its correct information. So thus the question is if the article remains comprehensive without these, and I'm not seeing major gaps for what I'd expect of a character article to contain, even for a character as unusual as this. --Masem (t) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's exactly it: common 'gamer knowledge' is that the entries that spawn MissingNo. were taken up by actual Pokemon in the beta version of the game, but the sources that are often cited for that information are wikis like Bulbapedia or require WP:OR. The Yellow 'version' of this glitch is also at times brought up by other editors, but outside of the name and role as an error handler if the game tries to spawn a pokemon that isn't there requires a completely different method with completely different results and isn't covered in notable sources, making it fall somewhat outside of the scope of this article. Am I about right Blah2?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think part of it is more that the article used to go into more detail when it became featured, but I later discovered that wasn't actually in the sources that were supposed to contain it, and I am assuming the existence of that detail contributed to the article receiving featured status. Personally I don't believe that there is even original research to back up the idea that we can know what was in the MissingNo. slots and I am not concerned with that at all. Blah2 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• But it actually hasn't shrunk in size Blah. Additional sources can be added to give more bulk (it went to FA almost ten years ago, and sources like the below mentioned Ars Technica article exist), but I'm not quite seeing why you seem to have a bias against it being FA on the current grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If this article is moved out of FA, then it can become a GAN. Still, article talk page says:

"The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

The Mythos and Meaning Behind Pokemon's Most Famous Glitch"

_{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 23:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (modified 23:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC))

Keep from Lee Vilenski

Be aware, I may claim participation credits towards the Wikicup. Or maybe not? Who knows.

There's a few things here. I'd say there is a lack of inline citations in some key areas, there is a real lack of the lede on this item.

Specific issues

• Citation 18 - "[PRE REVIEW]: Missingno: a missing data visualization suite". Journal of Open Source Software. January 26, 2018. Retrieved September 8, 2019. Though I don't see a citation necessary as the name was derived from a pokemon glitch" - was this a joke by someone? Is this item even something that we should be citing?
• Quite a few of the refs use "staff" as an author - should we be using this in place of no known author?

Additional comments to come. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

See the FAR instructions; pages are not segmented, and Keep/Delist are not declared in the FAR phase. Perhaps you meant to suggest this FAR should be closed without a FARC. (And without a subhead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - conflict with Masem - I hadn't read the talk page for this one. I'd suggest there is at least some benefits to looking at specific issues (content dispute notwithstanding) on an FAR. However, quite happy to have this close if it's a consensus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed Citation 18 and that whole line, looks like it got snuck in between edits and really has no relevance to anything. As for the others it was my understanding during the FAN that Staff was acceptable if the source website/publication was considered reliable but no writer was directly attributed to the article? As for the lead length I remember that was a point of recurring discussion during the FAN where just exactly what to include given the size of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Realistically, if we don't have an author, we should leave it blank. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been my understanding through several FAC's that leaving it blank entirely is frowned upon, and in the cases of some templates will cause it to show an error instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and increases the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128" could we expand this? Something about "MissingNo. causes graphical and gameplay changes. When encountering MissingNo. in Red and Blue, graphical anomalies occur as well as an increase in the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Attempted to work some of that in, and expand some of the sentences out with information added through the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Any reasons for the citations in the lede? Surely we can put this information in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Outside of the lede, the actual games this appears in isn't mention at all! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• It was at one point, I think with subequent edits over the years it got accidentally removed when people kept trying to cite wikis as evidence of its presence in Pokemon Yellow, even though that glitch is related only by name and is non-notable in terms of sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• A little surprised there is no info on other glitches in the series, or even other glitched Pokémon etc. [17], [18] etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Because they don't fall into the scope of the article, and don't have a lot of notability in outside sources or even the same cultural examination/impact. It would be like an article on the Minus World talking about screenwarp glitches for Super Mario Bros.: they're related to one another, but one has cultural impact over the other.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the above fixes/comments are enough for me to support remaining at FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who knows what this is saying please disentangle it?

Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical anomalies and gameplay changes, specifically increasing the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128. The latter effect resulted in the glitch's coverage by strategy guides and game magazines, though with words of caution about the former.

Latter= gameplay changes? Former = graphical anomalies? Even if the sentences are re-cast, I have no idea what the lead is saying, and the lead should be digestible to non-gamers. The promoted version was only slightly better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, better, now what is a "sixth item"? It is mention in the lead but never defined.

Is this still true? (It needs an "as of" date.) "Despite Nintendo's statements on the glitch, it has not been removed from re-releases of the games, such as on their virtual console service.[6]"

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Attempted to address the issues mentioned, bear with me I'm dealing with a bit of a flu right now so not 100%.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Take your time, get better, there is no rush at FAR. I still need to understand in the lead what the glitch is— what a sixth item is, what it means for it to be increased. The only part I get is 128 is a power of 2, so a likely programming error, but is that explained? Maybe Ealdgyth can lend some clarity here. That there is some very unusual, uncorrected glitch in this game is all I am getting as a non-gamer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I see Kung Fu Man is back in the saddle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain, Ealdgyth, Lee Vilenski, and Blah2: could others please evaluate the progress here? I still don't know what it means for an item value to increase, but I guess that's a non-gamer speaking. Can this be closed without FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm just not sure how to word that effect any more directly: the quantity of the item in the sixth slot of their inventory is increased by 128.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am hoping someone else can make that understandable to non-gamers and we can close this FAR without a FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe say that the item slots are like storage? GamerPro64 02:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for the intrusion, but if there is confusion on the "item slot" phrasing, then maybe a link to Inventory (videogames) may be helpful to clear it up at least a little? Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• That does help but we should be better than a link, and explain that to dummies like me, and also explain what it means for an item value to increase by 128. How does the "value" work in the playing of the game? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Worked that in (didn't even know we had that article) and value is now quantity. How's that?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Does that mean that whatever is the sixth item in their inventory, after the glitch, they have at least 129 of the same item ? That is, they get more good stuff to play with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, exactly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, now that's explained, and fixed, I think we can Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Notified:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it no longer meets the criteria of what a featured article is, especially in this project. The standards have significantly increased over the years and this article has sadly not kept up with the times. @JavaHurricane: posted about the article not meeting the standards on January 13 and there have been no comments so I am coming here. My main issues:

• A citation needed tag for an entire paragraph
• This is by far the largest issue... The article by far is not comprehensive in its coverage of storms. I understand this was literally the most active Atlantic season on record in terms of storms, but one sentence for a storm is not acceptable. Many smaller storms have virtually no information on them. Even the larger ones dont have enough. Not to mention there isn't much meteorology for individual storms. There is a list of storms for this season, but I dont see why it is needed considering the shape the main article is in at this point. If Pacific typhoon articles can contain even more storms, this should be able to have all the season's content. The storm sections need to be completely overhauled to conform to today's format. Noah^Talk 04:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Noah! Another thing that I think should be done is that the lead and summary should be completely rewritten as the current versions are not up to the mark. A lot of the information is irrelevant or hyped up. Also, for the time being, the FA List-classification for the list of storms should be removed as that list is in a worse state. -- JavaHurricane 05:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson
This is just for the lead.

