Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2019

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 November 2019 [1].

Mahavira[edit]

Nominator(s): Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important figure in the Indian history and Jainism who preached non-violence and renunciation. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was not transcluded to WP:FAC; I've now done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Capankajsmilyo, may I ask what you've done to address the concerns raised at previous reviews? I'm looking at a diff of changes made since February this year, and the majority of those are formatting niceties; the major problem, that of the article not distinguishing between historical fact and articles of faith, is still present, as far as I can tell. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comment: As well as the concern raised above, there are still prose issues. I've just read the lead, and noted the following:

  • "In the Jain tradition, it is known..." The point about "traditions" is that they are not "known", i.e. established by evidence. They are "accepted", without concrete evidence. Replace "known" with "accepted" or, as you had in an earliuer version, "believed".
  • "He abandoned all worldly possessions at the age of 30...": In the main text, you modify this to 28 or 30, so perhaps here you should say "at the age of about 30".
  • What is "moksha"?
  • "a contemporary to" → "a contemporary of"
  • "variedly" is OK, but not much used. Perhaps "variously"?
  • "his place of birth are also..." → "...is also"
  • "...is necessary for spiritual liberation" → "are necessary..." etc
  • "by about the 1st century" – BC or CE?
  • Continuing that sentence is the parenthetical "(when they were first written down)". That seems odd: they were lost at the same time that they were first written down?
  • Be consistent in use of either BC or BCE
  • Explain "nirvana", or link it.

These are minor points, easily resolved, but this is just the lead, and such issues may well persist. I'll watch to see what other reviewers make of the nomination before reviewing further. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Brianboulton! Corrections have been done according to your points. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per issues raised in FAC #2. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since the nominator has chosen to ignore my fairly straightforward question, despite their having been active on this FAC since then. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on the same grounds pointed to by Nikkimaria, and those brought up by Vanamonde, Squeamish Ossifrage, and Midnightblueowl in the other FACs. The nominator deserves credit for his efforts to bring such an important article to FA standard and for assembling a good collection of academic sources to support it, but I'm going to state at length the reasons for opposing, because the nominator unfortunately doesn't seem to have fully registered the criticisms of those reviewers.
The biggest problem is the lack of distinction between Jain beliefs and history. The lead, for instance, still says "He expounded the spiritual, philosophical and ethical teachings of the previous tirthankaras from the remote pre-Vedic era", even though pre-Vedic India was prehistoric and any particular figure claimed to have lived in prehistory is likely to be legendary. The article makes some gestures toward distinguishing tradition from fact, but the largest such gesture, the "Historical Mahavira" section, is remarkably scanty and leaves unanswered a lot of questions that may occur to the reader. For instance, Parshvanatha's historicity is apparently a contentious subject, which leads to the question of whether Mahavira was raised in a preexisting tradition descended from Parshvanatha or came up with his ideas independently. Do any of the sources cited in the article address this point?
A lot of articles on semi-legendary figures start by describing the major sources for the figure's life and summarizing what they say, then summarize what historians believe to be true about that figure and mention the points on which those historians disagree. We even have an FA on the semilegendary founder of a religion (Jesus) that exemplifies this approach. Doing that for this article will require rethinking the entire topic, stripping the article down to its skeleton, and rebuilding it. And that's not just required for the article to pass FAC; as it stands the article fails WP:Neutral point of view and thus does not even qualify for GA status. The GAN doesn't seem to have taken GA criterion 4 into account.
I know this is harsh, but this article seems to have gotten into a loop of being nominated and failing at FAC, and I want to be very clear about the kind of work that should be required before it's brought here again. During the third FAC, Ian Rose suggested bringing in another collaborator. Finding a collaborator may be difficult but would help. If possible, I recommend finding somebody knowledgeable about the kind of historical analysis that a legendary subject requires, or somebody knowledgeable about Indian history. I'm somewhat knowledgeable about the former but not at all about the latter, so I'm afraid I could only make general suggestions myself. A. Parrot (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid there's a real sense of deja vu for me here, brought out particularly by A. Parrot's comments above, so I'm going to archive this and ask (again) that such comments as this and those of the other reviewers be taken note of before considering another try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [2].

