Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2021

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 September 2021 [1].

---

SpaceX Starship

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about SpaceX Starship, a fully reusable rocket in development by SpaceX. It describes each system components, its potential effect on spaceflight and a brief history. This article is a GA and have been grammar-corrected and follow the manual of style, as well as putting due weight on both side of the argument. I welcome all feedback for the article, and I don't mind if it get quickfailed because of a good reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are issues with image sandwiching (see MOS:IMAGELOC) and more citations to Elon Musk tweets than you expect to see in a featured article. High quality reliable source? I wouldn't have said so. (t · c) buidhe 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Just been looking through the ref list, nothing else so far. It seems some issues seem to stem from using the visual editor auto-citer without verifying accuracy (numbers as of Special:Permalink/1044783103):
  • Tweet and YT ref formatting is inconsistent, if you keep any make them the same.
  • 7, 11, 74: Fix the title, add info on publication
  • 12: Might be wrong, why does it link to the SpaceX homepage?
  • 13: Link changed, it looks like. In any case, remove "(BBC News)", and add author
  • 15, 43, 93: Add author
  • 17, 29, 34: Author formatting should be Last, First
  • 18: Formatting completely broken, please use CS1 for consistency with the rest of the article
  • 22, 25, 28, 39, 69-72: Use CS1
  • 25: Why is SpaceFlight Insider reliable?
  • 29, 34, 40-41, 52, 57-58, 61-62, 77, 82, 84-88, 91, 95-96: Why is Teslarati reliable? (and make the naming of the publication consistent)
  • 36, 42, 63, 94: Author has incorporated the date somehow, needs fixing
  • 37, 80: Add author and date
  • 40: Is that large quote necessary?
  • 52, 57, 62, 98: Add info on publication
  • 59-60: Clarify that "Space Exploration Technologies Corp" is the same as SpaceX
  • 66: Format like 59/60
  • 67: Not a permanent dead link, not sure why it's marked as such
  • 75: Date, fix title and publication (Spaceflight Now is the publication, not part of the title). Why is Spaceflight Now reliable?
  • 82, 109: Add date
  • 99: Add author and publication
  • 103: When does this video talk about Starship specifically?
  • 104: How does this support the sentence it's after?

That's all I've looked at so far; no comment on the content of the article yet. eviolite (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your critical comments! I will fix it now CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Progress by CactiStaccingCrane (talk):

• • Tweet and YT ref formatting is inconsistent, if you keep any make them the same.
  • 7, 11, 74: Fix the title, add info on publication
  • 12: Might be wrong, why does it link to the SpaceX homepage?
  • 13: Link changed, it looks like. In any case, remove "(BBC News)", and add author
  • 15, 43, 93: Add author
  • 17, 29, 34: Author formatting should be Last, First
  • 18: Formatting completely broken, please use CS1 for consistency with the rest of the article
  • 22, 25, 28, 39, 69-72: Use CS1
  • 25: Why is SpaceFlight Insider reliable?
  • 29, 34, 40-41, 52, 57-58, 61-62, 77, 82, 84-88, 91, 95-96: Why is Teslarati reliable? (and make the naming of the publication consistent)

It is mostly used for getting the part's name, usually with picture proof. It is generally considered reliable in spaceflight community, but I would try to find more reliable sources. Very little (reliable, secondary) sources write about Starship's components. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• • 36, 42, 63, 94: Author has incorporated the date somehow, needs fixing
  • 37, 80: Add author and date
  • 40: Is that large quote necessary?
  • 52, 57, 62, 98: Add info on publication
  • 59-60: Clarify that "Space Exploration Technologies Corp" is the same as SpaceX
  • 66: Format like 59/60
  • 67: Not a permanent dead link, not sure why it's marked as such
  • 75: Date, fix title and publication (Spaceflight Now is the publication, not part of the title). Why is Spaceflight Now reliable?
  • 82, 109: Add date
  • 99: Add author and publication
  • 103: When does this video talk about Starship specifically?
  • 104: How does this support the sentence it's after?

Comments by Epicgenius

I will take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Lead:

• The Starship launch system is a two-stage, fully reusable, super heavy-lift launch vehicle under development by SpaceX, consisting of an upper stage and spacecraft called Starship, a first-stage booster called Super Heavy, and various ground-based support infrastructure - This seems quite lengthy for an opening sentence. A long opening sentence should probably avoided since it is also the first thing modern search engines grab when someone searches for this. I think this should be split into two sentences.

Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• producing more than twice the thrust of the Saturn V. - Which is what?

What do you mean? Added thurst spec CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• SpaceX plans for both the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy booster - You can say "SpaceX is planning", or "SpaceX has planned", but "SpaceX plans" sounds awkward in this context.

Done, to is planning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• help the system meet its goal of significantly reduce - This should be "significantly reducing".

Done, CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• during launch, and can transport over 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) of payload - The comma before "and" is not necessary. As a fellow editor once told me, "what helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. Is 'can transport over 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) of payload to low Earth orbit in a fully reusable configuration' a complete sentence? No, so there shouldn't be a comma between the two sentences." I'd recommend checking for this throughout the article too.

Thanks for the advice! I'm sift through them now. Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I'd also check for instances of duplicate links in the article per MOS:DUPLINK. Generally, try to use them no more than once each in the lead and body (non-prose items like infoboxes, tables, captions, etc. don't count). For example, "payload" and "Mars" are linked twice just in the lead. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js can help you identify and remove these.

Thanks, I'm installing the plugin and fix the issues asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• orbital propellant transfer — refueling - This is a spaced m-dash but, per MOS:DASH, this should either be an unspaced m-dash or a spaced n-dash.

Done, I used an em-dash. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The lead is missing key information, e.g. development history and finances. Per MOS:LEAD the lead should adequately summarize everything.

Currently rewriting the lead Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• At present, most manufacturing, assembly, and test flights of Starship prototypes - As of when? Related to the previous point but the lead does not have any dates at all.

Fixed, change to As of September 2021 CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I also notice that the lead has some citations, but under WP:CITELEAD you could remove these if the info is adequately cited in the body (unless that info is particularly controversial).

Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Skipping to the body, I also see In January 2016, the United States Air Force signed a $33.7 million contract with SpaceX to develop a prototype Raptor engine for a methalox upper stage for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, with up to $61.4 million more available for any additional requirements. is an entirely unsourced paragraph.

Done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I'll add more comments later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you by a ton! Unfortunately I am on mobile rn, so I cannot address these issues immediately. Any feedback is highly appriciated! I'm doing it right now CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Gonna write down some of my comments for the body now, with more comments later.

Development history:

• SpaceX's next-generation launch vehicle has been renamed multiple times during the first several years of development.[8] - When did the idea for the next-generation launch vehicle start?

2005. Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " "BFR" for a conceptual heavy‑lift launch vehicle" - Not an issue in itself, but I laughed at this because my father is a SpaceX buff and calls it the "Big Fucking Rocket", which I suppose this is what it's actually nicknamed. The reason I bring this up is a smaller rocket called the "Big Falcon Rocket" (BFR) is mentioned later on in the section. So am I correct that BFR was given that backronym later?

BFR was the given codename in the past, and its full name is only known decade later. And yes, it was nicked Big Fucking Rocket :D. Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• the second stage "Interplanetary Spaceship" featured nine Raptors - There should typically be commas before and after the quoted part (i.e. the second stage, "Interplanetary Spaceship", featured nine Raptors), since it's not an adjective phrase where the commas would be unnecessary.

Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In September 2017, at the 68th International Astronautical Congress, Elon Musk - This sounds too similar to the beginning of this paragraph, which is just this but with "2016...67th". I'd change the phrasing it up a bit, like "Musk, at the 68th International Astronautical Congress the following September, ...."

Done, to At the 68th International Astronautical Congress the following September, Musk announced ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• second stage design - This should be "second-stage design", since the word "second" does not modify "stage design" (like in theatre), only "stage".

Done, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "and the collective launch system ambiguously named "Starship system" or simply "Starship" " - Not really an issue either, but I can see why it can be confusing since the upper stage and the whole thing are referred to by the same thing.

Yup, it can be confusing sometimes. I have tried to seperate them with "Starship spacecraft" and "Starship launch system". CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• atmospheric entry, however, - The comma after "entry" should be a semicolon.

Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• altered the fins design by moving from three to two rear fins - This should be "fins' design" or "fin design". But I wonder whether you can just simplify this as "reduced the fins' design from three to two rear fins".

Added the ladder suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• SpaceX South Texas launch site - Should it be "The SpaceX South Texas launch site"?

Yup, sorry for my terrible grammar. Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Firstly - This could just be "First". Also, five miles downwind could be converted using {{convert}}.

Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• and the construction ramped up in late 2018 - What did they start doing in late 2018?

They start building Starhopper and infrastructures. Added 'em. and the construction ramped up in late 2018 in preparation of a test vehicle named Starhopper. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Neither of these prototypes were successfully flown [...] the Mk2 was never finished - I wonder if the Mk2 even counts as being unsuccessfully flown, since it was never flown in the first place. Removing "Neither of these prototypes were successfully flown" could get the point across more concisely.

Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• On 8 March 2020 ... On 3 April 2020 ... On 4 August 2020 ... - There seem to be many sentences that start with dates toward the end of this section. I would switch the wording up a bit.

Hmm, I would fix 'em later. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

– Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Dracophyllum wades in

Hia, comments to follow.

• "In November 2018, the current names of the launch vehicle is first used: "Starship" for the upper stage and spacecraft, "Super Heavy" for the first‑stage booster and the collective launch system named "Starship system" or simply "Starship"." On this line you use the Template:R, which you never use again. Is it just because you only use websites otherwise? I see you have a couple more in the last sec so this may be why...

What do you mean? CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Don't worry.

• "Starship Mk1, unveiled in September 2019," why do you use underlining here and throughout this paragraph?

Someone use a {{Abbr}} template, which underline the text. Removed, made clear in the pargraph. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "SN9 flew to a lower altitude of 10 km (6.2 mi) on 2 February 2021, but it was also destroyed upon landing. On 3 March 2020, SN10 flew to an altitude of 10 km (6.2 mi) and landed successfully, but exploded 8 minutes later." Why is it ordered in this way and also what happened to SN7?

Ah, someone deleted SN7's sentence. I merged SN9 and SN10 together. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "In 19 September 2021, FAA released a new environmental impact statement, with decision pending." On 19 Sep.. and unreffed...

Added. Forgot to ref lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "The Super Heavy primary function is to provide Starship" > Super Heavy's

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• enough velocity to launch itselves to orbit, is "itselves" a word? if you mean both the booster and the spacecraft than say "themselves," or if just spacecraft then just say "it" or "itself."

Fixed, I just invented a non-existant word :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "whilst also contain enough fuel to perform a" I think containing would be better here maybe...

"containing" sounds a bit off. I use "carry" instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "hover manuvers toward the landing pad or the catching arm." take out second the

Done, added the 's' in "arm" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Starship would boost itself to orbital speed, and depending on the mission objectives, it would perform different tasks. For some mission that require going to higher orbit, leaving Earth's or even the Sun's sphere of influence," > Starship would boost itself to orbital speed, and, depending on the mission objective, would perform different tasks. For missions which require going to higher orbit, leaving Earth's or even the Sun's sphere of influence,"

Done, it makes the sentences a lot more coherent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I know that Starship and Super Heavy are supposed to be proper nouns but it feels rly weird to me...

Replaced with some other nouns, such as "spacecraft" and "booster" where's needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Similar to the Space Shuttle, the door would be closed during launch, opens to release payloads once in orbit, and closes again during return to Earth, and able to capture and return satellites and space debris back down to Earth" > would be closed during launch, opened to release payloads once in orbit, and closed again during the return to Earth. It would also be able to capture and return satellites and space debris back down to Earth.

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Starship uses two pairs of actuated "body flaps"—install perpendicularly" > installed

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "A pair of larger "aft flaps", is at the bottom of Starship, while a smaller pair of "forward flaps" is placed near the nose cone" > , sit at the bottom of Starship, while a smaller pair of "forward flaps" are placed near the nose cone."

Tried to find a synonym for a while now, and you just did it! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " the Starship vehicle" is never referred to as this again, > Starship

Done, to "the spacecraft" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "on entry to Mars because Mars's much thinner atmosphere." because of Mars's much thinner atmosphere

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "SpaceX envisioned several variants of Starship designed to be specialized at various tasks." > envisions, since they aren't made yet (?) also "for various tasks" is better || actually idk about envisioned....

Yup, they aren't made yet. Changed to "plans to build" though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "The original spacecraft design would only transport cargo in space missions initally, but it would spin off to a cargo variant" > , before spinning off to // becoming a cargo variant || also initally > initially

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " large cargo bay door that can open in" > could open in (conditional tense)

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Come into service later is Starship tanker variant would only carry propellant," > To come into service later is Starship tanker variant, which would only carry propellant, and could.

How did I write the sentence like that lol, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "and refuel the spacecraft in" > and refuel spacecraft

Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " the Moon and Mars.In the 2017 design" space

Spaced CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "In the 2017 design unveiling, the Starship specialized for crewed Mars missions might have a pressurized volume of approximately 825 m3 (29,100 cu ft), with forty cabins, large common area, central storage and a galley" unclear what you mean here.

Made clearer, break the sentence apart. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Critics pointed out that the this interior design was not adequate enough to protect" > Critics pointed out that the interior design would not be adequate to protect. .. (Conditional if if wasn't built at the time)

Done, it doesn't exist (yet!) CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Musk defended by pointing out to the transit time to Mars, stating it will be too insignificant for a crewed Mars mission" what does this sentence mean?

Changed to "Musk defended by stating the dosage would be too insignificant for a Mars mission, pointing at transit time to Mars." CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "allevate" either elevate (get bigger) or alleviate (get less)

Never knew that "allevate" is not a thing, fixed to "elevate" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• may be cost‑competitive with business class airline > airlines

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• housing up to thirty‑three > the note here has no ref

Added reference to Starship user guide by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "An orbital launch of Starship could place up to 400 Starlink satellites into orbit, while whereas" deleted while

Finished! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

That's all I got, quite a lot of prose issues, however, so I hope I got them all. Could use another read over. Thanks, Dracophyllum 09:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all of these comments!!! Been waiting for those for a while lol Fixed all of the issues you just raised, thanks for taking your time reviewing! @Dracophyllum: CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Lean oppose from Urve

I believe this is the version I reviewed.

Leaning oppose on some sourcing issues that will take a great deal of care to sort out. There are some prose quality concerns but those are best addressed by someone else. Taking a meandering view of the article, I have several concerns about the sources that are used here, and how they are depicted in Wikipedia's own voice. For instance (non-exhaustive):

• Much of the "comparable" section of the infobox is not sourced or replicated in the body. "Energia", "Long March 9", "N1", "Space Launch System" are only in the infobox (unsourced), and the remainder are mostly not compared to Starship in the prose.

My thoughts that it is called "comparable" because it has the lifting capabilities of these rockets, but the fact that Starship is so much more capable, plus your comment, make the section irrelevant. Deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• far larger than the Falcon family of vehicles - this is not a quote from SpaceX so it should be explained who is saying this

Deleted. The original source is quite dodgy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Reference 9 is malformed; it is by Braddock Gaskill according to the link. I am not sure what makes this a "high quality" reliable source - it has some kind of editorial board and seems to serve a niche audience, but what was the state of affairs in 2005?