• Per MOS:LEAD, a lead paragraph should generally have no more than four paragraphs, and I fail to see how this should be an exception\
• the U.S. states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice by major hurricanes; Cuba, the Bahamas, Haiti, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and Tamaulipas were each struck once and brushed by at least one more is an example of inconsistent use of "the U.S. states..."; why is it used the first time but not the second, and shouldn't Tamaulipas be referred to as "the Mexican state of Tamaulipas", for consistency?
• The 2005 season was the first to observe more tropical storms and cyclones in the Atlantic than in the West Pacific; on average, the latter experiences 26 tropical storms per year while the Atlantic only averages 12. This event was repeated in the 2010 season; however, the 2010 typhoon season broke the record for the fewest storms observed in a single year, while the 2005 typhoon season featured near-average activity. None of this is cited, nor is it brought up in the body.
• The season officially began on June 1, 2005, and lasted until November 30, although it effectively persisted into January 2006 due to continued storm activity. While one could argue that the body backs up the last part of this with Zeta, none of the other stuff is cited. Perhaps every hurricane season officially begins on June 1 and/or ends on November 30, but this should be explicitly mentioned and cited.
• The records section references a part of the body which is inadequately cited and fleshed out, IMO.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Before you all waste your time, see my conversation with Hink here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would probably support a merger of the various articles per Yellow Evan's talk page. However, this may or may not be the right place for that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this is the place for that. If content from an FA is merged, the FA goes away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Duly noted, support merger. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support merger of all four articles. Noah^Talk 17:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hurricane Noah, what four articles? FAR deals with Featured articles. If there are other Featured articles, a FAR needs to be opened on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics, Franklin, and Philippe per Hurricanehink's talkpage. No, FARs and FLRCs dont need to be opened for mergers. You just need consensus to merge. In this case, we would be merging these articles into the parent article in order to increase the quality of it to FA. Noah^Talk 17:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying: the proposal is to merge the contents of four non-Featured articles into this Featured article. This means the (new) content in this Featured article would need to be reviewed to see if it still meets FAC standards, if the merge happens.

Conversely, the implication above is that this article is not currently at standard unless the merge happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Yes... that would be our job here. We would provide featured article reviews to fix issues and ensure that it meets FA at the end of this process. Noah^Talk 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the plan of merging the season list article, statistics, and the two minor storm articles, while making sure that the article would still be up to featured article standards. There is currently a draft article, which I realize now is going to be a giant history merge, so much so that I'd suggest a redirect rather than doing a history merge once it is done, and leave the notice on the 2005 talk page. Still, that is where the users plan on incorporating the changes, given that the article is featured, and so is the list article). See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why is an FLRC necessary when there is a consensus for a merge? I don't recall one taking place with similar mergers in the past. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Bookkeeping mechanism for the featured list which will go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess it needs something to link to on the article milestones. That's why the FLRC is needed, even if just for bookkeeping. Noah^Talk 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Support merger of the four aforementioned articles (storm list, statistics, Franklin, Philippe). Storm sections in the draft article need to be fleshed out more, particularly Maria, Nate, Philippe (merger should help for this one), Vince, Alpha, and Beta. I suppose most of the records from the statistics article will go into the seasonal summary or the storm sections themselves? Or maybe some could be moved over exclusively to List of Atlantic hurricane records instead to avoid bloating the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• This FAR is approaching the two-week mark; any progress on the Merger proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• User:12george1 and I are working on the new version of the article in a draft article. Franklin's content has been merged in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing with consensus to merge since there is unanimous support after two weeks. Noah^Talk 21:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I would additionally like to propose the merge of the 2005 Azores subtropical storm article into the new draft article. What content exists on this system is largely trivial and could effectively be covered in the individual section on the main page. In accordance with the aforementioned pages both here and on Hurricanehink's talk page, I do not see that this article has kept with the increased project standards of today. Cooper 23:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing with no consensus to merge due to lack of participation in the last 8 days. Noah^Talk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please advise when all is merged, and ready for review from others here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Please feel free to redirect the storm articles as soon you finish merging their contents. I removed the GA status from the articles as soon as we agreed to merge them since they were auto-negated by that consensus. Noah^Talk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a few editors and I have worked together to redo the 2005 article, making sure every item is cited, all of the refs are working, and the article isn't too in depth for anything that already has an article, while also not giving undue weight to any one aspect. I believe the new article has achieved a good balance. And so, I'd like to submit this version of the article for FA review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If all of you hurricane editors are now satisfied, I will look it over as soon as I can ... within the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is the Spoken article link at the bottom of the page still valid, or is outdated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Outdated by years.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I removed it to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Is there any way to fiddle with the gazillions of infoboxes (make them somewhat smaller ?) so that the article does not have all of the large amounts of white space? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel that any major changes in size to the infoboxes should go through the project first as they would impact all of the project season articles. However, what could be done and needs to be done is too really look at what systems really need to be spun off into their own articles. For example: I feel that Delta needs more MH within its section while SS 22, Epilson and Zeta dont need articles as those articles seem very very bloated.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait. What? I thought you just merged everything to there with agreement-- now we're talking about spinning stuff out again? Is my review premature ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am only one editor but I personally feel that the whole process has been rushed and that the articles for Maria, Nate, 2005 Azores subtropical storm, Delta, Epilson, Zeta seem very bloated and are only marginally notable. Is the fact that a subtropical storm existed for 24 hours over open water really worth an article? Personally, I don't think so and I would propose a merger of those articles to the season article if it was worth it. I also feel that the sections need to be expanded out further especially the seasonal forecasts section which failed to mention any of the forecasts by Tropical Storm Risk until I started to add them in the other day. As a result, I would suggest that the article is downgraded until such a time that it properly meets the featured article criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I thought I was reviewing an article that everyone agreed upon and was stable. You are saying there is more that should be merged here. OK, I will hold off on reviewing what is there now for compliance with WIAFA, as I don't want to get inbetween hurricanes :0 I will unwatch for now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I hate to say it... I agree with Jason on this one. After looking at this article and comparing it with similar seasons, this article is still not comprehensive enough to be FA quality. Noah^Talk 23:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