Right of abode in Hong Kong[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about permanent residency in Hong Kong. Rewrote this article a while ago and think it's up to FA standards. Given current events in the city, looking at its colonial history is particularly interesting. Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Hkdemo.png: what are the images underlying this compilation?
  • File:HongKongRightofAbodePassport.jpg should include an explicit tag for the document itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I'm also curious about Hkdemo.png, as well as wondering what the purpose is of this hideous image. It's so tiny I can't tell what it's attempting to depict... people riding on a train? It looks like someone incorporated a probably-copyrighted stock image ten years ago and no one bothered to challenge it. --Laser brain (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's meant to show riders on the MTR. Removed it from the template since it doesn't seem possible to trace its origin. Horserice (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Added alt text. Looks like the editor who created Hkdemo.png has been inactive for more than 10 years and there's no trail leading back to the source of that image. Removed it from the template. What do you mean by explicit tag? Horserice (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current tag reflects the copyright of the person who took the photo - however, under US law reproduction of a 2D work does not garner new copyright, the copyright that matters is the thing being pictured. It's almost certainly in the public domain, we just need a tag that says so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated it with a Crown copyright tag. Usage seems to be in line with National Archives guidelines for reproducing the passport pages in this photo, so I believe this should be sufficient. Horserice (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

The lead looks awfully brief, even for a shortish article. Does it cover all the main points raised in the article? Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Expanded the lead a bit. How's that work? Horserice (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Yes, better, but I'll leave others to decide on that, while I look at the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Beginning. Problems, I'm afraid.

  • The first 4 sentences of "Background" read: "Hong Kong was a British colony from 1842 until its transfer to China in 1997. Right of abode eligibility was accordingly closely tied to British nationality law during colonial rule. All British subjects previously had unrestricted access to live and work in any British territory. Parliament gradually restricted this from 1962 to 1971, when subjects originating from outside of the British Islands first had immigration controls imposed on them when entering the United Kingdom." All this is cited to "Evans 1972", which is the MLR summary of the (British) Immigration Act 1971, 17 pages. Can you indicate where, in the MLR, the above info is found? A quick skim failed to find any reference to Hong Kong.
  • Limited the use of that source only to cite UK immigration restrictions. Added sources for the other lines.
  • Refs 2, 5, 7 and 10 are to Chen 1988, but unfortunately the link is returning a 404 error.
  • Relinked that article.
  • Ref 3: "Nationality law reform in 1981 reclassified the vast majority of Hong Kong belongers as British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs).". Cited to p. 31 of census report. Page 31 shows a table of figures, headed "Population by Nationality and Place of Birth, 1996". Where is your statement verified?
  • Added additional citation for that line. The census source is only there to illustrate how the nationality of residents were accounted for in official stats. It's redundant with the new source, but I just left it in.
  • Ref 8a: "The British and Chinese governments entered negotiations over the future of Hong Kong in the early 1980s and agreed on the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984. The basic principles for the right of abode are set as part of this treaty." Cited to Basic Law, article 24. Article 24 makes no mention of 1980s negotiations, or of the 1984 Joint Declaration.
  • Used alternate source.
  • Ref 8b: "The eligibility criteria for right of abode as defined in the Basic Law allows a much broader group of people to qualify compared to requirements enforced by the Immigration Department". Also cited to Article 24, but this looks like a broad interpretative comment, not evident in the article itself.
  • I rephrased that lead sentence to just be more generally descriptive of what's in the rest of that section.
  • Ref 9: "...(principles for the right of abode are) further defined in the Hong Kong Basic Law". This is cited to Annex 1 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Annex is many pages long; I found reference to the principles of the right of abode in para XIV. You should specify this.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 11: "All BDTCs that did not have a connection with a remaining British Dependent Territory other than Hong Kong lost BDTC status on 1 July 1997, and the vast majority of them became Chinese nationals. Former BDTCs could only retain British nationality if they had registered as British Nationals (Overseas) prior to the transfer of sovereignty." What is the source of the document to which the above is cited? You need to specify – is it the British government? Also, I'm not sure that your statement accurately reflects what's in the document, which states: "Former ethnic Chinese Hong Kong British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) who did not register as BN(O)s ceased to hold British nationality on 1 July 1997 and became Chinese nationals", and "A former Hong Kong BDTC who was not ethnically Chinese and who did not register as a BN(O) automatically became a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) on 1 July 1997". (My italics in each case).
  • Changed phrasing to clarify.