In 2005, not much is known about the vehicle besides these information. I will look into it later. Deleted, not verifiable. Reference 8 is reliable though, so I keep it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The vehicle is powered - source says "will", not present tense

Fixed, grammar issue CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• providing the first concrete details on what would become the Starship launch system - this is not in the source that immediately follows

Deleted the superlative and weasel words. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The first stage, known as the "ITS booster", was powered by 42 Raptor engines - the tense is wrong here. "ITS booster" does not appear in the following reference. where is this 'known as' from?

Should be "Interplanetary Transport System booster", the "ITS" is acronymized. Replaced "known as the" with "named" Added a source that back it up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• This entire section (initial concepts) relies fairly heavily on primary sources, so I have to ask: Is this information in due weight in accordance with other sources that exist on the subject? And my impression is no - because if it is only sourced to a Musk talk, or a SpaceX white paper, and not discussed in secondary sources, then it's not important to others, so it can't be important to us.

Looking up to it. There are many reliable secondary sources for the early days of Starship. These primary sources will be eliminated. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• the collective launch system ambiguously named - this is editorializing

Removed "ambiguously".

• what makes teslarati a high quality reliable secondary source? its about us page makes no mention of an editorial board

Replacing teslarati with other sources. They aren't fake news, but certainly not the most reliable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Musk noted that the strength‑to‑mass ratio of the new design should equal or better than the earlier design, from the low temperatures of cryogenic propellants to the extremely high temperatures of atmospheric re‑entry - these examples are not in the source, and "noted" is a word to watch out for, because it advances a point of view (MOS:SAID)

Finding the source, and will fix the tone later Found 2 sources, fixed to "noted" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• At the time, SpaceX considered using transpiration cooling—flowing cryogenic propellant through pores in the spacecraft skin—to protect the spacecraft during atmospheric entry; however, this feature was dropped from later designs - this is to a non-independent source (an interview). what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

There is many sources that cover it if I remembered correctly, I need to find them. Found 'em.CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In October 2019, the spacecraft's engine configuration was changed to its present form - probably true, but not in the source that follows

Finding sources. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• is there a distinction between self-funding and private funding? (I don't know.) it is said in the article that SpaceX mainly privately funds its own stuff, but the source says it is self-funded.

Replaced. Basically meant the same thing in this context. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• First, the ambient‑temperature-pressure test is performed by filling inert nitrogen into propellant tanks, which checks tank strength, plumbing, and potential leakages - the source immediately after just says that it was used in this case, not as a general rule. same with Finally, the prototypes are static fired by loading propellant and firing the Raptor engines briefly

All the tests are a "must-have" before flight, but I will find good sources for that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• How do the last three sentences of this paragraph connect to the rest of it, or to this section? (The ones beginning with Many residents and environmental activists have accused SpaceX...)

Seperated. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Adopting a new "serial number" nomenclature, an improved Mk3 prototype was renamed to SN1 (Serial Number 1), and development on Mk4 was halted shortly thereafter - how is this supported by the following reference?

Replaced with this: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/spacex-starship-sn4-pass-pressure-test/ CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Most Starship variants can perform atmospheric entry and land vertically with no extensive refurbishment in-between flights - is the source for this the Musk video? if so, is it DUE?

Will check later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In the future, SpaceX plans to replace 304L with a proprietary stainless steel alloy known as "30X" - it has been more than six months since this tweet. any updates? is this still the plan?

Probably not. Not that notable, deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• informally called the "skirt" - not in the immediately following reference

Will find the sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Similar to the Space Shuttle, the door would be closed during launch, opened to release payloads once in orbit, and closed again during the re-entry to Earth - this comparison should really be made by a reliable secondary source if it is going to be used for comparisons in the infobox

It is synthesized, deleted the Space Shuttle part. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• This variant is specialized - tense

Fixed to "This variant will specialize at" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The Starship tanker variant will come into service later, used only to carry propellant, which could automatically rendezvous with and refuel spacecraft in Earth orbit. This feature would increase the spacecraft's delta-v budget significantly, and enable Starship to travel to higher orbits or further destinations in the Solar System. For initial operations, the standard Starship can be modified to a smaller capacity tanker - unless I'm missing something, nothing here is supported by the following reference

Finding sources. Deleted statements with no sources, added a few sources to the remainder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Critics pointed out - this is vague; what kind of critics? healthcare advocates, safety experts, random journalists? would be helpful

Many experts, currently compiling. Some space researchers commented that the ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The radiation dose can increase lifetime cancer risk by 5% - the reference following only says this in connection with a specific setup (a specific flighttime and stay time on Mars); can we say in wikivoice that this is the lifetime risk, if we don't know how long any mission would be?

Will do, but I need more sources. Deleted, too vague to get any useful info about the flight exposure time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• relatedly, is this biomedical information that requires our stronger sourcing requirements?

Probably yes with the cancer dosage part. Finding sources. Deleted that cancer bit, not needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• more uses of the word "noted"; see above for why I think this is problematic

Will replace with more direct and less POV pushing vocab. Replaced all of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• SpaceX also envisioned a lunar cargo lander variant that delivers heavy payloads directly to the lunar surface under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program - what does this (information from 2019) have to do with the rest of the paragraph (April 2020)

Not exactly, Artemis and Commercial Lunar Payload Services is different. Not sure how to seperate them though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• There are, IMO, only two reliable secondary sources for the "Super Heavy booster" section, the rest of which are Teslarati or are primary

I agree, will finding sources CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Because of its design, the launch tower is informally dubbed "Mechazilla" - reference 101 and 103 say it is Musk's ; 102 makes no mention of it; 101 is Teslarati

Finding sources Replaced with https://www.independent.co.uk/space/giant-claw-spacex-starbase-photo-b1918905.htmlCactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• what makes this, and its author, a high quality reliable source? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#The_Motley_Fool is useful

No, deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Around August 2021, SpaceX has also used an alternate "S" and "B" numbering scheme instead of "SN" and "BN". - source?

Found 1, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/06/elon-musk-spacex-starship-fully-stacked-is-dream-come-true.html

Finding them... There are so many sources that need to be found... Might takes weeks days of work

In short, my issues are: (1) there is extensive referencing of primary source material that is not covered in secondary sources, and so is likely not important enough to be included here, (2) there are many places where verification has been failed [and I did not attempt to verify every, or even most, sources used], (3) there are many unreliable sources used extensively, like (probably) Teslarati.

I agree with all of them. All will be addressed tomorrow. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I kept my promises, and everything is done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

My concerns can be addressed, I think, but it will require a good effort. Urve (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Urve Hi, and thanks for giving such a comprehensive review! Thank you a lot for your very detailed criticisms, and I would fix them as soon as I can. Thanks again for coming to SpaceX Starship FAC! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I realy meant it, you just spotted so many mistakes that I thought there's nothing left. Thanks again for coming here and help pointing me cracks on the wall! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I picked a random sentence in this version: "In response to the criticism, the FAA released a new environmental impact statement, on 19 September 2021, with a final decision pending".

• In response to the criticism - An environmental impact statement is required to launch these vehicles, according to the draft statement; I don't see in either source that it's in response to the criticism.
• Is there any more information about this? I think we can easily detail many things based just on Ars Technica, and from a quick look, it appears there are many more sources about this. For example, we can say: That there is a risk of environmental harm (especially to endangered species in the region), that public comment ends October 18, that Musk recruited people to send comments to the drafters, that if there is an unmitigable environmental danger posed that it could take months or years for launches to begin, that the actual launch plans for Starship are not clear (something we always try to say, but secondary sources never do). The extent to which any one of these claims matters is not really the point - if our concern in FAC is about comprehensiveness, and there is some information here, we have to consider whether it meets inclusion.

Also, I agree with the below comment about stability. Urve (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Spicy

I have some general concerns about WP:FACR #1e, stability. The article was nominated at FAC by a relatively new editor almost immediately after its promotion to GA. That's not a reason to oppose, of course, but it's a reason to be hesitant, considering that even carefully prepared articles by experienced editors often encounter difficulty at FAC. The article has undergone an almost complete rewrite [2][3] since it was nominated. It currently contains ten 'citation needed' tags. Granted, these were added by the nominator as part of the process of improving the article, but if such extensive revisions to the sourcing are needed during a FAC, IMO it is not prepared for FAC and would be better served by a process such as WP:Peer review. The comments from reviewers above point out serious fundamental issues, not minor nitpicks and polishes. I appreciate the nominator's hard work on this article but I don't think it can be considered stable at this time. Spicy (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I do understand that, and I know that there is a high chance to fail the article. However, my main aim in this FAC is to get as much feedback in a short period of time as possible, and a peer review is often not comprehensive enough for me. The citation needed tags are used by me, where I flag errors that Urve highlighted, and make editing easier, not because someone else flag the article. Thanks for coming here however, you have reflect the situation very accurately. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

But FAC isn't meant to be "peer review but better" - it's expected that articles will be reasonably close to meeting the FA criteria by the time that they're nominated here. And if an article undergoes very extensive changes to prose and sourcing during the FAC nomination, this more or less renders the previous reviews invalid - it would have to be checked again to make sure everything is still in order. Spicy (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay, guess that I need to improve my article more before I submit it here. Sorry, I'm just a bit new here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

FAC cancel request

@FAC coordinators: Hello, I'm the nominator of the SpaceX Starship article, and per many comments, I want to cancel the nomination of the article. I want to take some time to rewrite the article, and make it excellent before nominating again. I nominate it a bit too early. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2021 [4].

---

Anthony Kohlmann

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 01:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

An inquisitor, educator, diocesan founder, and litigant in a landmark lawsuit. In other words, an interesting person. I have brought this article to GA status and believe it meets FA criteria. Ergo Sum 01:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Modussiccandi

• Early life
• "but with persecution of the order": I think the word "with" is somewhat ambiguous here. Did he flee 'because of' the persecution or simply while the persecution was going on. I would also consider brining the "fled to Switzerland" part forward for clarity (e.g. "He joined the Capuchin order but fled to Switzerland ...")

Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps add that Göggingen was/is in Germany. You could also mention that Alsace was German-speaking since I'm not sure whether this is a well known fact.

To keep with the period, I've specified that it was in the Holy Roman Empire. I'm hesitant to put the part about Alsace because technically Alsatian is spoken there which is a near cousin of German and the region, though heavily German, is really a blend of French and German cultures. Ergo Sum 02:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "decision regarding his application": 'on' his application would be less wordy.

I actually didn't care for the way the sentence was structured and rephrased it. Ergo Sum 02:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is "superior" a special term in the SJ or are these general superiors as opposed to 'inferiors'? (It doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in the text. I just think that uninitiated readers might be unsure about this.)

As a standalone term, its meaning is pretty much what I think your intuition is. In the context of Catholic religious orders (and I think Anglican ones as well), it is a commonly used term that typically refers to the person in charge of a particular institution or region. I've added a link to an article that does cover the religious meaning of the term (albeit somewhat wantingly). Ergo Sum 02:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Missionary to the United States
• "Kohlmann's anglicized first name is sometimes identified as Anton": could it be that Anton was simply the German version of his French name? (But, of course, I won't complain if the source says that this was his anglicised name.)

You are certainly right. I must have been confused when I wrote that. I went back and checked and it must have been that in the Alsatian dialect, his birth name was Anton rather than the French Antoine. Ergo Sum 02:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "customs that the Jesuits in exile the Russian Empire observed": did they still observe them while Kohlmann was in America or had their situation changed (in which case I would write "had observed")?

No, I think the significance of the source mentioning it is that they began observing them in America due to Kohlmann, at least for some time. Ergo Sum 03:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Alexandria, Virginia, Baltimore,": if I don't click the link, it looks like these are three instead of two places. Is there a way to clarifying that Virginia is the state Alexandria was in?

Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "he had repeatedly requested the authorities in Rome remove": are we missing a 'that' before "the authorities"? (I'm unsure)

I'm not really clear on whether this is a grammatical "rule" or merely a convention that varies based on eng variety, but for sake of clarity, I've added the "that." Ergo Sum 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Benedict Joseph Fenwick": I would give some brief context as to who this was.

Added a brief introduction. Ergo Sum 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "sought to be relieved": I'd say that this is an idiom which might not be understandable for some non-native speakers

While I admit it's a bit of a minor rhetorical flourish, after consulting Merriam Webster, I'm inclined to say it's more "formal" than idiomatic. Ergo Sum 03:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "delayed by Napoleonic Wars": should be 'the Napoleonic Wars'

Fixed. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "who desired that": maybe 'hoped that'?

Done. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "disabuse": this word seems a bit loaded. I would consider something like 'challenged his beliefs'.

I might just be ignorant of a hidden connotation; could you explain? Should I be using this word with more caution in off-wiki life? Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• To me, mentioning the Thomas Paine episode only makes sense if we get more context on who he was. At the moment, the episode seems somewhat gratuitous.

Added a brief introduction. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "successfully arrive" the adverb seems superfluous

Touché. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Therefore, in 1808": I would cute "therefore"

Done. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the four Jesuit scholastics": maybe leave out "the"; at the moment, it sounds as if the four have been introduced specifically

Indeed the have in the previous section. Perhaps this is not sufficiently clera? Ergo Sum 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "shift their ministerial efforts to it": < 'there'?

"Their" here is supposed to be the pronominal substitution of "the Jesuits' ministerial efforts." Ergo Sum 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "prosecuted the two accused": I would remove "two"

At least in AmEng, "the accused" typically refers to a single person, so I think "two" here clarifies that both were prosecuted. Ergo Sum 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• You could consider starting a new level-two header with the "Maryland and Washington, D.C." section. I believe this would make sense from a content perspective (since it constitutes a new part of his career after New York) and it would break up the long "Missionary to the United States" section.

I struggled with how to best organize the article. I've gone ahead with your suggestion. Feel free to comment on whether you think the "Missionary to the United States" section is now too small. Ergo Sum 03:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "because": became

Fixed. Ergo Sum 03:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Peter Kenney: would be good to have a brief introduction to

Added a brief intro. Ergo Sum 03:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "as an visitor": a visitor

Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "was named to succeed him": is this a correct usage of the word 'to name'? 'selected' or 'chosen' sounds more natural to me

Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "shutter": this might be an American idiom. While we're not to object because of AE/BE differences, I would consider changing it for reasons of accessibility.

I've changed it to closed because I could not think of another succinct way of phrasing it, even though it is a bit repetitious. Ergo Sum 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "staged a revolt to this discipline": perhaps 'revolted against this discipline'. Still, I would feel that the close repetition of discipline feels somewhat clunky.

I agree; I don't think repeating it is necessary. Ergo Sum 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Washington Seminary opened as a Jesuit scholasticate, under Kohlmann's leadership": is the comma really necessary?

I think not. Ergo Sum 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "petitioned Kohlmann to open the school to lay students, and Kohlmann complied": I would avoid the wordiness by writing "Kohlmann complied with a petition to open the school to lay students"

I think that breaks up the timeline somewhat. The point is that the many laymen wanted him to open it to the laity very soon after the founding. I've trimmed the phrasing slightly. Ergo Sum 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• " editions of it": just "editions" would work, too

Done. Ergo Sum 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Later life
• "he is said to have overtaxed himself": can you supply who says this?

On second thought, that may have been reading just a bit too much into the source. I've removed it. Ergo Sum 03:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Lead
• I would add a caption to the infobox image

In previous articles, I've omitted a caption when the only appropriate one would really be "Portrait of X". Ergo Sum 03:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "was an Alsatian Catholic priest": what are our guidelines for including such details as region or ethnic groups in the lead? I remember being criticised a couple of times for including qualifiers such Sorbian or Welsh

I'm not familiar with any rule dealing specifically with that subject; if one exists, could you point it out to me? I say Alsatian here because of the unique cultural situation of Alsace and the fact that it has changed political hands so many times. In this context, I think it's much more descriptive to say Alsatian rather than French. Ergo Sum 03:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• " New York Literary Institution; established": is this a proper use of the semicolon (i.e. to separate list items)? I have seen this in academic writing, but is it permissible here?