'Tis not for me to disagree the hurricane editors! You might all decide, then, to ask the coords to Move to FARC for !voting Keep or Delist. If it's a Keep, I'll continue to work on it :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Could we have User:Graham87 look at the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Systems section. My impression years ago was that we had to have the "Main" hatnotes before the image/infobox, but that may have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: The relevant part of the Manual of Style seems to agree with you, but it doesn't matter from an accessibility perspective. Graham87 02:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks to Graham; if this is the case, then I believe we should leave the images/infoboxes in each section before the hatnote, as that helps with the big white space problem. As long as it does not impact accessibility, I feel it OK to IAR on MOS here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah

• There is inconsistency in formatting for authors from the National Hurricane Center. Some have middle initials while others do not. Some are last, first while others just list the name in author format. Noah^Talk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I noticed it mostly w Jack (John) Beven, which I changed to be consistent with other authors from the NHC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Four of the season's storms became a Category 5 hurricane, the highest on the scale." Needs another word such as classification. Noah^Talk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Added word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The season's strongest hurricane, Wilma, became the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record, recorded by barometric pressure." minor issue here. Noah^Talk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Changed wording to "as measured". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I may have introduced one of those ... sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, best I can tell, we do not have consensus here among the hurricane editors, even after lots of work and discussion. Almost six weeks in, move to FARC to see where everyone stands and if this is salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• My personal view is that it is salvageable which is why I am trying to help edit it when time allows and that it should look something like 1997-98 SPAC, 2011 AHS or 1995-96 SPAC. However, I need my fellow hurricane editors to stop talking about the US Election and provide opinons on wiki to help improve it. Otherwise I may look at AFD'ing a few articles.Jason Rees (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised include coverage/comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted comprehensiveness issues in the article, so I'd appreciate if he (or someone else) could point out where info is lacking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to make people aware, I am planning to respond to this and all the offline taunts and comments I have seen in when I get five minutes either later today or tomorrow [Thursday].Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Boshin War

Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, Monocrat, Enkyo2, Victuallers, Ernstkohl, Curly Turkey, WP Japan, WP MILHIST

Review section

This article has a long-standing lack of citations for significant portions. -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Month-old talk page notification got no bites: [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delist under Wikipedia: V for lack of citations. It would take a lot of work to fix this, and the original nominator from back in 2006 has long since retired. ErinRC (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• ErinRC, please have a close look at the instructions at WP:FAR regarding the purpose of the first phase of FAR; Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: I'm seeing a contradiction in the FAR guidelines here. It does indeed say what you cite it as saying, but immediately below it also makes the apparently contradictory statement that The featured article removal coordinators [...] determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage. I am not sure if there is a substantial difference, from the point of view of finding consensus in community discussions, between saying "I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards" and saying "Delist I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards". Is it possible the guideline you are quoting was written to apply to reviews of more recent FAs, where the notable gap between the standards of 2006 and the standards of 2020 is not also in play? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• The spirit of the thing is that, during FAR, we specify the problems and hope someone will address them. A Your "delist" in the FAR phase won't get the article delisted. Keep can happen without moving to FARC, but Delist cannot happen until/unless the article moves to FARC. In other words, unless the article is improved, you have one has to come back during the FARC phase to enter a Delist. No need to ping me, I have the FAR watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I was asking a hypothetical about an apparent contradiction in the instructions; I'm not the same editor who already cast a "delist" !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction, but perhaps that could be taken up at WT:FAR rather than here. FAR is for listing things to be improved: one can say, "I don't think this article can be improved during a FAR", and then come back during FARC to !vote "Delist", if the article moves to FARC. (If you want, you can move this whole thing, my responses included, to WT:FAR.) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no significant improvement, no one has engaged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section mostly relate to sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for citations for over a year. One statement tagged as dubious since January. DrKay (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @DrKay: I removed the dubious tag as whoever placed it didn't bother to explain why they tagged it, and it's not immediately obvious from the tagging. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it may be in the talk archive at Talk:Boshin War/Archive 1#Weaponry? DrKay (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Hold off on making a decision. The MilHist project was not notified of this discussion, and they are very active and have many experts who can help. I have notified them now, and made a list of sourcing issues needing addressing. Please see Talk:Boshin War#Paragraphs needing references for more details. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Nihonjoe: holding is good, but please note that your statement above is incorrect. Here is the MILHIST notification on 29 Feb, and here is another discussion I initiated much earlier, on 29 Jan, where MILHIST declined to continue listing FARs prominently as they once did. I strongly recommend you add Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given somewhere prominent as we work through older, neglected FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: Well, I missed those. I don't have time to review every notice given for every FAR. This just happened to come across my radar. I still think time should be given to allow every paragraph to be referenced. The descriptions above of the article's "long-standing lack of citations for significant portions" is inaccurate at best. There are only eight paragraphs that don't have citations, and most of those that do have multiple citations used. That's really not all that many to fix. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Time is always given at FAR is progress is being made; please keep this page posted every few days as improvements proceed. (Here is the archival of the notification on 8 March, so perhaps the archival time at WT:MILHIST needs to be longer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: Please don't make ridiculous claims about me without foundation. Nothing in my request on the MilHist talk page or on Talk:Boshin War was in any way incorrect. I already acknowledged my error here, so following me around and making false claims regarding the veracity of my requests is simply harassment. We're all in this together, and I'm working to fix the issues raised here. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Have a nice day. (PS, I have this page watchlisted, as all FAR pages-- please stop pinging me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• No problem. I did it out of courtesy. I have 18k pages on my watchlist, so sometimes pages I'm watching get lost in the shuffle. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Chagas disease

Notified: WT:MED, WT:WP Brazil, WT:WP Argentina and WT:WP Venezuela

Review section

This FA is a 2005 promotion that has not been kept up to date. The original nominator, Redux is not currently active and has not edited the article since 2005. The top contributor, DO11.10 has not edited it since 2011. The second contributor, Doc James has not made any significant edits recently.[20] A list of updates needed was posted a month ago; significant portions of the article are out of date, and there is uncited text. A number of the sources used are quite old, dating to when the article passed FAC in 2005. (see WP:MEDRS). Hopefully the WT:MED notification will result in getting this article cited, updated, and cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

Note that I am involved in the current WikiCup, but come here from a notice posted to WP Venezuela as a relevant article.