So, I've found quite a few verification issues in the first handful of refs, which raise concerns about those not yet checked, or which I'm unable to check. I'd like your responses to these matters before I go on. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, these issues should be addressed. Horserice (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for dealing with these so promptly. But I'll give you a little time, so that you can see whether similar action is required with some of the later references. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I must've just omitted some by mistake, which is why I was able to add them in so quickly. Think the rest should be good, but let me know if I missed anything. Horserice (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: If and when you come to conclusion on this, could you give me a ping? I am holding off on reviewing until I see how you get on with sources. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the reminder – I intended to look at it last weekend but got diverted...will definitely look tromorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing sources review On the first batch of references, since I last looked the ref numbers have changed, and it's quite hard to follow the changes that have been made. But except where I've added a comment, I'll accept what's been said.

As to the rest, I've carried out a spotcheck to identify any further possible issues. The biggest general issue seems to be that of verification arising from imprecision, i.e. not citing the specific section of a source which supports the statement in the article. A few examples:

  • Ref 16: "All BDTCs who did not have a connection with a remaining British Dependent Territory other than Hong Kong lost BDTC status on 1 July 1997". Cited to The Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986. Which part of the Order?
  • Ref 19: Very difficult to navigate this source without further information.
  • Ref 26: "Children with foreign nationality who were born in Hong Kong and have permanent residency by descent also automatically lose right of abode at age 21 and are given the right to land. They may subsequently reapply for right of abode on the basis of a seven-year residence period". Cited to Immigration Ordinance Schedule 1, para. 4. This source paragraph is hard to follow, but it doesn't appear to mention "Children with foreign nationality", or losing right of abode, or the right to land, or a seven-year residence period.
  • Ref 40: "Hong Kong permanent residents are also subject to immigration controls in Macau, and must obtain residence permits if living there for more than one year". Cited to a lengthy Public Security Police Force of Macau document, with no indication where to find the specific information.
  • Ref 44: "In 1999, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) issued two judgements that granted right of abode in Hong Kong to children born in mainland China with at least one parent who had the right of abode". Cited to a court judgement which, again, is very long – 174 sections. Where to look?

These, as I say, are examples. I think you need to overhaul your sources presentation, looking at every source that does not at present cite a page or section number. With regard to the coordinator's comment below, it may be advisable that this work is done outside the FAC framework. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

I was going to archive this as it's nearly at the one-month mark without any support for promotion and issues identified with sourcing. @Brianboulton: I'll leave it open for now since you seem mid-work, but I'll be inclined to archive if many further issues are identified. It would be better audited outside of FAC in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [3].

Saving Light[edit]

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 00:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 trance song by Gareth Emery and Standerwick, featuring Haliene. I believe that the article has sufficiently met the criteria to become a featured article, with it undergoing a peer review very recently. Although it is quite short, it's length seems fine compared to other featured articles such as MissingNo. and articles for various tropical cyclones. Most of the article's problems (including the reliability of sources, non-free data, proper usage of sources, etc) were fixed in the previously mentioned peer review, alongside its good article review and previous featured article reviews. It's non-free content (music video screenshot and cover art) have been properly covered with respective licencing and should have no problems. If there are any problems, they would be mostly minor and easily fixable. Micro (Talk) 00:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • Comment: I unfortunately do not have the time to do a full review for this nomination, but I just wanted to let you know that the Media data and Non-free use rationale box for the music video screenshot is incomplete. There are two portions that are left as "n.a.". Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for letting me know, I thought those were fine. I've replaced with with pretty sufficient portions and should be fine now. Micro (Talk) 01:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. For the future, the Media data and Non-free use rationale box should be completely filled in, and "n.a." does not provide the necessary information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has not been any activity since my last comment, I will provide a review to hopefully get the ball rolling. I hope this is helpful.