I don't doubt that it's more prevalent in academic writing, but I think it's a sufficiently accepted way of punctuating lists that involve commas that it can be used in everyday writing as well. Ergo Sum 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Kohlmann later became": there is another "later" in that sentence

Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is all I have for now. It was interesting learning about the career of someone who may not have been an accomplished president of the University but seemingly was an important figure in the world of contemporary Catholicism at large. Please let me know if you disagree with anything. One additional thing would be to review your use of "therefore" and "however", both of which come up frequently. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Others have commented on this habit of mine as well. I've gone back and trimmed a few. Thank you for your fine-toothed comments, Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 03:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum:Very good; I shall switch to support. I agree with you on the Alasatian question. In this case, a regional identity is much more informative than either of the two possible national ones. Regarding the use of 'disabuse': I don't think there is anything wrong with the word per se; I rather think that it's problematic for Wikipedia's voce to use it in this instance because it could create the impression that the article disapproves of Paine's atheist views. In other words, you'd typically use the verb in a situation where you believe that that of which someone must be disabused is in some way untruthful/harmful etc., which Kohlmann and Fenwick probably did. It's not a big deal anyway. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've heeded your suggestion and rephrased that part of the sentence. Ergo Sum 13:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

While this has attracted a general support the nomination has been open for three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This one doesn't seem to be gathering momentum, and so I am archiving it. Given that it only attracted the one review, the usual two week wait will not apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 September 2021 [5].

---

University of Mississippi

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Here goes a second attempt. The previous nomination failed to pick up much commentary, likely due to an ongoing RfC which has since been formally closed. If this FAC fails as well, I'll take a long breather on this one, but hopefully it'll pick up some steam. Cheers! ~ HAL333 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• There is some sandwiching of text between images
  • Whereabouts? ~ HAL333 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Most significantly in Special programs and Athletics. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Addressed. ~ HAL333 02:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't use fixed px size
  • Could you point me towards that policy? ~ HAL333 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      • It's been removed in all cases except for the large panorama image. I'm not sure how to make it still span the entire screen. ~ HAL333 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't duplicate captions in alt text
• The FURs identify both infobox images as logos - is that correct? Why are there two? Why are both needed?
  • There are actually three lol. One's the official seal and the other is generally used on marketing and branding. It's pretty common for university articles to have the two in infoboxes, but I can remove the second if you wish. ~ HAL333 19:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If you do want to include both, they will need stronger FURs justifying why two logos are needed to identify the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Logo removed. ~ HAL333 13:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Re-added logos. Both are Public Domain. Fixed rationale. This is a common problem. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

          Buffs, could you expand on why you marked both as public domain? Per this page, the seal (top) is as old as the university, so easily PD, but the crest (bottom, accompanying the wordmark) was designed in 1965, and per this sheet (linked from here), the university appears to still be asserting trademark rights over it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

          Sdkb BIG can of worms here, but the short version is that trademark is NOT copyright and vice versa even though both are related. Briefly: ignore trademarks for purposes of blanket inclusion on WP, but make sure they are labeled. Assess copyright whether or not trademark laws apply.

          Detailed version: Copyrights only last for a certain length of time in the US. Prior to 1989, there were varying criteria such as you HAD to include the © plus you had to register it. Over time, the rules changed to what we have today: you made it? It's copyrighted for the rest of your life + 70 years. If it was first published prior to 1926, it is no longer copyrighted based on the laws at the time. There are a whole BUNCH of criteria and legal backing, but suffice to say, it can get a little tedious/complicated (for example, you can sue to have someone stop using your copyrighted works, but if you didn't register them, you cannot sue for damages or legal fees).

          "But what about trademarks? You didn't even mention those" Hold on, hold on, I'm getting to it. Trademarks are another form of intellectual property, but do not enjoy the same exclusive protections of copyright. Trademarks are protected in the sense that others can't use it for the same purpose without compensation. However, they can still be considered public domain if they do not meet the threshold of originality or copyright doesn't apply. You can use such trademarked images as long as you are using them to identify the entity to which they are associated. You cannot use them to indicate support of a concept/idea unless the entity actually does. There are even bigger fines if you use them in such a fraudulent manner (fraud is a felony!). As long as trademarks remain registered, they can be protected forever. There is no time limit on those, unlike copyright. Also, for your reference, ® means it's a registered trademark. ™ means they've applied for a trademark.

          In the specific case of these two images, the first has been out of any possible copyright (if it ever was) for ~95 years. The second was shown in numerous publications without any asserted copyright prior to 1989, which is common. It was never intended to be a copyrighted image. They wanted it emblazoned everywhere! Putting a copyright on it would detract from that intent. See WP:Trademark for more information.

          Hopefully that explains it a little more in context. Buffs (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

      Nikkimaria, I'm glad we're able to sidestep the issue here with the images being public domain. Using two logos is extremely common for higher education pages—it's basically built into the infobox to have the seal on top and a wordmark (sometimes, as here, with a logo) on the bottom. If that's creating copyright issues, it may be worthwhile to start a broader discussion somewhere about it; feel free to ping me if you do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

      • From your own link on wordmarks: "In most cases, wordmarks cannot be copyrighted, as they do not reach the threshold of originality." Buffs (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

      • If both images are non-free, it does create a concern around justifying multiple non-free images with effectively the same purpose - it might be possible to do so, but challenging. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

        Nikkimaria both images are indeed free, though both enjoy trademark protections. See explanation above + WP:Trademark. Buffs (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• File:1861_Lyceum.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Image removed and replaced. ~ HAL333 19:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Doesn't need to be removed, just a little more detail given. There are no circumstances I can see where a photo created in 1861 would retain copyright. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Buffs I'm absolutely incompetent when it comes to image licensing: what changes would be needed for the image? ~ HAL333 23:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
        • The source you got it from and the date of first publication would make it better, but it's a PD photo. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• File:James_Meredith_OleMiss.jpg: the collection identified by the tag doesn't seem to match up with what's at the source

  I think you're misreading the tag. The link in the description identifies those in the photo; it's not a link to the actual photo in question.

  • Link to actual photo: http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.04292/
  • Link identifying individuals in the photo: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c35515

  Buffs (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• File:Ole_Miss_Band_1925.jpg predates the existence of the CC licenses - why is it believed to be CC?
  • I'm not sure... But I know that it was published in the university's yearbook. ~ HAL333 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, so has the university released its yearbooks under a CC license? Do we have a link to show that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      • No, that's a PD image as it was published in the US prior to 1926. Fixed tag. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Source formatting review

• For ref1, remove "- University of Mississippi" in the linked title, as it's redundant. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Similar for ref2, remove " – University of Mississippi" from the website field. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref7, remove the website field; "University of Mississippi" is an organization moreso than a website, so it shouldn't appear by itself (i.e. not part of a name for a department) in italics anywhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref19, CNN is a publisher, not a work; it shouldn't be in italics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Refs with multiple pages appear to be using em-dashes (—), not the correct en-dashes (–). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 38 missing any sort of work/publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref45 has the page number in the title, and is missing author, and is duplicated by ref47. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref62 could probably use author (it's a little iffy for radio programs, but better to err on the side of more info rather than less). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref67 missing author. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref68 has same CNN issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref 76, it looks like a free credit card–required trial, so I'm not sure if that's covered by "free registration". I'd suggest making a clip and using that instead of the image link, as clips are freely accessible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have no idea how to do that... ~ HAL333 00:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like there are instructions at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com#Using the "Clipping" function. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Newspapers.com is linked in ref76, but most other refs don't have the work/publisher linked. I personally really like to link newspapers/publishers, as it allows readers to go check out what we have to say about them and verify their reliability, but for the purposes of FAC, all that matters is that you choose either linking or unlinking and be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref83, 108, and 200, use "The Clarion Ledger", since the "the" is part of the title and to be consistent with other refs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Italicizing issue again in ref110. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Fix title in ref116. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref117, again don't include the website in the title, and |website=trends.collegeboard.org should probably be replaced with |publisher=College Board. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Correct website to publisher in ref118. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref119 missing website/publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref126, NASA is a publisher moreso than a website and shouldn't be italic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Same for ref130 and CNN again in 131. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref132, it's just "Los Angeles Times", no "the". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref133 should have American Chemical Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Italics in 136, 137, and 138. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Another Newspapers.com access/clips thing in 139. Lmk if you don't know how to make clips and can't figure it out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• CNN thing in 154. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 168 is a duplicate and has wrong punctuation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Not a source formatting thing, but the Office of Institutional Research enrollment references should probably all be merged and updated to the latest numbers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref171 and 172 missing publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 174 has italicization issue again; it's an org moreso than a website. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Figure out whether it's The Oxford Eagle or just Oxford Eagle and fix refs as needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref180 needs publisher given you've done something similar for Ecological Society of America. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref181, use "U.S." rather than "US" as you've done that elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 183, don't italicize BU. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref185, looking at Nobel Foundation, I think the "the" is inappropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref204 needs publisher for consistency. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref205 needs author. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref208, more italics fixes needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Is the Ole Miss Alumni Association officially affiliated with the university or not? Adjust refs by adding or removing UM as publisher as needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For ref216 and 221, NCAA is publisher moreso than website/work, so same italics thing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Inconsistency between "Ole Miss Athletics" and "Ole Miss Sports" for same website. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For 225/229, ESPN shouldn't be italicized; convert to publisher like the others. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• SEC needs italics fixes and probably shouldn't be abbreviated (there's a group here and 151/152). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 244 is duplicate of 163. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Title in 245 repeats website (Student Housing) and doesn't match the actual website, which uses "Residence Halls" instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref260 needs Mississippi Historical Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Integration at Ole Miss book needs some sort of identifier. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• The subscription required parenthetical for "Black Man Who Was Crazy Enough to Apply to Ole Miss" looks non-standard—isn't it normally an icon? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Fowler should have Beta Beta Beta Biological Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• ISBN italicization is inconsistent—there are dashes in some places but not others. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Having two links for Scheips looks weird, and the second is dead. What's going on there? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think the archive bot is partly responsible for that (but mostly me). ~ HAL333 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's all. Overall, I found more than I would've hoped, but once these things are addressed, I'll be happy to support on source formatting. Someone else should do a source review covering reliability/spot checks/etc., during which they'll hopefully notice any formatting things I've missed. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoroughness. I'll get at it. ~ HAL333 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for my tardiness: I'll knock all of these out by the end of this business week. ~ HAL333 01:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries; I know it's a lot, so take your time. Also, if you have a spare moment, I'd be grateful if you might be able to stop by the Pomona College peer review and let me know if the literary sources I added have been sufficient to address your comments from the previous FAC, as I would love to have your support off the bat when I take it back again. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This nomination has been open for well over three weeks, and while it has made progress on the important image and source reviews has attracted no general comments at all. Given this absence of ant indication of a consensus to promote I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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) 18 September 2021 [6].

---

Koh Tao murders

Nominator(s): ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the murders of two tourists in Thailand. The coverage in sources largely focused on the police investigation and trial, which received a lot of international attention. It went through GA in March and peer review in April. It's my first FA nomination; hoping to get the article up to scratch and understand the FA criteria better. Appreciate any & all reviews! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about the sourcing. For an article about a murder and resulting trial, one would expect the judgment itself to be cited at least a few times. On the flipside, a rather large amount of news media are cited - I dunno if these are really high-quality sources, oversimplifications, simple mistakes and overly-hasty/sensationalistic coverage is very common. I am not outright opposing because I am not sure if my concerns about news media not being high quality sources are shared by anyone, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't understand what you mean by one would expect the judgment itself to be cited at least a few times You mean the outcome that it was guilty? The verdict was cited to CNN and BBC, and also discussed in the peer-reviewed journal article (I've just added a ref to that, too). But surely CNN & BBC are HQRS anyway? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

See, my impression is that courts usually write out their reasoning when issuing a judgment, rather than making a mere "The defendant(s) is/are guilty/innocent". I'd expect that reasoning to be used as a source - at least for some things - in a FA about a trial. I'd be wary of using second-hand news media reports as a substitute for the actual judgment, they tend to oversimplify and often there is an error or two in the coverage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. I haven't seen any sources refer to a written judgement, and it wasn't referred to in the journal article either. The Court didn't allow observers to take notes, but there are some written from memory. I found this report from an observer; in the second half of the document there is an unofficial English translation of the court's judgement (~40 pages long). I don't know where the original Thai version would be (maybe Paul_012 will know?) I've read the first few pages of the translation and it mostly matches up with what the article says, but with some additional details (eg details of the rape, where the pair stayed after immigrating illegally, etc); some of it could be added for detail, other parts fall a bit foul of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I'll read the full judgement later today. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I added some details from the translation of the court judgement. Does this work? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a PDF posted by the political news website Prachatai, but the file itself is hosted on Google Drive.[7] I understand the courts now have websites that are supposed to publish such documents, but haven't been able to find this case in any of the ones I've tried. Couldn't find the full Supreme Court judgment anywhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil

Placeholder, reading through now. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Just wanted to gently follow up on this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Display name 99

I know nothing about Thailand or the events described in the article, but I don't want the only review that this article gets to be by an account which seems to have been created solely for that purpose. So I'll do my best. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) Few replies below & will try to do the rest tomorrow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Under Background, please state the year for which the data about the population of locals and migrant workers on Kon Tao applies. It won't remain constant and thus cannot be presented in the present tense, as if what was true a certain number of years ago is necessarily true now. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified; it's as of the time of murders (2014).
• Why are there so many migrant workers? Can you provide some background on why so many of them are illegal? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Economic reasons I think. I added a bit from the underlying source.

Still not quite what I'm looking for. Does every one of the 2,000 illegal immigrants pay the exact same bribe to the police every month? That doesn't seem right. What kind of jobs do they fill? Why can't people from Thailand fill them? What is it about Myanmar in particular as opposed to other countries that makes people want to travel to Thailand? Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The victims..." I would add "of the murders" or something to that effect, just to be sure you don't catch the reader off guard. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done
• "structural engineering graduate"-graduate of what? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand that he graduated from the Uni of Leeds doing a civil and structural engineering bachelors course. I didn't want to write "structural engineer" as that may not necessarily have been his occupation. I reworded that paragraph a bit, if that's better?

It looks better, yes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can you say a little more about Witheridge and Miller? Were they just regular tourists? Did they know anybody in Thailand? What drew them to Koh Tao? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I clarified the details and added a bit more, but looking through my saved sources not too much seems to be mentioned about their background. Thailand is a popular place for people to go on gap years or after they finish education, reading between the lines of sources makes me think that was the case here. I added a bit more on Miller, will try and look for more sources tomorrow and see if any others mention more.

Can you try looking outside of your saved sources? Sometimes, producing high-quality content on Wikipedia requires major digging and finding things outside of the sources that you're most comfortable with, as long as the places where you're going are reliable. Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I did deeper digging. I found a bit more in local sources, but mostly only about Miller. I can't find anything on Witheridge's reasons for travelling, other than she was travelling with a few female friends. I'm not sure what direction to go to find out more, if there is anything else. I can only think of statements by family members, but of the ones I found they didn't say anything more pertinent.