It may not be an area I know a lot about, but when I read the article after seeing the FAR notice I saw that it is quite short and leaves me wanting for details, though it seems to be a disease about which a lot is known. This may be an issue with accurately expanding on detail, particularly in the latter sections, which have noticeably not been updated in at least 2 years. This seems to be the first issue I can find, before going into medical aspects. A good improvement should probably begin with expansion. I’ll hopefully come back with some MOS for medical articles comments. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Doc James

No concerns with the FA status being removed if that is what people wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

So WP:WikiProject_Medicine are officially abandoning their FAs now? I know more about the parasite than the disease so without input from the said project, I would not feel fully competent helping here. Graham Beards (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel like, between us, we could update this article, and are competent to do so, but I'm wondering if the effort is worth it, considering WP:MED does appear to be abandoning its FAs. I am increasingly feeling like I am the only editor left who is watching over and maintaining quite a few of the medical FAs, and I can't keep up. There appears to be little concern that almost all of the FAs (and probably GAs as well) are outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have the time and energy right now to hopefully bring one article up to featured status (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]), and after that I hope to keep another at featured status (dengue fever). While I do have a wish list of of other articles I'd like to massively improve, I agree with you Sandy, I think we have a severe labor shortage when it comes to this task. If somehow expediting the delisting of some medical featured articles and good articles (perhaps by invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) more accurately represents our content and helps us know which articles we should keep an eye on to maintain their *actual* quality (and also makes you feel better about this task), I would support it. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. I've long thought that a careful eye towards this issue was deserved. If there's something you'd like some help with (like suggesting I review a featured article to research and see if I think it should be delisted), feel free to ask. Currently though I do want my primary focus to remain on updating the good article DVT, which needs more attention in the treatment, pathophysiology, prevention, and history sections in particular. But yes, I do want the medical articles that are marked as featured or good to be accurately designated. Biosthmors (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to hear someone else is watching and concerned :) Thanks, Biosthmors. Considering the shape of WP:MED's FAs, I shudder to think of the quality of the GAs, but I rarely involve myself at GA, since they amount to little more than one editor's opinion so that assessment isn't very meaningful. (Same applies to B-class.) As to helping on the FAs, I can only nominate one every two weeks, four max on the page at a time. What would be helpful in speeding things up, considering it is evident no one plans to work on them, is for others to nominate per the FAR instructions any FA that has already been notified on talk. Those are found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Holding as we may now have editors willing to help out-- Ajpolino and Wuerzele. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• There is now a third editor, actively updating the article to the most recent high-quality secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Improvements ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

Notified: User:Prhartcom, WikiProject Belgium, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Comics

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged for unsourced statements for over 2 years, and has paragraphs of uncited text. The prose includes short, stubby paragraphs and concerns about the reliability of sources were raised on the talk page over 3 and a half years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Barkeep49

I would agree with the concerns expressed by DrKay. While I might be able to do some work on fixing the prose, I will not be able to do the work necessary to really address the issues with text citation and agree it falls below our FA standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If someone is actively working to retain/restore status, time is always given; please keep this page posted on your progress. (See the FAR instructions, FARs are not segmented, and it is assumed that work will proceed on article talk, with updates to here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Two weeks and no evidence of progress or anyone working here: diff since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Midnightblueowl and Prhartcom, who got other Tintin articles to FA status. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced paragraphs. Single sentence paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist for the same reasons highlighted by DrKay. This is not an FA quality article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist: I agree with the reasons highlighted above. I would also like to add that the article still uses an unreliable source (MobyGames) so that takes away from the FA quality too. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

CM Punk

Notified: Article talk 2020-01-28, WP Chicago, ‎WP Mixed martial arts, WP Professional wrestling, ‎WP Bio/Sports and games, User:Prefall