  • Thanks for taking the time for doing this, if there are any mistakes, further suggestions, corrections, etc please let me know. Micro (Talk) 02:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise this sentence (It was released by Canadian record label Monstercat on 30 January 2017 as part of an initiative organised by the label and Emery called "Make Trance No. 1 Again".) to something like (Canadian record label Monstercat released it on 30 January 2017 as part of an initiative called "Make Trance No. 1 Again".) to make it a little more concise and to avoid the passive tense.
  • Done.
  • I would be consistent with using either Standerwich or Ian Standerick.
  • Changed most instances of Ian Standerwick to just Standerwick (his full real name to his stage name), with the exception of the producers tab in the infobox and credits section.
  • For this part (support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label), I would add "the" in front of "anti-bully charity".
  • Done.
  • For this part (Their goal was to encourage fans to purchase the song on Beatport, an online music store, to support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and get the song to the top of the Beatport charts), I would avoid using "the song" twice in one sentence. You could either replace the first instance with the song's title or the second instance with it to avoid this altogether.
  • Replaced the second "the song" with "Saving Light" to avoid being repetitive with both phrases.
  • I would move the title to the first instance instead. Aoba47 (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • For this part (The song achieved this goal within a month of its release), I would just say "The song achieved this within a month of its release" to avoid the repetition of "goal" from the previous sentence.
  • Done.
  • The lead should mention the music video.
  • Done. I've based it off of the lead from "Diamonds", so it should be fine in formatting.
  • I would remove "for inclusion" for this part "for inclusion on van Buuren's 2017 trance mix album, A State of Trance 2017.".
  • Done.
  • I am not sure if "group" is the right word choice for this part (The group composed the lyrics in under an hour). I get what you mean, but it is a little confusing because the songwriters do not identify as a collective (compare this to songwriting groups like The Clutch).
  • I can see what you are getting at. "Group" seems to be kinda out of place or simply just not the right word to use. I've changed it to "the four", referring to the four songwriters who are mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • I would simplify this part (Emery and Standerwick tried different ideas for a musical style) to something like (Emery and Standerwick tried different musical styles).
  • Done.
  • Link Monstercat in this part (an initiative organised by Emery and Monstercat that encouraged fans to purchase) as it is the first time the label is mentioned in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • For this part (Emery described the song's meaning as about standing up to bullies and supporting victims by being their "saving light"), I would just say "Emery described the song as about" to be a little more concise.
  • Done.
  • In the lead, you say that Monstercat and Emery specifically request for people to buy the song on Beatport, but in the body of the article, it is left more vague with this part (that encouraged fans to purchase the song to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label).
  • added "via Beatport" in that section to clarify.
  • You do not make it clear in the prose that Haliene is singing on this song until the "Critical reception" section. I would clarify this point when you are talking about the production and lyrics of the song.
  • Changed a bit in the production process to "The four composed the lyrics in under an hour, with Haliene providing vocals". I think this might be good, but if not, please say so.
  • I think it is fine, but again I have heard criticism about the "with X verb+ing" sentence structure. Aoba47 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to “The four composed the lyrics in under an hour and Haliene provided vocals for the song.”
  • I would wikilink YouTube on the first use in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • I have always been told in the past to avoid the "with X verb+ing" sentence structure (as shown here "with an editor for EDM Sauce writing" as an example). I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to let you know about it.
  • I always have trouble writing critical reception bits because I keep defaulting to that structure. I've fancied up the entire reception bit for Notaker's remix into [His remix was well-received; a EDM Sauce editor felt that Notaker added a "gritty digital feel" to the song, letting him "display his own version of this already incredible track" and Robyn Dexter of Dancing Astronaut praised Notaker's sound design and production, saying he "continues to prove he's a force to be reckoned with in the dance music community."] though I'm not totally sure if it's grammatically correct, though Grammarly says it's good.
  • For this part (Without doubt, "Saving Light" is one of those rare ones.), since the song title is in quotation marks, I believe it should be single quotation marks instead of the double ones.
  • You are correct, yes. Done.
  • I am uncertain about the "while" transition in this part (while We Rave You's Fiorito Maniego felt that her voice suits the song's trance composition) since it is typically used to suggest a contrast, and that is not the case here.
  • I agree with you there, 'while' is used for agree/disagree type things. I've changed it to "and" to act as an conjunctive adverb.
  • The block quote in the "Music video" section seems a tad excessive. Is there a way to cut it down and use your own words instead?
  • Re-wrote that entire bit, replacing the quote with my own words. There may be better ways to write it though.
  • For reference 4, I would not put "Listen" in all caps. Same for "Earmilk" in Reference 13.
  • I've removed the "listen" title thing as it doesn't add anything and only acts as a sort of clickbait method and lowercased "Earmilk".