• Under Murder, what was the name of the bar where they were last seen? What is Sairee Beach and where is it in relation to the bar? Furthermore, you ought to give the name and a brief description of the hotel in the previous section, especially because it ended up being so close to where the bodies were discovered. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph, please eliminate the two unnecessary uses of "also." Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done
• I'm not clear on what the three sites were from where DNA was collected. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The three sites are the vulva, perineum, and right nipple. I wasn't sure if it was too much detail but I figured it was worth adding for review since there was a lot of focus on the DNA evidence. Happy to trim it too.

I see. Maybe make sure it's a way to clarify that it's referring to body parts. I don't know if this is common medical or forensic terminology, but the word "site" (at least in American English, which I'm most accustomed to) is virtually always used to refer to a physical place, and never as far as I've encountered to a body part. At first, I thought it was referring to collecting DNA from three different locations on the island. Display name 99 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarified.

• Now moving on to Investigation.
• "The police initially speculated about who the culprit might be, alleging various individuals of perpetrating the crime without clear evidence.[22]" Explain a little more? Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• "They focused on foreign nationals, with a spokesperson for the police claiming 'Thais wouldn't do this.'" What kind of foreign nationals? I assume you mean the migrant workers, but you have to clarify so that the reader doesn't confuse them with tourists or any other class of people that might happen to be in the country. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Both types -- A couple of British tourists were also focused on and had their images disseminated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you add that to the article? Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• [11][5] Fix ref order. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done

• I want to see more about claims of torture. I think that you should have at least one or two separate sub-sections for the first half of the "Investigation" section. I'm seeing some stuff that I think needs to be covered in greater detail. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think there was an attempt to cover the events chronologically, but perhaps it would be clearer to break it up into elements. e.g. a sub-section on the timelines presented by the prosecution and defence, then a separate sub-section on the evidence and criticism on it, and then a sub-section on the trial itself. Do you think that would work better than the current structure, or did you have something else in mind?

That could work, or you could have the last three paragraphs before the Trial section be in a sub-section called "Investigation and interviews," or something similar, and everything above that be in its own subsection. Do what you think is best, but I think that there should be at least one subsection for everything above the trial. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Continuing...

• How did police get the workers to sign up for mass DNA testing? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "found them both home asleep by the time he'd" Do not use contractions in formal writing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed

• "found them both home asleep by the time he'd returned" Wait, so the three men lived together? How can that be if you only say that one of them lived nearby? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  The judgement just says that it was Mau Mau's house. Since they were illegal it could be that they were living in his house permanently, too, or could have been some kind of sleepover. I got a copy of the judgement of the Appeals Court which is more specific in details but is contradicting on this particular. The Appeals Court judgement suggests this residence was AC2's "staff housing" (AC2 being a business where Mau Mau worked). It also says Zaw Lin was arrested at a different residence. I'd feel more confident if I had a copy of the Supreme Court judgement (which supposedly reiterates the entire case in detail) but I looked, as did Paul_012, and we couldn't find it, but in its stead I can try clarify the details based on the Appeals Court judgement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Then say something like "found them both in his home asleep" so that the reader knows that it is his house and does not think that the other men lived there. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "found hiding on the boat" Where was the boat? Was it on the island or elsewhere? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The police then forced the suspects to re-enact the murder in front of media,[34] a move condemned by legal experts as prejudicing a fair hearing.[15]" It seems like this happened at the trial. If so, shouldn't it be placed under "Trial and conviction?" Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  This happened soon after they were caught, it was done by police and not by prosecution as part of the trial, and I don't think any of that 're-enactment' was used as evidence in the trial either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A defence team from Bangkok, composed of nearly 20 lawyers, were" was, not were. Also, who what is the source for the information that they only had 30 minutes to meet with the defendants and how do we know that this was true? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Made it to "Trial and conviction." Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Now starting under "Trial and conviction."

• How was it that they were defended by two lawyers pro bono after it was previously stated that there was a defense team of 20 lawyers? Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• What is the Lawyers Council of Thailand? Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• "took turns to rape her" should be "took turns raping her" Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed

• The rest of the article mostly looks good. I do have a question about this sentence: "The 2014 murders, along with other deaths and disappearances of tourists, led to British tabloids labelling Koh Tao as 'Death Island.'" Earlier in the article, it is said that these were the first murders on the island in eight years. So please clarify what you're talking about here. I'll check back in a day or two to see if I have any more comments, but I think that this will be mostly all. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  These were the only murders, but there were other deaths (suicides and accidents involving tourists); none were found to be murders. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify in the article or remove altogether. If suicides and accidental deaths were misinterpreted as homicides, you need to say that. I find that the current version hints at foul play, which of course was not true. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose-I have offered close to a dozen featured article reviews. I think that this is my first time opposing a nomination. The nominator has not responded in a timely manner to my concerns, and the problems that I have laid out are so extensive that I do not think that they can be dealt with in the timeframe of a featured article review. There's a lack of background information and detail in a lot of areas, and other things that as written seem to contradict or just don't make sense. I see on the user's userpage that they have DYKs and GAs, and from the absence of a FA star I would guess that this is likely their first FA nomination. I suggest that they possibly get someone to help prepare the article and take it to WP:Peer review before renominating it here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies - I meant to respond sooner but it's been a busy week. The outstanding points of feedback from you above are very helpful to improve the article, and I'd like to address them outside the time constraints of FAC. @FAC coordinators: can I withdraw this for the time being? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Of course, take your time -- and by the way you kept your head really well in the face of that SPA earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 18 September 2021 [8].

---

SS Choctaw

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Choctaw. I brought the article to GA status in December 2020. Ever since then, it has been copy edited by Baffle gab1978 and has undergone and a peer review. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Choctaw_-_Howard_Freeman_Sprague.jpg: when and where was this first published?
• File:Wahcondah.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Only the author's year of death is known. I found no evidence that suggests it was published before 2003, and have added a PD-US-unpublished tag. GreatLakesShips (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

When and where was File:Wahcondah.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It was published before 1920 by the Pesha Postcard Company of Marine City, Michigan. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- Surprised this hasn't attracted more attention but as we're getting on to three weeks' duration with only an image review (vital though that is) this nom is a bit of a non-starter, so I'm going to archive it. Given the lack of comprehensive reviews, I'm okay with you re-nominating without waiting the usual two weeks, but it might be preferable to hang on till we've closed a few more and the list gets shorter. Also, I know you undertook a peer review earlier in the year but you'd be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme if you'd like to consider that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 18 September 2021 [9].

---

Coors strike and boycott

Nominator(s): JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a labor strike and a series of boycotts that affected the Coors Brewing Company in the later half of the 20th century. This article was promoted to Good Article status earlier this year and I believe it meets the criteria for Featured Article status. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Harvey_Milk_at_Gay_Pride_San_Jose,_June_1978.jpg: don't see that licensing at the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the review. I've adjusted the px sizes and added alt text for all of the images. I replaced the image of Harvey Milk with another that seems to have no issue with licensing and moved that image to the left side of the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like the article is still using fixed px sizes? See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• My apologies, that issue should be fixed now. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comment There needs to be a place (city/country) in the first few sentences. Also, it's not clear what purpose ref [1] against the article title is supposed to serve?—indopug (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• I just added a location in the first sentence, let me know if the phrasing of it should be altered at all. As for ref [1], it was somewhat unclear to me exactly how to title the article, as many sources did not identify the activities against Coors by a standard name, while ref [1] uses the article title when describing the event. If I should make any changes to this, or if the reference is unnecessary, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think it's unnecessary. "Coors strike and boycott" seems an obvious and non-controversial title.—indopug (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, per discussion here I have removed ref [1]. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi, this nom isn't attracting the level of attention we really need to see having been open almost three weeks so we're a very long way from consensus to promote. I'm therefore going to archive it. Given the lack of comprehensive reviews, you can re-nominate without waiting the usual two weeks, but I'd strongly suggest trying peer review first to try getting some more eyes on it before a new FAC nom. You'd also be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme if you'd like to consider that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 18 September 2021 [10].

---

William McAndrew (educator)

Nominator(s): SecretName101 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about William McAndrew, an educator who, among other roles, served as superintendent of Chicago Public Schools.

While his career as an educator is noteworthy, and interesting enough, the really fascinating part is how his tenure as Chicago's superintendent ended. During William Hale Thompson's 1927 mayoral campaign, he accused McAndrew of feeding schoolchildren British propaganda as part of a supposed plot for the UK to retake the United States. Months after Thompson won the mayoral election, the school board, now under Thompson's control, suspended McAndrew, and conducted a trial against him. It's a truly fascinating story.

The article is well-researched, using contemporary news articles, modern (retrospective) news articles, multiple books, and doctoral paper as some of its sources. It is comprehensive, providing great focus on all noteworthy aspects of his life I was able to find. It is very neutral. It is definitely stable. It complies with our copyright policy

The article has appropriate structure. The lead is properly constructed. I believe there are not any problems with the citation style.

There is appropriate public-domain media to illustrate the article.

The length of the article, while detailing a multitude of subject matter relating to McAndrew, is not overbearingly long. SecretName101 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• There are issues with the section length making the article difficult to read. Readers on mobile in particular are going to get lost in a lot of text without subheadings to break it up. I would break up "Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools" (before the subheadings) as well as the trial section. On the other hand, there is no reason for minuscule separate top level subsections for personal life and death. You can fix that by combining later career and death and consider merging the personal life into the chronological progression as it's hard to justify a separate section for just a couple sentences. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Subdivided those sections, now. Also, merged later career and death sections. SecretName101 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi, as we're getting on to three weeks' duration with only an image review (important as that is) this nom is a bit of a non-starter, so I'm going to archive it. Given the lack of comprehensive reviews, you can re-nominate without waiting the usual two weeks, but I'd strongly suggest trying peer review first to see if you can get more eyes on it before a new FAC nom. You'd also be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme if you'd like to consider that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 10 September 2021 [11].

---

Trisomy X

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 02:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Trisomy X is one of the more common genetic syndromes you probably haven't heard of. Affecting one in a thousand women, the highest estimates for how many know they have it are around 10%, and it goes down a lot from there. It helps that the presentation is so variable -- how often do people get their chromosomes tested when they have no symptoms at all? And yet, sometimes those 'no symptoms at all' are the result of an entire extra chromosome. Fantastic how the human body works.

This is the main article of a series I've been working on extensively over the past few months. It's the first article I've taken to FAC; a previous article in the same series has gone through pre-FAC PR, which I've leaned on heavily while writing this to keep the article tight, accessible, and educational. I'm as happy with it as I can ever be with my own writing (you know how it is) and only a little crippled by self-doubt. I hope you find this an enjoyable and educational read on a sparsely-written topic, which I've gained the confidence to say is perhaps now the most comprehensive piece on the subject available to a general audience. Vaticidalprophet 02:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by User:Neopeius

What an excellent article this is! I shall be doing a text review, enjoying all the while. My first suggestion is, in the lead:

*"Beginning in the 1960s, cohort studies following people with sex chromosome aneuploidies from birth to adulthood found that people with these disorders are often mildly affected, fitting in with the general population, and that many cases never come to diagnostic attention."

How about "...and that many cases never came to diagnostic attention." to keep the tenses consistent and also to avoid simply duplicating the last sentence of the first paragraph (i.e. this sentence is about the historical context, not specifically just about the disorder.)

Tenses fixed. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• You blue link aneuploidy, but it's such a fundamental part of the article, I'd define it both in the summary and when it first appears. It was only when I got to the end of the article that I saw the definition was notated -- I'd put it in the text proper (ditto karyotype). Indeed, the problem with notes is they're essentially invisible -- they definitely shouldn't be used for fundamental definitions but rather (if at all -- I kind of hate notes in WP articles) for anecdotal asides not critical to the piece.

  This, I think, might be more in the realm of personal disagreement. One consideration I've used while writing that's similar to the mobile one (i.e. "most readers know this but most writers don't") is that logged-out editors have a gadget similar to navigation popups turned on by default -- assuming the leads for the given articles aren't terrible (that might be worth checking...) they can see the definitions of bluelinked terms simply by hovering without having to follow to the next article. I've used annotations because the definitions worth giving are somewhat long, and I worry it would distract from the text to give them in full. I recognize the concerns about notes bleeding into the references; I use {{NoteTag}} for them to try minimize this, as it stands out a lot more than a more subtle marker does. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Presentation

• Your first paragraph sort of throws people into the deep end and is highly jargon-heavy. I recognize that difficult terms are blue-linked, but as someone who writes abstruse articles (spaceflight, primarily) it's good to simplify. Down syndrome is an example of a more approachable article.

  Broadly simplified. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Physiological is jargon-heavy but you do a good job of parenthetically explaining things. One exception is "Endocrinological research in trisomy X is sparse, but implies a high luteinizing hormone response.[6][22]"

  Simplified that section. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the summary and in Physiological, I'd make it clear that 46, XXX is "normal"

  Clarified. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Polysomy is a word that could use a quick explanation in the text. It's fundamental.

  Explained. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Neurodevelopmental

*"Though intellectual disability is rare, it is more prevalent than in the general population, occurring in about 5–10% of females with trisomy X[3] compared to approximately 1% of the broader population.[26] Although the average is depressed, some women with trisomy X are highly intelligent,[27] and some patients in the medical literature have acquired advanced degrees or worked in cognitive fields.[25]"

Though followed by Although. A bit awkward.

Switched out for 'while' in the latter use. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blue link "Amygdala"

  Done. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Epilepsy in sex chromosome aneuploidies generally is mild,"

How about "Epilepsy in sex chromosome aneuploidies (like trisomy X) generally is mild,"

Ah, this was poor wording on my part -- I was trying for 'in general'. I've reworded to "sex chromosome aneuploidies as a whole". Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Autism spectrum disorders are more common in trisomy X, occurring in approximately 15% of patients[28] compared to less than 1% of girls in the general population.[32] Adult women with trisomy X appear to have higher rates of autistic symptomatology than control women.[33] "

This confuses me. Are these two sentences redundant? (it was my understanding autism lasts a lifetime; it doesn't disappear with adulthood).

It is indeed a lifetime experience, but our research, unfortunately, focuses overwhelmingly on autistic children. I wanted to express that we know about autistic adults here too, rather than the all-too-common mistake of assuming autistic children and autistic adults are "basically the same", and I've reworded to hopefully clarify. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Executive dysfunction is more prevalent amongst those with trisomy X than the general population.[25][28]"

I went to Executive dysfunction and that didn't help me understand the sentence, either. :) Explanation, if you could.

Gave a quick explanation -- it's an inconveniently vague term sometimes. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Psychological

* "The psychological portrait of trisomy X is not entirely clear, and appears to be complicated by a more severe phenotype in postnatally than prenatally diagnosed groups.[20]"

Delete the comma after clear or add "it" before "appears" (dependent clauses generally don't take commas)

Done. Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Dysthymia and cyclothymia are more common than in the general population.[3][6]" I'd perhaps use more general terms and/or say "Mood disorders such as persistent depressive disorder and cyclothymia (similar to bipolar disorder but with lesser extremes)..."