Review section

This FA was promoted in 2007, and the original writer has been gone for more than a decade. The article has fallen out of FA standards. There are numerous maintenance categories, a convoluted TOC, and a MOS review is needed. There are also queries on talk indicating the article is outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The preferred way of going about this, of course, would have been to inform the relevant project of your concerns before nominating it. I see that there was a note on the article talk page, but notifying the project would be a much more effective way to reach people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See the WP:FAR instructions. More significantly, GaryColemanFan, are you aware of anyone willing and able to work on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikilink. I've read the page before. Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the TOC could easily be fixed by {{TOC|3}}. I'm not sure I understand the concerns that the original writer being inactive, that's quite common, no? Without reading through the talk page, could we get a small summary of exactly what MOS issues there are? From what I see: I'd like to remove citations from lede and infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE (can be sourced in professional wrestling persona section), as well as clean up the tagged note & potentially unreliable source. Other than that - the article needs some better paragraphing, and going through with a comb for duplinks. I don't think that would take all that long to do though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are willing to do all the other updates, I will go through and fix MOS issues once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – I once saw that there was a talk page message listing a bunch of issues with the article, so when I noticed this pop up on the list of articles with FAR-related talk page notices, I went over to see what I could do. There were a few prose bugs that I was able to fix, but a good number of the past comments went completely over my head. You really need to know more about wrestling than I do to bring an article like this to the highest level possible, so I doubt I can help much. However, I am rooting for the article to receive the attention it needs to retain FA status. I'd suggest trying to resolve the tagged issues first, as most of the tags relate to an unreliable source, which is a no-no for an FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*Delist to Good Article - CM Punk is well known as wrestler and lot hyped wrestling fans like to edit this page due to big user base leaving issues on the page. Indeed it has failed WP:FACRITERIA. Regice2020 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Regice2020 please see the WP:FAR instructions. Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is where issues needing correction are identified and the article is hopefully improved. If the article is not improved, it moves to the FARC phase, where Keep or Delist is declared. Also, we don't re-assign GA status; that is a separate process. If an article is delisted FA, projects must reassess status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It's unclear what needs to be done. There are a few "unreliable source" tags--almost all of these are used to cite unnecessary details. For example, if it can't be proven with a reliable source that he defended a title against Shad Gaspard, the article wouldn't suffer at all with the mention of Gaspard removed. There are edit requests on the talk page, but this the requested inclusions tend to be trivial or unreferenced (a list of famous friends, etc.). In the original post here, there is a reference to "numerous maintenance categories"--is this still an issue? If so, what categories? I see no problem with the ToC, so clarification would be appreciated here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on this GaryColemanFan. Almost an entire section is cited to an unreliable source, so that will need to be resolved. Perhaps, if no reliable source covered that issue, it is UNDUE; you might know better. Separately, I will look at the article overall and give a more comprehensive answer after sorting the next problem.
  Giants2008 mentions seeing a long list of problems with the article, which I went looking for in archives. I am unsure if he is referring to a previous FAR, which ARGGGH ... was deleted out of process rather than archived by the FAR Coords. Can the @WP:FAC coordinators: please use their adminly tools to resurrect whatever was deleted here, and post it to the talk page of this FAR so the rest of us can see it? Giants2008, is that what you were referring to, or is there something else we should be looking at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, fiddlesticks. My apologies, I meant to ping the @WP:FAR coordinators: . But maybe a FAC Coord will get to it first :) Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• The thread that I saw was on the article's talk page, not on an FAR page, although it may actually be from the deleted FAR. It can be found here, if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, same thing I found, but that discussion links to an old FAR that was deleted. Perhaps some admin will tell us if there is other content in the deleted FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: I've restored the previous FAR to Wikipedia:Featured article review/CM Punk/archive0 as this review is occupying its previous title. There is content that may be of value. HTH --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

On the TOC, here is my attempt at removing extraneous wording and consolidating section, but as Giants2008 mentions, one really needs to understand professional wresting (and its manual of style, if there is one) to adequately address this. Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.) Please feel free to do/undo anything I've done on the TOC, as this was just my first stab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a vague memory of an improperly formed FAR that went nowhere, so that list might be everything. I can work through some of it, although I don't watch wrestling, so I can't be much help outside of grammatical fixes. If the unreliable source you are referring to is WWFOldSchool (the one tagged as unreliable), most of it could go. I think two of the points may be worth keeping with a different source (although some of the remaining information would need to be trimmed--for example, I'm sure we could find a source for losing the tag team belts, but not for losing the tag team belts while injured). As for the persona section, I won't bore you with my ranting, but I think any fixes would be best handled by someone who doesn't view the section as a clunky, dense, trivial, reader-hostile eyesore. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a problem for many of us; I can't tell what is trivia relative to what is important in this topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I can try. I'm not familiar with the FA process and English isn't my first language. But I can try some thing. For example, I removed Hardcore holly and Matt Striker 2007 feuds. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would like to make the article more user-friendly to no-wrestling fans. Remove some in-universe stuff, for example. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand what changes you are making because you don't use edit summaries. This makes it difficult to follow the article's progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A week later, no answers on my TOC queries, unreliable sources and maintenance tags still present, no recent edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no change (except one typo fixing etc. by Iri). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include coverage/organization, sourcing, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references for over a year. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The unreliable references in question (wwfoldschool.com) have now all been removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Holding, it will be several days before I am able to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan if you are able (or know anyone else who can) to deal with my TOC questions above, and to get someone to cite this:

• Continuing to espouse his straight-edge philosophy, Punk began to present himself as a cult-like savior to the crowd, growing the hair on his head, face and chest in an allusion to Jesus.

I can re-read the whole thing in a few days and see how we're doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the uncited claim, as the article reads fine without it. As for the TOC, I have no concerns with your version. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GaryColemanFan these are my outstanding TOC and other questions (they cannot be resolved by someone who does not know wresting):

• "Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.)"

If those can be resolved, I can do a complete read through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the post-retirement appearances are all in professional wrestling. The championship list is in keeping with other professional wrestling articles. I don't love the idea of a table. All of the championships are from professional wrestling--none come from mixed martial arts. I have very little to do with images, but I'm sure removing some wouldn't hurt much. As for the persona section, I have no opinion that would be constructive in this discussion. I guess I could quickly say that I hate the very existence of "persona" sections in wrestling articles, but I don't think this is the place for debates about the section as a whole within the professional wrestling project. I don't know how much this all helps, but I hope it cleared up a bit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan:, I moved sections so that Professional Wrestling vs. Mixed Martial Arts stayed together, cut two images per excess images causing text sandwiching, and slightly juggled the placement of other images. Please have a look if that is OK, so far, next I will read the whole article to see where we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, but the WP:PW editors sometimes get very concerned about consistency. I am less concerned about consistency (although, if I can be honest, I don't know that all of these changes are related to FA standards). I would guess that the page is watched by a bunch of WP:PW editors, and they haven't expressed concern about any changes, so I'm not going to press the issue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw the edits and I have 0 problems with MMA and Wrestling titles and record being separated in two different sections. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree with this series of edits, you have added text to the lead (which should be a summary of text that is already in the body of the article); the new text is not written to FA prose standards, contains bare URLs, and uses sources that I am unsure are reliable. If editors are actively moving the article AWAY from the Featured article standards while it is under review, it will not be productive to continue to evaluate whether the article can retain featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As I said, English isn't my first language, so it's hard sometimes to write. I used the template for the sources, but I would apprecitate if somebody improver my text. it's just a small part, since Punk is credited as the first independent wrestler to have succes in WWE and he open the doors for others (Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins...) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Are those reliable sources? The lead is a summary of the most important points in the body of the aricle; is that information in the body of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

PWTorch and The Observer are reliable sources. 411Mania is limited, but it's mostly used in articles as opinion. I think the text can be included in the charactr section, but start a reception/legacy would be more appropiate. Other wrestlers has a similar section. If you have any problem, we can just delete it, but I think it's usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Primarily two major concerns among wrestling (biography) articles in general I see: the line between reality and kayfabe is often blurred, sometimes incomprehensible, and the excessive, often unnecessary, fighting soap opera. This page is no exception, although the latter concern is relatively small. IW. (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

Notified: User talk:MartinPoulter

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks inline citations (and those that it has are questionable with regard to reliability). It is suffers from weasel words and the prose is sub-standard for a contemporary FA. There were several unstruck valid opposes at the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to be much more specific about your concerns:

• What citations do you think are missing?
• Which do you think are unreliable?
• What are the weasel words?
• Which prose do you think is unsatisfactory?