Again, I hope this helps. I would recommend pinging the editor from the peer review to hopefully get more commentary on this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are missing a word here (Emery said that he did not the video to be a typical dance music video).
  • Whoops, fixed.
  • For this part (Emery got in touch with Ditch the Label to work on the music video, working with Liam Hackett, their CEO and founder,), I think it should be "its CEO and founder" instead of "their". Aoba47 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • I am wondering if this sentence (The song achieved this within a month of its release, reaching number one on the Beatport overall charts on 16 February 2017) be simplified to either (The song reached number one on the Beatport overall charts on 16 February 2017) or (The song achieved this on 16 February 2017). There is something slightly repetitive about the sentence.
  • Replaced with your second suggestion.
  • For this sentence ("Saving Light" was voted the 2017 Tune of the Year on Armin van Buuren's radio show A State of Trance and was voted the Best Original Trance track of 2017 by the r/EDM subreddit.), I would remove the second instance of "was voted".
  • Done.
  • I have a comment about this part (The official remixes of "Saving Light" featured electronic music artists Decoy!, Hixxy, Intercom, Notaker, Nwyr, and Ruben de Ronde). Would it be better to just list the two notable artists (i.e. the ones with Wikipedia articles) in the lead?
  • Done.
  • For this part (Haliene released her acoustic version of the song on 30 January 2019), I would simplify "her acoustic version of the song" to "an acoustic version".
  • Done.
  • I have a comment about this part (which they gave to songwriters Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.), specifically the "during a writing session" portion. After reading the Billboard source, it sounds like Emery did not attend the writing session at all, and gave them the demo so they could have something to work on in his absence. I think "for a writing session" would better reflect that as the "during" part makes me think he was present at this session and gave it to these individuals then. Aoba47 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. "During" does kinda sound like he was a part of the session, so "for" sounds like he gave them the material to work on, which is what happened.
  • I would avoid repeating the word "video" twice in this part (Emery said that he did not want the video to be a typical dance music video of him and Standerwick dancing at a festival, instead choosing to produce a video that would "provide hope for those dealing with adversity.").
  • Done, replaced the first "the video" with "it", should be good as that it should be obvious to readers what Emery is referring to.
  • Do you think the lead should include a brief sentence about the song's lyrics?
  • Going off of what the article has on the lyrics, I've added a bit about how the lyrics are intertwined with the music video and what is is generally about.
  • Armada Music should be wikilinked in this part (On 1 November 2017, Armada Music opened voting to select for the 2017 Tune of the Year for) as it is the first and only time it is mentioned in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this does get archived in the near future, then it may be helpful to get some help from a tutor from here (Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC). It may be helpful in improving the article further and attracting more attention if you would like to try for another nomination. Just thought that I should suggest this if you were not already aware of the FAC mentoring program. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list but unfortunately it seems to be a non-starter. It will need to be archived soon unless it sees significant progress. --Laser brain (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2019 [4].

Hart Island (Bronx)[edit]

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an island in the Bronx, NYC, which is used as a potter's field. About a million people are buried there. And in my opinion, it's quite an interesting topic with lots of history.