  Re-worded as Dysthymia and cyclothymia, milder forms of depression and bipolar disorder respectively (a bit of an oversimplification but, I think, one I can get away with here). Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Compared to control women, women with trisomy X average higher schizotypy, reporting higher levels of introversion, magical thinking, and impulsivity.[25] Approximately one-fifth of women with trisomy X report clinically significant levels of anxiety.[28] Women with trisomy X are often "late bloomers", experiencing high rates of psychological distress into early adulthood, but by their mid-thirties having stronger interpersonal bonds and healthy relationships.[25]"

I cite these sentences as good models. The first introduces a hard word but follows it up with context that makes it accessible. The latter sentence is utterly free of advanced jargon. :)

• "schizophrenic women are more likely"

link schizophrenia

Linked in the following sentence. Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The study of mental health in trisomy X is impacted by an apparent gap in severity between prenatal and postnatal diagnosis. "

How about "The severity of mental health issues associated with trisomy X appears to correlate with whether or not the condition is diagnosed before or after birth."

Reworded as The study of mental health in trisomy X is complicated by the fact girls and women who were diagnosed before birth seem to be more mildly affected by those diagnosed after. Vaticidalprophet 04:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Mosaic Forms

* "The simplest form of mosaic trisomy X, with a 46,XX/47,XXX karyotype, has an attenuated presentation compared to full trisomy X"

I know what you mean by attenuated, but since it's just a fancy word and not specifically a medical term, perhaps this sentence construction is overly abstruse. :) "The simplest form of mosaic trisomy X, with a 46,XX/47,XXX karyotype, generally presents lesser symptoms than full trisomy X" for instance.

Have simplified 'attenuated' to 'milder', which I think loses a bit of nuance but nonetheless is slightly more readable. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Although the general profile is milder than that of a non-mosaic 47,XXX karyotype, 46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is associated with a higher risk of chromosome anomalies in offspring than full trisomy X; some writers have recommended screening during pregnancy. The increased risk of abnormal offspring in mosaicism has been hypothesized to be a consequence of oocyte abnormality in 46,XX/47,XXX women not seen in full 47,XXX.[3][41][42]"

How about "Although the general profile is milder than that of a non-mosaic 47,XXX karyotype, 46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is associated with a higher risk of chromosome anomalies in offspring than full trisomy X. The increased risk of abnormal offspring in mosaicism has been hypothesized to be a consequence of oocyte abnormality in 46,XX/47,XXX women not seen in full 47,XXX. Thus, some writers have recommended screening during pregnancy.[3][41][42]"

I mean, I like semi-colons, but sometimes they just make a sentence too long/awkward.

Rewritten a bit (Some writers have recommended women with 46,XX/47,XXX karyotypes undergo screening for chromosomal disorders during pregnancy as new last sentence). Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Non-mosaic Turner syndrome is characterized by failure to begin or complete puberty and primary amenorrhea, "

Non-mosaic Turner doesn't cause people to fail to fail to develop secondary sexual characteristics. :) How about "Non-mosaic Turner syndrome is characterized by failure to begin or complete puberty and development of secondary sexual characteristics."

Hm -- not sure what you mean here. I've flipped the order of 'primary amenorrhea' and 'failure to begin or complete puberty' in the sentence, does that work? Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It does work, but I just wonder if the word may be too sophisticated.

* "Turner's women with 47,XXX cell lines are more likely to be fertile than the condition as a whole"

Not sure what this sentence clause means.

Clarified to "women with non-mosaic Turner syndrome". Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Causes

• I wonder if this paragraph might be better suited before Presentation, analogous to the Background section in my spaceflight articles or Early life for biographies.

  WP:MEDMOS recommends putting Presentation first; there's a fair amount of leeway to shuffle the orders, but a condition's symptoms are the big draw of the article, so I'm inclined to keep them at the front. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This is my first medical article, so I wasn't sure.

Diagnosis and differential diagnosis

• "As postnatal karyotyping generally occurs in the setting of clinical concern, postnatally diagnosed trisomy X tends to have a more severe phenotype than prenatal.[5][20]"

"in the setting of clinical concern" could probably be less abstruse. Also, this is somewhat duplicative of the passage at the end of Psychological (in which you imply the reason there's a difference in severity but never outright say it, as you do here.)

It's a bit duplicative, but there's a method to the madness. Most (~60%, I think?) of readers are on mobile, where they only see the section they've expanded to read and all the rest are collapsed by default. I'm more comfortable repeating content between sections than potentially losing context because the reader can only see the one. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In that event, you'll want to repeat the implications of the difference in timing of diagnosis as well as the bare fact that it exists. :)

* You define karyotype testing. You might as well define differential testing, too.

• Clarified. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

History

• "The children with trisomy X and Klinefelter's had their karyotypes disclosed to their parents, but due to the then-present perception that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality, the diagnosis in that case was hidden from the family.[75]"

In which case? You mean all the cases in that study? Or one particular case?

In the case where the children (in all the cohort studies, AFAICT) were diagnosed with XYY, the diagnosis was hidden from the family. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify that? The issue is that case has multiple meanings (like "level" in Dungeons and Dragons ;) )

* " That same year, Nicole Tartaglia founded the eXtraordinarY Kids Clinic in Denver to study children with sex chromosome aneuploidies; around one-fifth of patients at the clinic have trisomy X as of 2015.[15] In 2020, "

"around one-fifth of patients at the clinic had trisomy X as of 2015." (past tense, particularly since you follow the sentence up with 2020.)

Tense fixed. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll be adding more as I read. --Neopeius (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you muchly! (Procedural note: I've shrunk the section header on this so it renders properly on WP:FAC.) I've adjusted the tense in the lead's last paragraph; the statement is still true, but you're right that it's a more historically-focused paragraph and so shouldn't necessarily jump around in tense. Will experiment a bit with the introduction in Presentation. Vaticidalprophet 03:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Have clarified the terminology in the first paragraph somewhat, with more introductory terms and definitions of the unavoidable ones. Vaticidalprophet 03:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Alright -- I have finished my text review! Really lovely piece. Just needs a bit of elaboration to make it more accessible to the lay person (I mean, I'm kind of a lay person with regard to biology, but my vocabulary is pretty unusual.) --Neopeius (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Responded to all the comments (the ones without written responses were fixed while you were typing). Vaticidalprophet 05:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Can you do me a favor and respond to those anyway just so I have an easily viewed record? I've struck out all the resolved issues. Thank you for being a most pleasant reviewee! --Neopeius (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Replies made. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Just two unresolved issues. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Have clarified 'clinical concern' with "such as obvious symptoms", which hopefully gets across the ideas more smoothly. The other sentence I think is as clear as it's going to be for now; the term is bluelinked to permit navigational popups, and it's not very jargony all told. Thank you for your comments and assistance! Vaticidalprophet 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I still feel the article is a touch too abstrusely written for the average consumer, particularly as the topic is not that esoteric, but I also recognize your style is your style. You have my support. If others bounce off the style, you may want to smooth some corners. --Neopeius (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there are corners to smooth still -- all in good time :) Thank you so much again for your help and support! Vaticidalprophet 03:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Can we get a source for the info in File:XXX syndrome (male).svg?
• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 03:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  The nondisjunction images were made in 2011 by an editor who hasn't edited Commons or enwiki since 2014 (has some more recent nlwiki edits, but sparse enough I'm not confident a talk page message or email would find anyone). I've added a couple references to the caption describing the process in a way that fits with the image's depiction -- does that work? Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I think that's fine. I will AGF that they support the content of the image. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

HF

Don't see many medical articles at FAC, will take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Speech therapy is indicated for between 40% and 90% of girls with trisomy X.[25] Expressive language skills tend to be more affected than receptive skills" - Can a comparison to average rates of speech therapy in a control population be indicated?
  • Have added some control stats. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is a problem with how these rates were added … it is original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• " the resulting karyotype is generally mosaic, with both 47,XXX and other cell lines" - Don't think it's necessary to link mosaic here, as this section is immediately preceded by a lengthy discussion of mosaicism
• epicanthic folds is linked twice in the diagnosis section; IMO its generally not useful to link a term multiple times in the same section
  • Both above unlinked. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Aha, actually -- I mixed up which you were referring to in the first. The use in "Causes" is not (yet) unliked, on account of the 'separate section' issue; a mobile reader only opening "Causes" doesn't know we've just been through a discussion of mosaicism, and so risks having the term lost on them. I self-confess to overlinking even within my framework of "we should link jargon generously so readers looking at isolated sections can follow", so there may be an argument for omitting it, but there's a real risk many readers will be introduced to that section without being aware of what's before it. I did unlink the use at the beginning of "Mosaic forms", though, because any reader looking at that is about to get into a big discussion of them better than that article/its navigation popup would give. Vaticidalprophet 01:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• " Marfan syndrome may be considered due to the disproportion between limb and torso length observed in both syndromes, as well as the joint issues." - Is the joint issues the hyperflexibility mentioned earlier? Or is this issues for Marfan syndrome? The use of "the" here makes it seem that a specific set of joint issues is being referred to, and I'm having
  • Ah, missed this one. Will tweak wording. Vaticidalprophet 04:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Data from the Danish Cytogenetic Central Register, which covers 13% of women with trisomy X in Denmark,[67] suggests a life expectancy of 71 for women with full trisomy X and 78 for mosaics" - Is there some sort of control number to compare this to? It's hard to determine the meaning of statistical samples without knowing what the control results are.
  • Added control numbers. I omitted them the first time around because they're presented in a somewhat odd way; there seem to have been two separate "control groups", one who died almost three years younger than the other on average, and I wasn't confident presenting the "all controls" data would give an accurate representation. Have added that now, though. Vaticidalprophet 02:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Are block quotes like that normal for medical articles? It seems kinda anecdotal to me
• "Odle, Christine. "The story of Christine, born in 1967, dx shortly after birth". Triple-X Syndroom. Retrieved 23 May 2021." - What makes this source RS? Also, what part of the preceding is it intended to support? Because it seems to be referring to the Denver one and says that the program was cancelled shortly before the researcher died and implies funding was what ended it while the article suggests that it was the death
  • As regards both these points: they were both intended to tie more smoothly in with something I was absolutely certain I'd added to the society and culture section (sex chromsosome aneuploidies and abortion) and promptly found out I had not, which is now in there. The source you pick at is used for "what women with trisomy X think about the condition" purposes (which I think might be able to be expanded a little more -- will double-check some of the sociological studies), which as the section indeed mentions is more often in single-case informal descriptions than in widespread study, because there just isn't much written on the karyotype from a non-medical perspective. (It's also, to note a specific note, not self-published but rather vetted by a major trisomy X organization.) I've since cut the use of it for this statement, which I thought at first was interesting detail but on review is more extraneous detail. The blockquote I like -- it's a solid summary of "where the research is" presented in a way more understandable/relatable to general readers than the admittedly dense remainder of that section -- but I'm agnostic on precisely where it goes; there's a good argument for putting it in "Society and culture", where the abortion discussions it ties into are, and where the fact it's written from a sociological rather than medical perspective doesn't pose an issue. Vaticidalprophet 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• " though the latter in particular is now discouraged" - is it worth saying why without becoming undue detail?
  • The source is a bit sparse on this, just recommending it without reason. In context it's rather clear that the reason is "because searching 'triple x women' on the internet isn't exactly going to put results on trisomy X front and centre", but taking this from the source is technically OR. (On an amusing note on that, I hear so many stories of high school biology teachers accidentally searching 'xxx women' in front of a class of teenagers...) Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not familiar enough with WP:MEDRS to really judge most of the sources
  • No worries -- better we have people reviewing topics they know their limits with than we have stuff languishing because people don't touch outside their comfort zones :) Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. Expect to support, but it'll probably be over fewer FACR components than normal because I just am too unfamiliar with the subject matter to assess MEDRS or comprehensiveness, for instance. Hog Farm _Talk 20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! Getting to them all one by one. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Vaticidalprophet - Ping me when you're done, as I've got enough clutter on my watchlist that it's hard to keep track of stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Hog Farm, should all be broadly addressed. Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Support to the extent that I'm familiar with the subject matter - not familiar with medical topics whatsoever, but nothing sticks out to me as running contrary to the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 04:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review

I'm pleased to see another medicine article, and will happily do a source review.

Some of the reviews cited here are a bit older than we'd see at the typical medicine FA, but I'm guessing that's due to a paucity of existing sources. I'll take a look later this week, but if there's nothing more recent written in textbooks or journals I think we can safely assume those slightly older reviews still reliably represent medical knowledge.

Currently checking uses of primary sources...

• It seems a bit odd to cite "Several factors can affect... with other chromosomes are present" to a retrospective study of 36 people in a niche journal (at least I think it's niche? I've never heard of it before but can't find much info on it...). Seems the same info could be cited to one of your more obviously reliable sources.
• ref 10 is nicely contextualized.
• ref 12 (increased enamel thickness and root length) is presumably not covered in other sources, and is contextualized as "... have all been connected to the condition", which seems fine to me.

... stepping away from the computer, but will be working on this in jumps and starts over the next few days. Feel free to respond to any issues as I go, or to wait. As you prefer. Ajpolino (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ajpolino! :) You're pretty right on the source limitations here (I remember you being pretty shocked by the ones at the tetrasomy X PR, heh); the Unique guide updated this year still uses Tartaglia 2010 and Otter 2009, as well as a few much older than those, as its major sources, and I'm broadly not expecting anything big and new to be published on non-Klinefelter sex chromosome aneuploidies until the eXtraordinarY Babies studies get into swing, which is a decades-off matter. Will take another look at my use of ref 4; it's mostly an attempt to contextualize early in the article something that gets discussed in fuller depth later (including with better studies) without following it with a million citations. Vaticidalprophet 04:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping to Ajpolino a week later just to check how this is going. Vaticidalprophet 13:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Finally got back to it today. All the other primary sources are explicitly called out as such in the text. The rest is to secondary sources. I won't pretend to know the field well enough to know each of the journals, but the ones cited here are from publishers with a reputation for running legitimate peer review operations. On the edge of that label are ref 58 from Bentham and ref 92 from MDPI. Each of those publishers has attracted some criticism for at-times uninspiring peer review. In general, I think their papers are fine to use with some added scrutiny. I'll leave you to look into it (and perhaps you already have) and decide if you trust each for the material you've sourced to them. I'll move on to verification spot-checks, which I believe is customary for first-time nominators (though now that I mention it I can't find that written anywhere...) Ajpolino (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I recall the custom being written too -- at any rate, thank you! Regarding the more borderline cases, I've had my eye on the Bentham source for a while and have been seriously considering switching it out, which I'll probably do. MDPI is...one I'd probably drop in a more mainstream context, but animal cytogenetics is not a sexy field and it's really a miracle we have a literature review from 2021 on the matter. If it were supporting a different part of the article I'd be looking for a better publisher, but "flawed-but-not-actively-predatory publisher for a very niche matter" is one where I think the rest of it works out to acceptable. The authors are also published on similar topics in better journals, which helps. Vaticidalprophet 00:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks (numbers picked by RANDOM.org):