Without more specificity, I'm afraid there's not much for others to go on. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think a review's a good idea given the age of the article, but it needs to be focused and specific. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated using the {{fact}} where I think additional citations are needed. With regard to the citations, (which are inconsistently formatted) what makes this, for example, a reliable source; [21]? There are also single sentence paragraphs and the prose flows badly in places. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I see from the article history that it's had a lot of piecemeal edits over the years, so it's no wonder it's a bit choppy. I'm happy to have a go at fixing the problems you've highlighted; in particular I should be able to supply the citations you suggest.

Regarding the source you mention, I note that it's from a veteran journalist and author who has a particular expertise on Scientology (and his own Wikipedia article). Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ortega certainly counts on both criteria (two books and multiple news articles). Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Prioryman. I agree with your comments regarding Ortega - I had not heard of him before. The citations are the main issue IMHO, but the prose does need some attention. Graham Beards (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at the prose too. I have some skills in that regard. :-) I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend though, due to other commitments. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are too modest. :-) There is no rush; this isn't FAC. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed all but one of the citation issues. The next step is to review the prose and see where improvements can be made. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd encourage a hard look at the sources used here. I was put in a position, as Graham Beards mentioned, of promoting over valid opposition because the editor who commented on sources basically disappeared and didn't participate in the discourse. As far as I can tell, the other opposition was over article size, which personally I don't care that much about. Most of the guidance written here about article size is based on research that's both 10+ years old and was of questionable validity even when it was current. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• As I mentioned to Graham above, I would encourage you to be specific about which sources you see as being problematic, as it becomes a bit of a guessing game otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't. I'm encouraging specifics from anyone criticizing the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• The problematic sources are listed at the FAC, with good reasoning provided.

From the FAC

... too many citations to Bridge Publications and other CoS entities; ... our Mikael Rothstein source points in the Death and Legacy section the problems with that. ... also the Miller Source makes me nervous ... [http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/frenschkowski1999.pdf This source indicate issues of reliability with Miller's Work on LRH Russell Miller's biography is a book-length treatment of the article's subject by a reputable investigative journalist, sourced to literally hundreds of end-notes. Reviews have praised it again and again for meticulous research. Frenschkowski's review that you cite (and which is cited and linked in the article) calls it "The most important critical biography of Hubbard". Yes, Frenschkowski raises concerns about specific statements in the book: let's discuss those specifics. Miller doubted the existence of "Snake" Thompson and his connection with Freud. Frenschkowski says that Miller was wrong, and that Snake's reality is backed up by additional documents. The article takes Frenschkowksi's position. And so on it goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We need to look at specific text cited to these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's about time to deal with Frenschkowski. His criticism of Miller is brief, vague and wrong. Frenschkowski states two specific points of criticism. The first is that Hubbard's assertions about his military career "have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show". That is quite wrong. I spent a year going through Hubbard's records to write a book on his military career, checked them with other material that Frenschkowski didn't have (because it hadn't been published then), and found not only that Miller had got it right but that he had actually understated the degree to which Hubbard made a mess of his military career. Frenschkowski is a theologian, not a military historian, and has no expertise in that area. He cannot be relied on as an authority on military history.

The other criticism that Frenschkowski states is that "Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander [sic] Thompson". Yet Miller does not dispute Hubbard's statements. He only states (on page 25 of my 1987 edition) that "the Commander remains an enigma. He cannot be identified from US Navy records, nor can his relationship with Freud be established. Doctor Kurt Eissler, one of the world's leading authorities on Freud, says he has no knowledge of any correspondence or contact of any kind between Freud and Thompson." Miller states the limits of his knowledge; he doesn't anywhere reject the existence of Thompson. Subsequent researchers found more evidence of Thompson, who is discussed over 3 pages in Larry Wright's Going Clear. That's a perfect example of researchers building on each other's work – Miller identified a gap in knowledge that Wright was able to fill.

And that is it. Frenschkowski states no further criticisms of Miller's accuracy, nor does any other non-Scientologist publication that I'm aware of criticise Miller on the points that Frenschkowski raises. From my point of view, this is a very inadequate basis to imply that Miller's entire work is unreliable and needs to be reviewed. By the way, I contacted Frenschkowski during my research for my book to ask him: "I have been unable to find anything in [Hubbard's records] that contradicts Miller's assertions. Could you possibly clarify which records you refer to in your essay?". He declined to respond. If he is not interested in defending his own work I don't see why it is worth your while to do so.

I also have no idea what "our Mikael Rothstein source points in the Death and Legacy section the problems with that" is supposed to mean; it's unintelligible. Can you please clarify? Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is any progress happening here? I see no edits.

There is still a citation needed tag, the Daily Mail (deprecated) is used as a source, and there are duplicate citations (... unaccredited degree mill called Sequoia University.[165][166][165]) Why does a direct quote need three citations (The idea may not have been new; Hubbard has been quoted as telling a science fiction convention in 1948: "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[140][172][173]) A good amount of the excessive size could be minimized by dealing with the excessive quoting throughout the article. There is an excess of images that add little to the article. Overuse of however abounds. In the lead, "1952, Hubbard lost the rights to Dianetics in bankruptcy proceedings, and he subsequently founded Scientology." What is that subsequently about; how are the two related? Several issues of problematic "subsequently" (sample, "he was arrested in San Luis Obispo, California, and subsequently pleaded guilty" ... unlike he would plead guilty before he was arrested). The article is tediously overquoted (the red hair, green eyes quote from Parsons gives a sample of the level of unnecessary quoted detail throughout) and does not appropriately use summary style to the many sub-articles available, which could be used to reduce the tedious detail. As an example, since there is a sub-article on his military career, why do we need to know in this article when a ship was commissioned? WP:DASHes need attention, as does WP:OVERLINKing (miscarriage as one sample, New York City, World War I, it goes on). Poor writing exemplified in the first paragraph, which tells us in the first sentence that he was the founder of Scientology and two sentences later that he subsequently (ugh) founded scientology. Here is the clean TOC at promotion, for contrast with the rambling long section names now. The same diff shows the deterioration in the lead.