This article had a previous FAC, which received an image and source review by Nikkimaria but was archived due to a lack of support. It has also received a GOCE copyedit. Any further comments are welcome. epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I intend to look at the sources shortly, but meantime, how did the GOCE copyeditors allow the word "island" to occur four times in the opening line? Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I tried to fix this. It's actually seven times, but three of these instances are in reference to other geographical features (i.e. City Island, Long Island Sound, Pelham Islands). epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per ext. links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Be consistent re book publisher locations (compare refs 6, 7, 57 with ref 75)
  • Ref 59: Grand Street can be wikilinked, piped from Grand Street (magazine)
  • Ref 65: Not sure the Chief Medical Officer is the publisher of this document. Surely New York City Council is the responsible authority?
  • Ref 94: Gothamist can be wikilinked, too.
  • Quality/reliability: I'm not too sure about ref 91, "Untapped Cities". What makes this a high quality reliable source per the FA criteria? No problems otherwise.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the source review, I have fixed the issues you described above. I removed Untapped Cities because it doesn't meet the FA criteria. epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination, as it seems that there is some news that may require a major update, thereby failing the stability criterion 1e. epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 November 2019 [5].

Sega[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 23:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sega is a Japanese video game and arcade company most well known for Sonic the Hedgehog. It is also the world's most prolific producer of arcade games. As a contributor to Wikipedia, I found their story intriguing not only as someone who grew up playing Sega games, but in the unique stories of corporate success, and failure, that they endured. It's in many ways no longer the same company, but one that is fondly remembered by fans and critical reviewers alike for its days before being acquired by Sammy Corporation in 2004.

This is the article's second review, after the first one was unsuccessful for a lack of feedback. Instead of a quick renomination, though, I chose to take it to a peer review, where Megaman en m was very gracious in providing a thorough and in-depth prose review. I feel more confident now than ever that this article is ready for FA status, though as always, I welcome all of the feedback that I will receive in this process. Not counting blocked users (and noting that to avoid WP:CANVASS concerns), I ping the following additional reviewers from the first review: @Ritchie333, SnowFire, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Indrian:.

Thank you for reviewing, and to finish my statement with a former Sega marketing slogan: Welcome to the Next Level. Red Phoenix talk 23:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like my previous image review still applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion on whether or not File:Sonic 1991.png met NFCC#8 or not. I thought I'd leave it up for a final decision here, and I don't have an issue removing it if we're still favoring that it does not. Red Phoenix talk 17:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lee Vilenski[edit]

Hi! Nice article. I'll try my best to give some comments below:

  • Perhaps the lede sentence should also mention it created video games consoles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is note [b] necessary? I don't need it shouldn't be in the text somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about translations, but usually we cite notes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably mention Tokyo, Japan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for the next two locations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Sega Interactive Co., Ltd." bolded, but Sega Holdings Co., Ltd. isn't? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1969, Sega was sold to Gulf and Western Industries. - weirdly short sentence here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come

Thanks, Lee Vilenski. To address your notes so far:
  • I don't think the first sentence should, because that's not the present, but I threw in a line at the end of the first paragraph. I think it does actually fit in well there.
  • Removed note [b]. Wasn't my addition to begin with. There always has been some weird push for the text "short for SErvice GAmes" as if someone has to see the capitals to understand, and I don't think it's really necessary.
  • Usually I haven't had any problem with needing a translation cited. Has not been a precedent in any of my previous FAs.
  • Also my understanding of precedent is that the largest cities don't usually need a country added, but if it's a sticking point I'll add them. I did add Shinagawa as the specific ward of Tokyo where Sega's HQ is located.
  • Bolded
  • Gave that sentence a slight expansion.
Red Phoenix talk 02:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Do you have more feedback for me? Thank you for your time. Red Phoenix talk 02:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I took so long to get back to this. Here's a couple other things:
  • Could we clean up: "including Amplitude Studios,[253] Atlus,[211] Creative Assembly,[254] Demiurge Studios,[220] Hardlight,[222] Relic Entertainment,[255] Sports Interactive,[256] and Two Point Studios.[237][238]"? There are cites everywhere, which isn't a huge issue, but I think the information could be cited in either a note, or a catch-all citation.
  • "3D fighting game" - is WP:SEAOFBLUE. I thought it was one link on my first passthrough.