• 3 (Tartaglia, et al. 2010) - The major source used in the article. [a-m, o, s, t, v, x-ab] all check out perfectly. Minor comments for the others:
  • [n] - This sentence A minority of patients... intellectually disabled patients has fairly confusing citations. The way it's written it appears as if this ref is for the end of the sentence, but I don't see either of the facts in that half of the sentence -- trisomy X patients mostly have partial seizures (if they have seizures) and that epilepsy/EEG abnormalities are more common in those with intellectual disability -- in the ref. Perhaps in Roubertie, et al. (currently ref 32) next to it? But I don't have access to that journal.
    • The focus on intellectual disability is in ref 32, yes (I leaned towards ending the sentence with both because I don't like cutting up with refs too much, and both focus on the partial-seizures part); if you can't access the full text, it's mentioned in the abstract (Although a specific electro-clinical pattern could not be defined, the epileptic phenotypes of these patients share many features; we suggest that the association 47,XXX/epilepsy/mental retardation may not be coincidental). Partial seizures do come up in ref 3 (Medical history should include questions regarding staring spells or atypical movements, since seizure disorders and electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities can be present in females with trisomy X and may present as partial or absence seizures. In these cases, EEG studies should be performed to rule out possible seizure activity). Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Not to split hairs, but I think either the text or the referencing (or my brain) is still unclear: "... and may present as partial or absence seizures." (source) vs "epilepsy or EEG abnormalities, particularly partial seizures..." (our article) are not getting across the same thing. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
        • This is one that does trip me up a bit. Source #3 discusses absence seizures, but I have no clue where it's getting that from, because more or less everything else (including the primary sources in it) overwhelmingly focus on partial seizures, and the other sources supplementing that one inline only discuss partial seizures. I think the balance of the evidence works out to focusing on partial seizures gives readers a more accurate impression of the literature. Vaticidalprophet 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • [p] (first par. of mosaic forms section)- not a big deal, but our current text implies that 45,X/46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is less common than the other mosaics. Best I can tell, the source doesn't make that distinction. Does some other source explicitly distinguish them as less common? I get that the triple mosaic genotype is probably less common than the doubles, but if none of the reviews explicitly comment on it, perhaps we're better rephrasing to avoid the implication?
    • If not less common, than at least less core, if that makes sense. It's a hard thing to dredge up explicitly-less-common sources for, as searches are pretty thrown off by complex mosaicism in autosomes and double-trisomies (e.g. 48,XXX+21 karyotypes). I've found a couple things explicitly calling it less common, but they're primary and often preprints. The wording here is a bit evasive/general, so there might be a direction it can be tweaked in to get the idea across even if those sources wind up unusable? Vaticidalprophet 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • [q] (The 46,XX/47,XXX subsection) - would you mind being more precise with the reference placement in this paragraph? It's a bit of a verification challenge. All this source says on the topic is that 46,XX/47,XXX happens, and that outcomes are better than 47,XXX.
  • [r] ("Between 3% and 15%... have a 47,XXX cell line") - Just a note this source says 5-15%, the other source's (Lim, et al. 2017) discussion says 3-4% so I'm assuming this is your compromise? Disagreeing numbers is a perennial trick for writing medicine articles, so I feel your pain. Just flagging this in case it's a typo and you meant to go with the 5-15% range. It's odd the sources have such a broad disagreement, but what're you gonna do.
    • It's a compromise, yeah. I might tweak it lower -- more sources lean towards the lower numbers than the higher ones -- but I'm not totally confident on that yet (only just beginning a rewrite of Turner syndrome) and so it's pending further reading in Turner-focused sources, because they disagree with each other here too. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • [u] ("Nondisjunction is related to... average maternal age was 33.") - I don't see the part about the cohort of women born in the '60s.
    • Huh, you're right -- I've certainly read this somewhere, but apparently not here. I suspect I might've been moving around refs at a prior point and accidentally cut where I got that from. Have cut the second line for now, pending its verification. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • [w] ("As trisomy X generally has... routinely performed for advanced maternal age.") - I don't see the bit about routine testing with advanced maternal age. But perhaps I just missed it? Hard to guess what section it would be in.
    • The routine testing here is that amniocentesis/CVS are routinely performed for pregnant women in that age range, and trisomy X is picked up on those tests; the tests are brought up a few times (e.g. Diagnosis during the prenatal period by amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling is common). Should "these are tests used in advanced maternal age" be cited somewhere else? It's a bit sky-is-blue within the field, so it isn't explicitly mentioned in literature at this level, but it'll probably be in patient-targeted stuff I can find relatively easy -- those things just won't tend to mention trisomy X specifically. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah I see. I think it's fine as sky-is-blue material then. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• 4 (Butnariu, et al. 2013) - What a coincidence! This is one I flagged earlier. My opinion is that this should be replaced by a more reliable source. The claim it sources is basically that mosaicism can affect the trisomy X phenotype. Should be able to find that elsewhere.
  • Have moved ref 3 up to replace this, as it mentions it as well. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Phew! I've got 15 more numbers from the generator, but I'm going to sign off for the day. Will get back to this asap. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Given first replies -- will get back around to everything else. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• 5 (Otter, et al. 2009) - [a-f, h, i, k, m-q] all check out. Notes on the others:
  • [g] "A minority[ref] of patients have epilepsy or EEG abnormalities..." - I'm confused as to what this is referencing. The source says "EEG abnormalities seem to be rather common" and doesn't give a sense of epilepsy prevalence. Could you clarify?
    • Have changed to 'a subset' and moved the ref around. I think the wording of this source is fairly intended to be read that epilepsy specifically is a minority thing, though (e.g. mentioning its relatively low prevalence in newborn screening samples). Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • [j] "behavioral issues in children with trisomy X... emotional maturity encouraging hard-to-reach expectations." - Could you clarify the source text this is based on?
    • It seemed that the physical phenotype (being the tallest but immature and somewhat clumsy girl in the peer group, sometimes with precocious puberty) and the behavioural phenotype (speech and language disorders, sensory-integration disorders and academic difficulties) could explain some social problems. Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I could be missing obvious subtext here, but I read the source text to simply mean that being physically and behaviorally distinct from your peers makes social life difficult. The article text describes a more complex situation. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • [l] could you quote the source text for "Adult employment is generally in lower-skill pink-collar occupations"? It also cites Bender, et al. 2002 but I don't seem to have access to that. The only thing I see in this source is "The 47,XXX women most often find jobs that reflect their performance abilities." but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
    • Lower-skill employment comes up several times (They planned to take jobs requiring low academic and linguistic skills; These girls found unskilled labour after leaving school). The phrase in general is also backed up in the latter source. Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Time for another big reference! Will try to get these other ones done asap. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• 21 Stagi, et al. 2016 - Checks out. Any reason to mention LH but not FSH? I only skimmed the source, but it seemed to imply both were elevated. Ajpolino (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• 23 Cordts, et al. 2011 - [a&b] both look good.
• 28 Black, et al. 2015 - I'm not sure where the 3% floor came from (maybe the other source?) but I trust your judgment here. This is always a hard kind of thing to cite.
• 30 Grosso, et al. 2004 - Good.
• 33 Maenner, et al. 2020 - Good.
• 41 Neri and Opitz 1984 - I assume this is just to cite "Some writers have recommended... during pregancy"? If so, checks out.
• 53 Graves, et al. 2009 - Good.
• 55 O'Connor 2008 - Sure.
• 57 Meazza, et al. 2017 - [a&b] good
• 59 Otteson, et al. 2010 - I'm not really sure what this is verifying. It seems like the two preceding sentences "Pentasomy X, with... and short stature." are backed up by the rarediseases.org source. Otteson et al only addresses the relationship between height and chrom. X copies.
  • That's valid, I must have brain-farted about whether the height thing was in the other source. Removed. Vaticidalprophet 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• 65 Berglund, et al. 2019 - [a, b] Good.
• 77 Tartaglia, et al. 2020 - Good.
• 91 O'Connor, et al. 2011 - basically good, but pardon the quibble: maybe "trisomy X is strongly linked to infertility" is worded just a bit strong? The source says "In dogs, the few reports of trisomy X in the current literature had... either primary anestrus or infertility...".
• 94 Prakash, et al. 1994 - I can't seem to access this one. The title just about says it all, so I'll trust your judgment on this one.

Alright, all done. Thanks for your quick responses, and apologies for my extreme slowness. I've got a couple of outstanding quibbles that you're welcome to consider. Regardless, I think this is a source review pass, and I'll happily support on the basis of that. If you need another prose reviewer or anything else here feel free to ping me. Ajpolino (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to GB's comments and VP's retirement, I've had an opportunity to look more deeply at the sourcing here and have come to the opinion that a bit more work is needed to bring this up to the FA standard. In the interest of space, I've left specific comments at the talk page rather than here. But in general, the outstanding issues as I see them are:

1. Where possible, primary sources should be replaced with secondary ones. Older sources should be replaced with newer ones. This isn't just a fetishistic adherence to the letter of WP:MEDRS, rather it's how we ensure that our articles are as reliable as possible.
2. In a few places, the article text implies something based on the author's impression, even when it stretches the sources. Examples are references #53 and #54 mentioned at the article talk page.
3. There are many places where a single primary study is contextualized as "One study showed...". All primary sources should be contextualized in this way. Even better, these should be used very sparingly as an author can more easily use them to draw a misleading picture of the medical literature. If information can only be found in a primary source, perhaps it's better to wait for a relevant review or textbook chapter to be published before we comment.

All in all the article is in very nice shape, it just needs a dedicated hand to put a bit more work into it before it meets the FA criteria. I've spent some time with the source material now, so if there's some way I can help going forward, don't hesitate to reach out. Ajpolino (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose review

Just signalling that I see this is falling down the list a bit, so I'll give a review either tomorrow (Tuesday 13) or this weekend. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Gog. I'm sorry – I just don't have the time anymore. There are no striking issues to me, glancing over the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem, ImaginesTigers; just so long as we know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• karyotype[note 1] 47,XXX, - could we move the note until after the punctuation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Is it a disorder, or an abnormality, as that's where we have the article chromosome abnormality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The article being at "abnormality" is pretty much coincidence -- there are many possible terms for "chromosomes doing something weird", none of which have a real claim to COMMONNAME. "Abnormality"'s connotations means it's losing some favour, and accordingly I'm not inclined to use it in the article. Vaticidalprophet 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• girls and women - surely women covers this. Happens a few times Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As the research focuses strongly on childhood manifestations and has relatively little adult data compared to many other lifelong conditions, I call it out a few times to contextualize. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• dysmorphic features change to [[dysmorphic feature]]sBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• increased height, with an average height around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in). - I don't really get what we earn from stating the actual height, considering the lede doesn't say how tall women generally are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed. Vaticidalprophet 23:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• chromosome aneuploidy.[note 2] - considering we have a link, do we need the note? And if we do, can't we put this into the text? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Whenever I omit the footnotes, I get complaints about the language density. This is the best compromise I've pulled off -- expecting people to follow links to understand an article gets criticised, while putting it directly in the text is patronizing to people who do know. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• First diagnosed in 1959, - by whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• An introductionary sentence to the body would benefit here - something saying that Trisomy X is a chromosone abnormality etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• prenatally (before birth) and postnatally (after birth) - if we have to explain the words, could we not just say "both before birth (prenatal) and after birth (postnatal)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• might be worth changing "pinky finger" to "little finger" as that's where we have our article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Autism spectrum disorders - cut the link to just the first two words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• childhood onset schizophrenia - is onset required? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• are the different subsections of mosiac forms needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I originally wrote it without subsections, but found the Turner mosaicism stuff was so overwhelming it needed to be separated out. This does result in a couple of annoyingly short subsections, but that's as much as I can find on those variants. Vaticidalprophet 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• There's an awful lot of duplicate links that need removing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The duplinks are intentional. There's a lot of WT:MED discussion about duplinking in medical articles, and more broadly in technical jargon-y topics in general. Many (most? all?) medical FAs have several. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• The prognosis of trisomy X is, broadly speaking, good, - maybe I'm not medical enough, but "good comparied to what?" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• The good news here, is that despite not being medical, or having interest in disabilities, I got through this article and understood most of what was being said - so I'm pretty happy. If you could fix up a few of the wording/formatting issues I had above, I'd be happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• As regards the "should this be at the thing the article is titled at" comments in general: I think, per WP:NOTBROKEN, they shouldn't be. Everything I've used is a valid and frequent term for the relevant anatomy, disorder, etc. NOTBROKEN explicitly opposes changing redirects from valid alternative terms, because it obscures how often those terms are used onwiki and accordingly whether they would make for better article titles than the current one. (In at least one such case, I'd open the RM myself.) Vaticidalprophet 04:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lee Vilenski, are you ready to declare on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am leaning support, but there is still a few things above that haven't been addressed, or commented on. Whilst I'm ok with linking to items that aren't the direct title of a page, there's quite a lot of occasions where this article links to redirects unnecessarily - whilst reasonably trivial, I would recommend fixing them before becoming a FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Lee. Vaticidalprophet ? ||||

Lee Vilenski, I've tweaked some of the redirects into non-redirects ("little finger" and "dysmorphic feature"). Vaticidalprophet 05:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

I don't excel in biology, so forgive me if I misunderstand something. I'll probably make comments more on prose stuff than the scientific bit. GeraldWL 06:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 00:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation"-- I'd remove "of trisomy X" here to avoid repetition. However, I see that this sentence has a better duplicate-- "As the symptoms of trisomy X are often not serious enough to inspire a karyotype test"-- so I don't think this sentence is needed. Removed the repetition. Have not removed the sentence itself, as they have different contexts and this is such a core fact of the condition that it bears repeating. Vaticidalprophet 23:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC) "The average IQ"-- it's encouraged to have the long version first, then bracket the abbr. So in this case, "The average intelligence quotient (IQ)". Edited. Vaticidalprophet 23:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC) "research on girls and women with the disorder" --> "research on patients" I think para 3 can be merged with para 1, as it covers the same thing. They don't. The first paragraph is "the lead of the lead" and summarizes quick glance "what is it, how common is it, why have I never heard of it if it's so common". The third paragraph is a relatively technical discussion of the etiology. Vaticidalprophet 23:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC) "Women with trisomy X" --> "Patients" "Patients" is discouraged per WP:MEDMOS. Vaticidalprophet 19:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) "emerged in the medical literature." I don't think "the" is needed. "the medical literature" for 4,720,000 hits, "medical literature" -the for 562,000, and the context of the latter is often not in full sentences. Blunt tool, certainly, but this is the usual way to refer to it. Vaticidalprophet 06:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) "Minor skeletal and craniofacial"-- link craniofacial Linked. Vaticidalprophet 06:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) "daily lives of girls and women with the condition." Condition or disorder? I think it should be consistent. "Premature ovarian failure is defined" --> "POS is defined". Also do this for other following mentions of the condition. "with an average intelligence quotient"-- add "(IQ) after that. "and bipolar disorder respectively"-- link bipolar disorder Linked. Vaticidalprophet 06:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Link schizophrenia at "and schizophrenic women", remove it at "adult-onset schizophrenia is estimated". "complicated by the fact" that "That" is grammatically optional in this context; I dislike its overuse. Vaticidalprophet 06:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) "Some writers"-- what kind of writers? It should be more specific here. "experience premature ovarian failure" --> "experience POF" "where it occurs after conception. When nondisjunction occurs after conception, the resulting" -- > "where it occurs after conception; in this case the resulting" "Chromosome aneuploidies"-- unlink. There are more duplicate links throughout the article. The duplicate links are intentional per my comment to Lee Vilenski; indeed, the TFA at the time of writing is a medical FA with plenty that were kept at FAC and are restored when they're removed. Vaticidalprophet 19:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) "The prognosis of trisomy X is, broadly speaking, good"-- what does good mean here?