If anyone is working on this article, they should get busy, and we should ask Ealdgyth to look at the sources, and Mike Christie to perhaps weigh in on the magazine sections. If not, move to FARC; this has already been here six weeks, and it's in rather bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The section that covers the material I'm knowledgeable about is this one. I've had a look through and fixed one minor error, and added a couple of links. A couple of comments about that section:

• I'd cut 'Science fiction newsletter Xignals reported that Hubbard wrote "over 100,000 words a month" during his peak. Martin Gardner asserted that his writing "[wa]s done at lightning speed."'; I don't know Xignals but doubt it's a reliable source for this, and Gardner's comment won't be from first hand knowledge, but taken from other sources. Both are from encyclopedia.com, which I'm not familiar with -- is it an RS? SFE3, which is an RS, has an article on Hubbard which mentions that his writing of this era was "composed with delirious speed"; that would be a better source if we want to reinsert a mention.
• I'm not sure about the assertion, cited to Stableford, that Hubbard was taken under Campbell's wing; Stableford is a respectable source, and I wouldn't oppose at FAC over something like this, but Hubbard's success as a writer predates his involvement with Campbell, and per SFE3 he was not one of the writers who, under Campbell, helped redefine sf's conventions in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It would be worth looking at other sources to see if Stableford's comment is a minority view. For contrast, there's no question that some writers (Isaac Asimov for example) benefited very much from Campbell's tutelage; I haven't heard that Hubbard was one of them.
• The source given for Buckskin Brigades doesn't support it being Hubbard's first novel; our article on the book has other sources that might work.
• The point about Hubbard being short of money is made twice, at different points in the section; one refers to Maryland and the other to Washington, but both refer to 1936 so it would make sense to combine the two points.
• The last two sentences seem disconnected and look as though they were dropped in without attempting to integrate them.

Generally the material in this section matches what I know about this part of Hubbard's career. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, zero edits since comments on 15 February from Mike Christie and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• No change from my comments a week ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section mostly centred around sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements from January 2020. DrKay (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Notified: WP MED. The main contributors are User:Eubulides, who has been gone for 10 years, and SandyGeorgia. Talk page notification 2020-01-16

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because its main contributor, User:Eubulides, left Wikipedia ten years ago and the article has not been updated significantly since. I am the second contributor, but my contributions were mostly keeping the citations, MOS issues, etc clean, and I have not significantly contributed for more than five years. I have no interest in continuing to maintain the article. No one else has taken on this article, and it is now considerably out of date. I have listed numerous reviews on the talk page that should have been incorporated long ago, and there are many more. The problems with datedness can be seen everywhere, but the Epidemiology section provides the best example. Perusing the few samples of new reviews I listed on talk gives an idea of the amount of update needed. The majority of the article is cited to sources well over ten years old, as no one has kept the article updated since Eubulides left. The talk page notification resulted in zero edits, and zero talk response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. Research on this condition is ongoing meaning that a dated article cannot satisfy comprehensiveness requirement. I am also surprised by how short it is. Although summary style is used, some sections could stand to go into more detail. buidhe 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, please see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying problems and determining if someone is willing/able to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The condition has been merged into autism spectrum disorder per the APA. Would need to look to see were the ICD are at with things. And update will require a large amount of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by John M Wolfson

• I'm surprised at the amount of LEADCITEs. They're certainly not prohibited by any guideline, but modern standard practice in FAs is to not use them.
• Speaking of citations, there are a couple of paragraphs that end in uncited sentences. I have marked them with CN tags as needed.
• The "Classification" section might stand to be expanded per DocJames; I'm also not sure it ought to be the first section, but I can go either way with that.
• The "Causes" and "Mechanism" sections should be merged.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually I would keep the causes and mechanisms separate. Makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for and maintain due weight. This is an incredibly controversial topic and thus references are even more important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson:, yes, the lead is overcited, but more importantly, it is choppy and unpleasant to read. Here is the lead as it looked when this article was last reviewed for FA standards.

Causes and Mechanism are two different things; no, they should not be merged.

The bigger concerns here are comprehensive and outdatedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I fixed both of your cn tags. One was an off-topic addition which I removed. The other resulted from paragraphing that chopped one sentence from its source. Both addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• It looks like ICD-11 is going to rename Asperger syndrome to "Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language". Nevertheless, this is too cumbersome and "Asperger syndrome" is likely to remain the de facto name.

A number of sources are aging, notably these heavily-cited sources: Asperger syndrome fact sheet (2007), McPartland (2006), Baskin (2006), Woodbury-Smith (2009), Klin (2006) and Foster (2003).

While I suspect that the relevance of these older sources hasn't changed much, the article would really benefit from the scrutiny of an editor interested in Asperger syndrome, to go through it and update the sourcing as much as possible. (I realise that SandyGeorgia has already tried to find a suitable editor.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome, with a daily average of more than 10,000 hits, is among the medicine project's most popular pages, and yet no one at that project appears willing or able to undertake to update this article, which will fall into complete disrepair if it is defeatured. In the almost month since the FAR talk page notice was given, there have been two edits by John M Wolfson, and four edits by Axl; not even a minimum attempt by medicine project members to update.

• The problems with comprehensiveness and the need for an update are outlined on talk and on this FAR page, and updating the article would actually not be at all difficult, and yet, no one appears willing to take on the work. I am unable and uninterested in continuing to maintain this article, as working on the body of the article with a dreadful lead that does not reflect best practice for Featured articles holds no interest for me. Considering that most readers will not get past the lead, it should be a compelling and well written introduction to the subject; it is not.
  Examining the short, choppy, outdated, and overcited lead:

• Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's, is a developmental disorder characterised by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.

• This is a basic definition, unlikely to be challenged, and does not require citation in the lead. The article is written in American English, but the first sentence has British English. Right up front, we should be telling the reader this is a sub-type of ASD. Forcing leads to a specific order (not in compliance with any guideline or policy) forces critical information to a later paragraph in the lead, unnecessarily. Right up front, we should be telling our readers that AS isn't what it once was: now it's a sub-type.