Other than that, I can't see much to stop a support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Image review[reply]

  • Suggest scaling up the financial diagram
  • File:Sega_Annual_Income(Loss)_1993-2004.svg: some of the source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source links are fixed; they were archived in the article, but those links were never transferred to the Commons image data. That has now been done. Not sure what you would like with scaling up the diagram. Red Phoenix talk 02:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

Archiving this isn't my first choice but once again we've almost hit the one-month mark with minimal feedback and no support for promotion. I've added it to the Urgents list but I'll need to archive it in the coming days if some significant commentary doesn't materialize. Can we stir up some WikiProject members to participate? --Laser brain (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire[edit]

I supported the previous nomination. I checked the diff since July and it doesn't seem that the article has substantially degraded since then. Legacy section is still a bit hypey, but no big deal.

My main nitpick from the additions is that there's a "640 times more data" for CD vs. cartridge that's been added. Technically true, but I guess this gets into how much Wikipedia is for a general reader vs. a specialist audience - 640x the data is merely keeping pace with the times, at least back when Moore's law was in full effect. Any bit of 1994 tech is gonna thrash 1989 tech no matter what the platform, so I wonder if general audience readers will infer the wrong thing here. SnowFire (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2019 [6].

Radiohead stage collapse[edit]

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 stage collapse that killed one person and injured three more before a Radiohead concert in Toronto. Popcornduff (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've read through a couple of times and can't find much to say about the prose, though there are a couple of minor points below. However, the rhythm is a little staccato. Mostly I think this is the short paragraphs, particularly in the lead and first section. Simply combining paragraphs would help, but anything in the way of connective tissue to help carry the reader from factual statement to factual statement with a sense of flow would be good.

The minor points:

  • At 2pm, Radiohead’s business manager Ade Bullock noticed that scaffolding on the stage appeared to be drooping, and took a photograph, but thought: "What do I know about engineering?" This feels like viewpoint flicker to me. Omniscient third person viewpoint writing, in fiction, uses phrasing like this, but that's not a very encyclopedic tone. Can we make it something like "..., but recalled afterwards that he had dismissed his concerns with the thought: 'What do I know..."? That's too clumsy, but I hope the point is clear. And I don't suppose Ade Bullock's photograph of the drooping scaffolding is available for fair use, is it?
  • the chance to leave without judgment: perhaps a bit too compressed. Does "judgment" by itself always connote a negative opinion?
  • Why did Elton John get involved? I don't see any prior reference to anything that relates to him.
  • What is a "pickup truss"?
  • The roof design had been used since the late 80s or early 90s, and had been approved by engineer George Snowden. Snowden had been disciplined by the Professional Engineers of Ontario for his role in the fatal collapse of a scaffold on the Ambassador Bridge. The sequence isn't clear here -- Snowden was the original engineer who approved the design back around 1990? Or was working with Cugliari on the new design? And when was the Ambassador Bridge collapse -- decades ago? The linked article doesn't mention it as far as I can see.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria:, @Mike Christie: - I'm going to pull this FA nom. I had sworn off FA and GA nominating and reviewing for my own reasons and I'm not sure what compelled me to nominate this article. However, your feedback will not be wasted - I'll use it to improve the article. Thanks so much. Popcornduff (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; hope it was useful. Pinging Ian Rose or Laser brain to action the withdrawal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2019 [7].

1957 NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game[edit]

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're back, on the Heels of a copy-edit performed by the Guild of Copy Editors's wonderful Twofingered Typist. As the prose seemed to be the primary issue following the dismissal of my last attempt. I feel that now this article's writing is of the caliber for FA status. I'm more than happy to talk any adjustments and reviewer may feel need to be made.