• • Gerald Waldo Luis, you and Lee Vilenski have both commented on this line, so I'm trying to figure out how to change it up. Is it possible that either of you could be a little more precise about the issues with it? I've modified the wording a bit to see if the new wording makes more sense (by directly flowing from "good" to "the things that make it good") -- is this an improvement? Vaticidalprophet 03:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Gerald Waldo Luis and Lee Vilenski, in case the pings were missed, as it's been a few days. Vaticidalprophet 04:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Vaticidalprophet, sorry for the delay; I was grieving these past days and was only able to edit in the App, where somehow Wikipedia:-prefixed pages can't be edited. I don't seem to find any more problems with the article, and I'm happy to support. GeraldWL 00:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

I have some reservations. The article seems to be written for clinicians because there are expressions like "clinical portrait", "frank microcephaly", "one study..", "with the condition", "a literature review found", and – the dreadful – "control women"! I am also concerned about the number of primary studies cited, which goes against WP:MEDRS. Are they all adding value? Lastly, the prose needs some polishing; for example, I saw "outside of" rather than just "outside". I am happy to revisit. Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've seen this and will be working to address it. I've had relatively limited opportunities for editing over the past few days, so I'm unsure what schedule changes will be on, but they will be made. Vaticidalprophet 05:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: I have given the prose a once over -- though an English prose expert I am not. If you could highlight anything you see as remaining areas for work, I'd be much obliged. I'm looking into the primary sources now. Ajpolino (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I have made a few changes with a view to improving the prose.[12] Graham Beards (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Ok, I've gone through and scraped out most of the unneeded primary sources. Quite a few remain, which I've listed here for further consideration. The two major reviews that underlie this article are from 2009 and 2010, so some of the primary sources do add information that is likely reliable but hasn't yet been covered by reviews. Whether it's a good idea for this article to cover such info rather than wait for new secondary sources is a fair question (frankly, my leaning is that it should not, but I'm not willing to do that level of deconstruction/re-envisioning on this article). Happy to hear your thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

To have so many non-WP:MEDRS compliant sources in a FA sets an unwanted precedent. I think your work on this abandoned nomination is admirable, but we cannot allow these unusual circumstances to be an excuse for lowering the bar. (Sorry for the tardy reply). Graham Beards (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood, of course. Thanks for your time and input. Ajpolino (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ajpolino

I did a source review, but GB's comment above piqued my interest in looking at the prose as well. I'm no prose wizard, but below are some suggestions for de-clinicalizing and improving the flow of text. Take them or leave them. Also I'd suggest a quick read (or re-read) of User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Eliminating_redundancy, which I continue to find helpful for me:

• Presentation
  • "Trisomy X has a variable phenotype, ranging from cases with no symptoms at all to relatively significant disability, and the clinical portrait is not entirely clear"
  • "Nonetheless, a number of... in the medical literature" - you don't need to state the obvious "in the medical literature", can you rephrase to something like "People with trisomy X have some consistent... traits?". The reader assumes you're deriving them from the medical literature.
  • "Severity is known to vary..." > "Severity varies"
  • "most of which are quite subtle"
  • "girls with trisome X are of average height"
  • "The height excess" > "The added height" (they don't really have an excess of height. They're just a bit taller)
  • "frank microcephaly" (as GB points out above)
  • "Severe internal disease is rare in trisomy X; although heart defects..." > "rare in trisomy X. Although heart defects..." - At first read I thought the "although" was to contrast with the previous sentence, rather than the subsequent clause. Momentarily confusing.
  • I think there's a typo in "The study of mental health... by those diagnosed after." Maybe "by" > "than"?
  • I'd cut "in one exceptional case... including a daughter with Turner syndrome." Exceptional cases make for odd articles.
• Causes
  • "with around 90% of cases being traced..."
  • "Mosaic trisomy X is associated with a higher rate of offspring with chromosomal disorders" - I'd cut this. You just told us the same a few paragraphs above.
• Diagnosis
  • "As trisomy X generally has a mild or asymptomatic phenotype,..." > "As trisomy X is generally mild or asymptomatic..."
  • "It is estimated that" can be removed (though you'll need a bit of downstream rewording).
  • "Indications for postnatal testing for trisomy X include..." > "Postnatal testing is typically promted by..." or something like that.
  • "As postnatal karyotyping generally occurs... a more severe phenotype than prenatal" - I'd cut this sentence too. It's an important fact, but you've mentioned it several times by this point in the article.
  • "Cases of trisomy X with more severe... a particular differential diagnosis of trisomy X" - I think you could cut these two sentences and instead open this paragraph with something like "Severe cases of trisomy X can appear similar to tetrasomy X".
  • "karyotype alone explains, such as in the setting of severe intellectual disability..."
  • "A literature review found that..." seems like it could be cut?
• Epidemiology
  • "Trisomy X's severe underdiagnosis... severe than the general 47,XXX population." - I'd cut this sentence. Again, you've mentioned it a few times this point, and the paragraph is clear without it.
• History
  • "served to dispel" > "dispelled" (and then you'll have to change "reveal" to "revealed" a few words downstream)
  • It's not clear to me if/why the 2007 "study day" merits mention in the history section. Are study days a thing? Google suggests it's just a daylong meeting. Do we know if anything in particular came out of it? If so, perhaps you could briefly highlight that.
  • "...Babies Study, a planned new cohort study..."
  • "... though the latter in particular is now discouraged."
• In other animals
  • I'm not clear on the relevance of the brief discussion of the canine pseudoautosomal region. If it's not relevant to trisomy X, you can probably cut it. If it is, maybe you could tweak the wording to clarify?
  • "... found to have trisomy X was found, on investigation, to have..."

Made a first pass through. I think prose improvements are very achievable. If there's any other way I can help feel free to ping me. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

VP has indicated on his userpage that he'll mostly be stepping away from the encyclopedia. I've actioned my suggested changes above. Will look over Graham Beards' and Spicy's comments some time in the next couple of days and see if we can bring this the rest of the way to compliance with the FA criteria without VP. Of course, if he changes course and returns to regular editing, I'll leave it in his hands. Ajpolino (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Spicy

I'm concerned about some of the sources used in the 'Society and culture' section. What makes [13] and [14] high-quality reliable sources? They seem to be self-published personal reflections and I don't think we can make claims such as "Women with trisomy X and their families have criticised these abortions" and "Women with trisomy X discussing their experiences express optimism about the karyotype and hope for other people with it" based on the personal opinions of two people. These sources [15][16] seem to have been published by Emory to promote their own sex chromosome disorders clinic - not seeing how these are high-quality RS? Spicy (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spicy: I'm not claiming the article is in ideal shape, but the sources you mention are all now removed or replaced. Happy to hear any other feedback if you've got time. Ajpolino (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ajpolino Thanks, that looks better. I made a few copyedits to the article. Not sure I have time for a full review right now, sorry. Spicy (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Time is always in short supply. Thank you for the time you put into it. Ajpolino (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dr Bowser

I found the proper footnote for "...maternal age 33" and reintroduced the sentence. With the nominee absent I'm also going to take the liberty to update the section on bovine trisomy X using a 2021 review by Iannuzzi. Overall I belive things are looking good, especially if any pending issues are adressed. Dr Bowser (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Vaticidalprophet has worked diligently and admirably on this article for quite some time, and has not gotten the attention deserved from several of us medical editors, who have been impacted by other issues at other FAs. I hope this can be brought over the line, specifically with respect to the primary source list on the talk page, possible attention to page numbers in sporadic instances of long articles, wrt the original research on speech therapy I mentioned above in the HF section, wrt consistent citation formatting (eg, remove uppercase on journal titles for consistency), and I am not a fan of a quote from a lesser quality source that begins with “Our doctor told us”. That kind of source might be used to source Societal and cultural aspects, but not medical info. The article still needs some attention to sourcing— work which I see is undergoing on article talk. If that work is completed, I also see other areas where language/jargon might need attention; for example, the introduction of karotype in the first sentence is jargony. Kudos to Vaticidal for bringing this article to such a high state, and I hope it can be brought over the FA line. I apologize for my lack of help; the Wikipedia FA muse left me after a recent socking issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, thanks for the assessment. I think I'm at the limit of my time and interest in this topic, so I'll comment here to echo your sentiment and give my thoughts for anyone interested in renominating this in the future (or just improving the article free of the FA process). I think the major remaining issue is the sourcing. If I had the time I'd replace the primary sources -- particularly the older ones -- with newer secondary sources (I've listed the current primary sources and what they're referencing at the talk page). I'll also echo the bit about page numbers, the current referencing setup makes verification sometimes challenging. Once those things are set, I think the prose and reference formatting can be brought up to standard quickly. VP has done excellent work on this article. Hopefully he or someone else will come by to do a bit more improvement and get it a bronze star. Ajpolino (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Vaticidalprophet, I note that you have semi-retired. Is it your intention to wrap this one up? Ajpolino, you suggested that you may be prepared to step in to address the outstanding comments; any further thoughts on that? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've started working on Graham Beards' concerns, and Spicy's will be up next. I should have time to get through everything within a week -- this weekend I hope. If VP returns and is interested in doing this, I'm more than happy to step back. Sorry to slow down your queue! Ajpolino (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not a problem at all Ajpolino. Under the circumstances we will be as flexible as we reasonably can about timescales. I appreciate your stepping in to keep this moving. Could you add yourself as co-nominator at the top. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm still plugging away at GB's and Spicy's comments (see rev history and talk). Pardon the gap in time. I was offline for a few days for normal scheduled real-life reasons. Thanks again. Ajpolino (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Gog the Mild:, a note to say I've reached the limit of my time and interest in the topic. I think we took a step forward, but once I started digging into things I came to the opinion that the article would benefit from more work than I'm willing/able to put into it. I've updated my source review with a note above, and left more detailed comments on sourcing at the talk page. Thank you again for your patience and tolerance. For what it's worth, my opinion is that if no one else is interested in taking over this project, the article is best left to be improved outside of the FAC spotlight. Thanks to all the commenters above for their time and suggestions. And of course thanks to VP for all his work to overhaul this article. Ajpolino (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 8 September 2021 [17].

---

Battle of the Granicus

Nominator(s): AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the first battle of Alexander the Great's invasion of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. When I wanted to find good information on this battle on Wikipedia, I found that this article had many problems. Since I've studied History and have been editing Wikipedia for years, I wanted to vastly improve this article. I've done so on 26 August and have made minor changes and additions since then. I'm also grateful to the other editors who have submitted improvements to the article since then. I feel this article is now as complete as it could be and is supported a large amount of quality sources. I wonder whether others agree if this could be a featured article. When I compare it with other featured articles on historical battles I think it is, except for some changes to the writing style (my command of English is good, but I'm not a native speaker) which the reviewers here might want. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up and providing a legend for the map of the battle
• The OSM map should have a more complete caption
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Charles_Le_Brun,_Le_Passage_du_Granique,_1665.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Spithridates_attacking_Alexander_from_behind_at_the_Battle_of_Granicus.jpg, File:Cornelis_Troost_001.jpg
• File:Battle_granicus.png: source link is dead, and the permission statement doesn't seem to equate to the tags used. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Buidhe

• Article has not been through WP:GAN or WP:MILHIST/ACR. While not a requirement, such reviews can help bring an article up to meeting the FA criteria.
• One source is Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a quite dodgy publisher that is just this side of self-publishing. What makes you think that the author has significant expertise on the subject?
• There are citation errors for Russel 2016 and Heckel 2009.

• I resolved the cite errors (first is a typo ; second wrong year) and I recommend to the nominator to use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to catch these in future. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• FA requirement is for a citation at the end of each paragraph at minimum outside the article's lead. I flagged a place where this requirement has not been met.
• Also, issues with both duplicate linking and other MOS:OVERLINK (such as for Turkey or archers)
• Article prose looks good to me.
• I rarely say this but I think the lead probably should be expanded to make sure it touches on all the major points in the article. (t · c) buidhe 14:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1

• I fixed a few minor grammar things - I think there are not many left - but still worth putting in GOCE queue as you don't have to wait long - mention it is for FAC

• I wonder whether anyone has searched for archaeological evidence - or did I miss that in the article? Suggest you mail arkeoloji@comu.edu.tr - perhaps they can send out a squad of undergrads with metal detectors to search the old riverbed!

• Consider adding the modern pic of the river to show how narrow it is Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Recusing to opine on this one.

It is clear that a lot of work has gone into this. It is also clear that it is some way from being ready for consideration at FAC. A non-exhaustive list of issues includes:

• Widespread use of primary sources. They all need replacing with HQ RSs.
• The lead does not adequately summarise the article.
• The background does not adequately set the scene for the topic.
• The prose and MoS-compliance need considerable work. There are a lot of minor grammar and MoS issues. The article needs a thorough copy edit.
• The Aftermath does not state how the war concluded.
• A map of western Asia Minor showing the locations mentioned would be helpful. And easy to create.
• An article on a battle of Alexander's Persian campaigns with no mention of the weapons, tactics, equipment and doctrines? No mention of long thrusting spear or pike or stirrups (lack of) or wedge (formation)? Etc.

I recommend withdrawal and visits to GoCER and PR. Possibly followed by GAN and MilHist ACR. I would also draw the nominator's attention to the second sentence of the FAC home page: "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." Perusal of recent pre-modern battle articles which have passed FAC and of the comments made by reviewers on them may also be helpful in terms of identifying expectations. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

I must concur with Gog, above. The article has bags of potential, but it needs input from experienced colleagues, and the steps suggested by Gog seem to me spot-on, though I don't know that I'd go to both PR and GAN these days – you could die of old age waiting for either, let alone both. One or the other would be my advice. Otherwise, I agree that Gog's suggested way forward is the way to go to get the article up to FA standard. Tim riley talk 12:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- Thanks to all the reviewers, and to AVL for work on the article. Yes, strongly recommend following Gog's advice, for myself I'd suggest that MilHist A-Class Review is perhaps more likely to get a few pairs of eyes on it quickly than PR, but either will be of benefit if the reviewers show up. Just a reminder that per FAC instructions this can't be re-nominated here for at least two weeks after being archived, but implementing the recommendations will probably take longer anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 September 2021 [18].

---

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Following the withdrawal of my first attempt the article has been copyedited again as suggested - thanks Twofingered Typist. I have made some other fixes and remaining errors are my own. I suspect there are many, but the only way I have even a small chance of getting this done before the big COP26 climate change meeting starts at the beginning of November is for you guys to point them out here and me to fix them straight away. Otherwise I will be distracted by other articles. Less than 10% of the sources are foreign language and if they cite anything which seems contentious to you let me know so I can try to find an English language cite. All the graphs except one were done by me so if anything needs improving on them I probably can do it. If there are tools I should be using to make your work easier let me know. And if you prefer to fix minor errors yourself or tag bomb the article please do so if easier than commenting here. I think it would be good if more than one climate change article was featured for COP26 and this is the only "Greenhouse gas emissions by country X" article which is anywhere close as far as I know. Thank you for your time. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Brief query

• Why say "cows" and not "cattle"? Also before going too much further, I think people from last FAC (e.g. @Femkemilene and FeydHuxtable:) should have a look to compare versions Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Good question: answer is to read better by having an equal number of syllables - see Isocolon Chidgk1 (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Feyd

Normally I'd not like to see a 2nd nom so soon after the first one. But I agree it would be nice to have a FA in the topic class in time for Glasgow, and first impression is the articles improved significantly since last time. Also agree it's fine to use Cow rather than cattle, unless more experienced editors like Cas strongly object. By chance I've been doing some off wiki work involving methane hunting & 'Cows for climate' this past few weeks. On some pages we exclusively use the word 'Cows'. Cow's perhaps a cooler sounding word than cattle to the contemporary ear.