• As a milder autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it differs from other ASDs by relatively normal language and intelligence.

• Because of the changing status of this diagnosis, it is helpful to cite this text, and yet, the text does not give the reader the information they need to know right up front. AS is a "disorder of uncertain validity", and the source does not characterize AS as "milder", it correctly states that AS "differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development". That doesn't make it "milder", just different. Nor does the source say that language development and intelligence are "relatively normal"; it says there is no general delay or retardation. The attempt to shorten this concept has resulted in a loss of accuracy. Rather than using a 2015 source, the text could be more accurately updated to reflect PMID 29167722, which states that effects on cognitive abilities need to be better researched. When recent sources tell us the condition is "characterized by major problems in social and nonverbal communication", the word "milder" seems inappropriate. The word "high functioning" (used in sources) seems better; dumbing down language results in loss of precision. (While I'm on that source, the article does not mention "One of the main problems in diagnosis of autism and AS is the late occurrence of some atypical behavioral and cognitive changes, like impairment of social communication or alteration in occurrence of puberty" and the importance of recognizing this for diagnosis and treatment. Nor does the article mention the high comorbidity with ADHD, or the high rate of schizophrenia among relatives, or the rate of bipolar.) PMID 30736970 states that "cognitive development is not marked by an overall delay but by specific impairments in certain areas such as the executive functions".

• Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and unusual use of language are common. Signs usually begin before two years of age and typically last for a person's entire life.

• Even with the new categorization of AS, this statement is not in doubt and does not need to be cited.

• The exact cause of Asperger's is unknown.

• This is not likely to be challenged, is common fact, and does not need to be cited in the lead. Overcitation of basic factoids results in choppy prose, where these three sentences on cause could be better combined, with one citation.

• While it is largely inherited, the underlying genetics have not been determined conclusively. Environmental factors are also believed to play a role. Brain imaging has not identified a common underlying condition.

• Citing this information is useful, but citations should be updated. We are using a 2006 source to say genetics have not been determined.

• In 2013, the diagnosis of Asperger's was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and people with these symptoms are now included within the autism spectrum disorder along with autism and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). It remains within the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as of 2019 as a subtype of autism spectrum disorder.

• Should be mentioned early on. "People with these symptoms" refers back to ... what in this paragraph? That AS was removed from DSM is basic fact; not likely to be challenged, does not require citation.

• There is no single treatment, and the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data.

• Limited data supporting interventions cited to a 2006 source ?

• Treatment is aimed at lowering obsessive or repetitive routines, and improving communication skills and physical clumsiness. Interventions may include social skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, parent training, and medications for associated problems, such as mood or anxiety.

• This is the first time the reader encounters the word obsessive, but it is unlinked, leaving confusion about possible OCD comorbidity versus OC traits; what exactly do we mean here? We are citing all of this to a 2007 source; nothing new since 2007?

• Most children improve as they grow up, but social and communication difficulties usually persist.

• We are citing "most improve" to a 2009 source; still true?

• Some researchers and people on the autism spectrum have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that autism spectrum disorder is a difference rather than a disease that must be treated or cured.

• This is cited to extremely old sources, and what does it have to do with the paragraph it is placed in ?

• In 2015, Asperger's was estimated to affect 37.2 million people globally.

• No problem (although I am unsure if this data is current). (Noting here the absence of an WP:NBSP, and that a MOS review is needed throughout.)

• Autism spectrum disorder affects males more often than females, and females are typically diagnosed at a later age.

• Standard stuff, does not require citation. How much more often, and how much later? It should not be hard to provide a few simple numbers here, using updated sources. (Noting while here that the citation does not use the same style used throughout the article, and that a check for consistent citation style throughout is needed.)

• The syndrome is named after the Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger, who, in 1944, described children in his care who were clumsy, and lacking in nonverbal communication skills and understanding of others' feelings.

• Unlikely to be challenged, does not require citation.

• The modern conception of Asperger syndrome came into existence in 1981 and went through a period of popularization.

• Holy overcitation batman. All old sources, and not one of them reflects the current conception of AS, so the term "modern conception" is outdated.

• It became a standardized diagnosis in the early 1990s.

• Obvious, does not require citation, but needs to be merged with the outdated statement in the previous sentence. Forcing text to conform to specific citations, rather than writing an overall summary of the article, results in this kind of disconnect.

• Many questions and controversies remain.

• This statement says absolutely nothing and the reader knows not to what it refers. This is the result of dumbing down and shortening sentences to the point of losing all meaning.

• There is doubt about whether it is distinct from high-functioning autism (HFA).

• Places in the wrong spot, by forcing the lead to conform to a certain flow. This information belongs with the whole sub-type, recategorization of AS as part of ASD spectrum in the first paragraph, and it is not helpful to cite this to a 2006 source.

• Partly because of this, the percentage of people affected is not firmly established.

• Dumbed down to the point of meaningless, and cited to a 2006 source.

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

So, overall the article needs an entire update, and the lead needs to be re-written in a logical flow that summarizes the overall well-known concepts. The overcited, outdated narrative in the lead, forced to a certain order that doesn't make sense or flow logically, needs to be reworked. Those who are able to update it are not going to work under conditions that force leads to be written in ways that do not reflect best FA practice. It is very sad that years of work by Eubulides on this article has been lost, as one of WPMED's top-viewed articles has fallen into disrepair. Unless the medicine project undertakes an update, I will !vote to Delist. There is still time to save this star, and I hope someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe would you like to revisit now? (BTW, I disagree with you on the length, which I think is just right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Setting the length aside for now, I think you're otherwise mostly correct in your evaluation of the article. I also think we need a subject matter expert to look at high-functioning autism and see if they should be merged (especially with the removal from the DSM). In other words my delist endorsement still stands. buidhe 16:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger's and HFA are different concepts. Many people are both, but it is possible to have one but not the other. Also, Asperger's was once a formal diagnosis. HFA is an unofficial assessment. It matters for things like planning for the future (people considered LFA are more likely to be institutionalized), but it's not "a medical condition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

And since recent reviews consider it a subset of HFA or autism, it is still a valid term/article-- the article just needs to reflect ICD and DSM correct usage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago I posted directly over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about the issues the article is having with keeping its featured status. No takers yet... Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)