This article details one of the most legendary NCAA Championship games in history as the Wilt Chamberlain led Jayhawks faced off against the undefeated Tar Heels in what turned out to be a triple overtime affair. I know many of you will be clamoring to watch the game upon completion of the article, so here is the link when you would like to view it. Thanks, Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Subscription-required tags should not be included within a different parameter - either use the dedicated parameter or add them outside of the templated citation
  • Be consistent in whether/when you include publishers for periodicals
  • FN23 should use a location parameter rather than a page
  • FN21 should use pp.
  • FN17: not seeing the AP credit at source. Same with FN43
  • FN20: link goes to a login page rather than any visible source. Same with FN79, check for others
  • These have subscription required within the citation for ProQuest, the link will take you to the article if you have a subscription, should be a bit clearer now that I have the proper subscription required notation. Disc Wheel (T + C) 04:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the same hold true for the archive links?
So for the NYT articles there are archived pages of the articles, so I removed the Proquest ones as they just redirect there. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN55: source gives UP not AP as agency credit. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all the above issues and left one comment. Disc Wheel (T + C) 04:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2019 [8].

Descent (1995 video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gamingforfun365 23:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Descent is "a spacecraft-based first-person shooter and shoot 'em up video game developed by Parallax Software and released by Interplay Productions in 1995". The subject is considered iconic for its unique combination of the six degrees of freedom and first-person shooter mechanics, and its success led to two immediate sequels: Descent II and Descent 3, also receiving critical acclaim.

Before I became a major contributor to it, the article was a mess. It had technical information that was not suitable for Wikipedia, as well as an inadequate lead and several inappropriate uses of news and announcements, particularly in the lead. I rewrote the lead to summarize the entire article and replaced the technical information with a history of the game's development. I managed to find an abundance of sources on the Internet, and I used them for expansion and to verify numerous unsourced contents. When I was done, I then took this article to GA, which passed the review, and even during and after the review, I made other improvements not addressed in the review such as correcting dates of the sales charts and adding an alt text for the cover art.

With my involvement, I have demonstrated passion and eagerness in fixing the article. In that, I have also demonstrated the patience needed to become familiar with the FA criteria and prepare the article for the status. There are no edit wars or any obvious mistakes, so I can reasonably expect constructive criticism with which I can readily and easily improve the article. Gamingforfun365 23:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Hi, I think this is your first FAC -- if so, a belated welcome! Generally we close reviews that haven't attracted any commentary after two or three weeks but I'll give this some more time. Can I suggest that you actively seek some reviews from members of related projects? Also you might care to review a few active FAC noms -- not that we encourage quid pro quo reviews (and certainly not qpq supports) but reviewing does get you noticed and can lead to others reviewing your work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

This is by way of a kick-start, hopefully. I'm well out of my comfort zone here, belonging as I do to the pre-Merlin era, and I don't normally even try to review video game article, but a few odd comments might be useful to you, and may encourage others with more knowledge to delve a little deeper.

  • General; the prose looks reasonably fluent and well prepared, but without knowledge of the jargon I found a few terms hard to understand. It's worth remembering that Wikipedia articles are for a general readership, not merely for those with specific knowledge of or interest in the topic. What Wikipedia is not is relevant here.
  • I noticed, tacked on to a paragraph end, the obervation "No further announcement about it has been made since". This may be true now, but it might not always be. There's no need to report on something that hasn't happened, so I'd drop this.
  • Likewise I saw "to no avail" added. This should either be within the reference or, as above, dropped, or reworded in some way.
  • I saw a number of examples of multiple citation strings, some containing nine, ten or eleven separate citations. It's hard to imagine that they are all necessary in these cases. For example, why does the simple sentence "Common complaints tended to focus on Descent's ability to disorient players, as well as potentially induce motion sickness" require nine citations? Where multiple citation is unavoidable, you should use bundling.

That's all from me for the moment. My guess is that this well-written article will be appreciated by the cognoscenti, and I look forward to seeing how it fares in this review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks later: No acknowledgement, no response. If you show no interest in your own nomination, why should anyone else bother? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gamingforfun365: Are you still paying attention to this nomination? GamerPro64 01:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this October 16 edit answer? GaɱingFørFuɲ365 01:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should at least acknowledge the FAC then. Because you have not worked on the article in eleven days between that edit and Brian's comment. GamerPro64 15:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do have a point. I was awfully quiet when I read Brian's first comment and addressed some of the issues, and I did leave quietly like a clever mouse after I made the edits. That type of nonverbal language does imply that I do not take this FAC seriously. That will change, and the mouse will no longer be silent. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 07:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2019&oldid=927898222"