This said Chidgk1, while 'rule of three' is powerful & mostly simple, it's not a short cut for great writing. (Best way to learn is maybe to spend near equal time polishing your own writing as reading top quality work so the elements of good style sink in - e.g. FAs by our best writers or see this for an excellent example on a relevant subject. ) To highlight an overuse of 'rule of three' that IMO needs to be fixed before we can promote this to FA, there's your first 3 L2 headings, all with 3 words. The problem is "Scope and methodology" causes a jarring context switch as the content is all about reporting. The switch from Turkey's GHG emissions in general to reporting on same wasn't introduced. You could have had a L2 heading saying 'Reporting', & then an L3 heading saying 'Scope and methodology' under that. Better still just change "Scope and methodology" > 'Reporting', although that spoils your 3x3. So maybe just change "Scope and methodology" > 'Reporting and methodology' (Which isn't perfect, just the best I can come up with right now.

The lede needs some editing, which I might take care of myself on my next pass, if no one else does. But to give an example, the first sentence of the lede is too long. At least on the first para of the lede, it's good to have extra emphases on readability. (This tool I got from Collect is great). The opening para would be better as 3 sentences, not a 40 word mini monster. Other than the lede & the mentioned "Reporting" issue, the article is looking much better. Hoping to be back on the weekend where I should have some time to look at this more carefully, & maybe even cast a support vote.FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed L2 headings as suggested. Yes if you or anyone else could edit the lede that would be wonderful. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Femke

Going to mostly sit this one out, as I'm recovering from illness. Climate change is due another go on the front page, don't worry about the COP. Sustainable energy might also reach FA status on time.

Wise decision - thanks for comments - hope you get well soon. Personally I like to reread childrens books when unwell - all the Biggles I enjoyed as a boy is now on ereader. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think it would be good if the lead is slightly expanded to 3 complete paragraphs

Yes I hope Feyd or someone else may revamp it Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• it is a bit weird to say that turkeys emissions are causing climate change in Turkey, given that they are only 1% of global emissions

I thought someone would raise this and I would like more thoughts on this from others. I pondered this for a while. I think one possible analogy would be money - if I contribute 10 lira towards a 100 lira cake which is sliced equally in ten it does not mean that my particular 10 lira note bought a particular slice - any slice will do. In the same way one CO2 molecule is the same as another regardless of which country it came from. Earlier I wrote that Turkey's GhG caused most of its climate change - because it has 1% of the world population and emitted 0.6% of cumulative GhG. But then I thought that was a synthesis too far as although warming is linear by CO2 climate change is not. I think my wording now that Turkey's GhG caused part of its climate change is not undue weight, as it would be for some countries which hardly burnt any coal. Because if all countries had behaved like Turkey although climate change would be less it would still be significant I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Assuming no one else has re-writes the lede before I get to it, I was already planning to remove the "causing climate change in Turkey" wording . Mainly as for well developed articles, the lede generally ought not say things not mentioned in the body. You might think this qualifies under the "basic facts" exception in WP:MOSLEAD, per your good argument above, and especially now you've added a "partly". Here's the thing though. The relationship between burning coal & global warming isn't as simple as many think. Some scientists don't like to draw attention to this for political reasons, but between ourselves, it should be ok. Burning coal is always a net warmer across many decades, due to the long persistence of CO2. Yet on a short enough timescale, burning coal can actually have a strong net cooling effect. (Depending on the nature of the coal being used, the tech in the power stations, the type of sulphate aerosols being produced, etc etc. There some reference to this even in the new IPPC report.) On a medium time scale, the warming & cooling effects could even balance out. This isn't something I'd want to discuss in detail, but hopefully this is enough for you. From my quick read so far, the article seems admirably free of OR. It would be a shame to be let down by the lede. All that said, not something I feel that strongly about, just commenting per your request. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that local air pollution can limit warming and I had forgotten to mention that general point in the body, but I am not sure the magnitude and timescale in this country. In 2020 new power station flue stack regulation came into force. So it may be the clearer/cleaner air will increase the local warming. Or pessimistically our air may not clear properly until well after local EV and natural gas production ramps up and replaces coal and gasoline and diesel. But I doubt there are any studies on this here yet. So until I find one or clarify the point in some other way (for example completely conclusive studies on climate change in Turkey and the very recent wildfires and floods here) yes ok remove from lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Great work on picking out what's probably the single most relvent quote for this, from what's arguably the best possible source (AR6). Very few could have done that so swiftly. But sorry, I think your new "Relationship to air pollution" section is spoiling the otherwise excellence coherance of the article. Under that title I'd expect to mostly see things more widely associated with pollution - e.g. the short term -ve effects of coal burning on air quality, acid rain, etc. Even with a different title, I'm not sure it's good to say too much about the warming / cooling balance. As mentioned, some scientists don't like to see it discussed publically. We should cover it of course, but maybe just in the most germane articles like Global cooling. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I did not expect you to be awake so early in your time zone. Anyway your comment has stimulated me to learn some interesting info - I had no idea there was an article on Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. I think the relationship between climate change and "conventional" pollution is very important in this country - the difficulty is to decide where to put the info without too much duplication across articles. Not just the scientific relationship but also the political: for example local opposition to new coal-fired power stations in the past has tended to focus on claimed pollution of the surrounding agricultural land - "climate change" was not much of a political topic until this years fires and floods. If you really think it does not fit I could relegate the new section to a footnote (or move to another Turkey article but which?) but I would be very reluctant to delete it. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite common for Londoners to be awake by 6am, the city that never sleeps and all that. You make good points. IMO you could move the entire new passage to Coal_in_Turkey#Air_pollution , which seems a very nice little GA. Said section already has the pollution basics, it would be ideal IMO to introduce the new passage with a short sentence to orient the reader a bit, e.g. "Not all aspects of air pollution from coal burning are harmful; in the shortterm, there can be cooling effects." FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

But now I am thinking we can keep "and these are part of the cause of climate change in Turkey" in the lead? In which case the body text would have to stay in the same article I guess? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You can do what you like, in the sense that I'm not going to edit war or even start a TP section againt any change you want to make.

However, while I'd not oppose, there is no way I'm supporting promotion if the current "Relationship to air pollution" section stays in this article. (I'm less bothered about the phrase in the lede, though still think that should ideally be removed.) I've already explained reasons why I consider the section isn't up to FA standards. I wasnt going to mention this when it seemned like you were willing to move it to another article. But while not to the extent that I'd consider it an OR violation, this sentance is seems to go slightly beyond what the source supports: "Significant amounts of coal were burnt over 30 years ago, so the effect of that on global warming is dominated by CO2". I also consider it inaccurate (based admitedly on non public models, not sources I can link to). Sorry if it seems I'm being difficult here, just releated to my view that FA class articles should be held to the highest standards. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

OK have moved out - if you could leave the phrase in the lead to see whether other reviewers have an opinion on it that would be good - thanks for quick replies Chidgk1 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• 6 t; write the unit out in full first

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to see slightly more comparison to other countries. Is the carbon intensity of turkeys industry below or above standards?

The biggest carbon intensity difference from other countries is obviously the poor quality of Turkish lignite, which I mentioned already. I have not been able to find any country comparisons yet for cement or steel, but am pretty confident that studies will be available soon as part of CBAM preparation. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why heat pumps mentioned in the energy section, rather than the building section?

Moved Chidgk1 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Use the abbreviation GhG inconsistently, sometimes referring to greenhouse gas, sometimes the plural greenhouse gases, and sometimes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Done. To avoid the reader becoming bored with the word "emissions" standardized to mean "greenhouse gas emissions" (except direct quotes). Chidgk1 (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this is confusing. I'd go for the default meaning: greenhouse gas, with the plural as GhGs. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• CO₂ is misspelled in multiple locations, without the subscript

Done (but I assumed the ones which are direct quotes or titles should remain as is) Chidgk1 (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures: context?

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

JJE

Taking a peek right now:

• Why is Anatolian Black cattle specifically linked?

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think GhG is the normal way the acronym is written.

Changed to GHG Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Likewise, until local production of solar panels, electric vehicles and lithium mining began around the same time, it was hard to avoid burning a lot of petroleum. is unsourced.

Cited Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• The politics section is a little WP:PROSELINE-y.

Jo-Jo Eumerus I assume you mean just the 2020s subsection (if not please tell me). Would it help if I organised the "2020s" subsection of "politics" with subsubsections such as "local politics" "national politics" "international politics"? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that one. I don't think that the "In 2020...In 2021" format is good prose for a FA. Also, pings only work if they start a new line with a signature - you cannot ping someone by editing the template into an already existing post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Done: shuffled content to get rid of WP:PROSELINE Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Footnotes sometimes have capitalization and the beginning and punctuation at the end and sometimes they don't.

Removed the unpunctuated footnote as unnecessary Chidgk1 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any academic analysis of the politics of GHG emissions?

Almost none but I just found one published last month and added a sentence. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is something I am a little uneasy about raising, because I am not sure if it's a personal peeve of mine or a legitimate issue: Is it necessary to rely this much on news media as sources? They often oversimplify and sensationalize stuff. I am not sure for example, that this can be used to source a general statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

perfectly legitimate to raise. Replaced with academic source - please mention any more and I will look for scholarly studies - or any other comments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This nomination is about to hit the three week mark. It has yet to attract any supports. There has been a very large amount of work on the article since it was nominated - [19] - which causes me to believe that it was not fully ready for FAC when it was nominated. Unless a persuasive reason is offered as to why I should not, I will be archiving this in the next day or two, for work to continue on it off-FAC in anticipation of a re-nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have dealt with all the comments so far (if not please let me know), which were very helpful. Although I am continuing to make changes whilst awaiting more comments it is very hard for me to tell whether what I am doing is actually useful, because I cannot see the article from an outsider's perspective. Therefore I would like more comments on what still needs to be fixed (or of course "support" votes). As you can see from previous peer reviews if you take it off-FAC there is almost no chance of anyone giving feedback (except Femkemilene - thanks - and she is not available at the moment), so I will lose the incentive to improve it as I won't know if my future changes are a waste of time. As I have never done a featured article before I really have little idea of how close or far this is to featured quality now. Maybe I should ping people who have already commented to say I think I have fixed all the defects they pointed out, and to ask for more comments? Maybe I should ping all the people whose articles I have commented on here as only a few have commented back? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason why the second sentence of the FAC home page is " 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." Yes, neutrally pinging reviewers for further comments and/or supports or opposes would be a good idea. I sympathise greatly with the struggle to get this sort of article up to FAC standard, especially as a first FAC, but this is simply not the venue for the basic discussion of and changes to the article which have been taking place. FAC is for tweaks to and tinkering with near FAC-ready articles, PR - imperfect as it is - is for the big discussions/changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are right that I really need people to tell me stuff like "section A should be half the length" or "section C should be a subsection of section B" or "section D is really hard to follow" or "these numbers would be clearer in a graph" rather than smaller things like "sentence Y is unclear" - although the latter comments are also useful. It was a long time ago but if I remember right I did make an attempt to find a mentor - perhaps I did not try hard enough. Will try again now. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Have put out a call at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Looking_for_a_mentor_for_first_%28and_probably_only%29_featured_article Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I was about to review here, but a problem is that I know nothing about the subject, and it probably needs a look over from someone who does and knows the ropes around FAC. So I'd also suggest a mentor to get this in line with FAC prior to a new nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Subject knowledge is not required in order to review. In fact the coordinators will often hold up a promotion until the article has been reviewed by an editor not familiar with the subject area in order to ensure that it is broadly comprehensible. However, an experienced FAC-nominator and reviewer has volunteered to mentor, so I am archiving this in the expectation of seeing it here again in better shape. The usual two week pause will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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) 6 September 2021 [20].

---

2019 West Coast Eagles season

Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2019 season of the West Coast Eagles, an Australian rules football club. This is my first Featured Article nomination, and the first nomination of an Australian rules football club season. I created this article earlier this year in April, and have had it pass a Good Article review. Steelkamp (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed all fixed px size except for images using Template:Multiple image, because it does not support using scale factors, and by default it is too wide. Steelkamp (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments on lead

• Please note I am approaching this from the point of view of someone who knows basically nothing about forms of football that aren't played with a spherical ball :-)
• What's a "premiership coach"?
• I presume a "ladder" is the Aussie word for what I would call a league table? Suggest linking to standings
• What's a "mark"? Wikilink to somewhere appropriate
• That's what I got on the lead, will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments on background

• Link ladder again
• "it was announced that the West Australian Football League (WAFL) had decided to allow the West Coast Eagles into that competition" => "it was announced that the West Australian Football League (WAFL) had decided to allow the West Coast Eagles to enter a reserve team into that competition" for clarity
• That's all I got on that section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the rest

• All image captions which are complete sentences should have full stops
• Need a comma after "did not play any AFL games"
• "to replace Scott Lycett as primary ruckman" - he was only just mentioned so probably don't need to repeat his forename
• "2018 was the first year where there was the trading of draft picks during the draft" => "2018 was the first year where the trading of draft picks during the draft was permitted"
• In the stats table, if you sort on the name column, Hamish Brayshaw jumps to the top for some reason
• "These teams were all regarded" - the previous sentence mentioned literally all other teams, so this needs to made clearer
• "Going into the start of the season, Nic Naitanui," - you already linked him, so no need to do so again
• "which meant for wet and slippery conditions" => "which made for wet and slippery conditions"
• "a team that West Coast should have comfortably beat" => "a team that West Coast should have comfortably beaten"
• "Both played quite well, with Gaff getting 34 disposals" - no idea what a disposal is, suggest linking somewhere appropriate
• "when they were thrashed by Geelong" - "thrashed" is pretty slangy, change to something like "heavily defeated"
• "Ryan went on to in the Mark of the Year" - presume "in" should actually say "win"
• "The match was also Willie Rioli's first match" - overlinked
• "West Coast had 24 more inside 50s" - what's an "inside 50"?
• "but kicked twice as many behinds than goals in the first half" => "but kicked twice as many behinds as goals in the first half"
• "Jamie Cripps kicked the winning goal" - overlinked
• "In round 19, West Coast thrashed North Melbourne 121–72" - thrashed again
• "Willie Rioli was provisionally suspended" - overlinked
• "This eliminated the West Coast eagles from the finals series" - need a capital E on Eagles
• In the Ground column of the results table, The Gabba should sort under G, not T
• The key has QF - Elimination Final. Surely that should be EF?
• Several players overlinked in the Awards section
• "Behind him was Elliot Yeo (239), Brad Sheppard (234)...." => "Behind him were Elliot Yeo (239), Brad Sheppard (234)...."
• That's what I got. Overall that was an interesting read about a sport which I really know very little about..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for doing this review. I have implemented all of your suggestions. Steelkamp (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• The fixture for round one was revealed on 27 October 2018 - should that be "fixtures"? and presumably should be "The full fixture [list] was revealed on 1 November 2018." (?)

• The prose could do with some tightening, I ran though it and was able to eliminate some redundancy. Will have another read. probably still some minor redundancies here and there but no dealbreakers outstanding.

Overall certainly comprehensive and written in an enthusiastic and lively style making for an engaging read. I will look again at the prose but think FA is achievable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Casliber for taking a look. I have checked over all your edits to the article. To my ears, "fixture" sounds correct. The fixture is referring to every match collectively. These sources agree with me: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Alternatively, this source uses "fixtures": [26]. Maybe both are correct. Steelkamp (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow - I had always used "fixture" to mean "match" (usually implied in future), hence multiple matches = "fixtures", but have learnt something new today XD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Teratix

• Pictures are great and freely licenced many thanks to Flickerd if he returns.
• They won only three of their first six games, but went on to win 12 of the next 14 games to be well within the top four at the end of round 21. They then lost the final two games of the home-and-away season, including a shock loss to Hawthorn at home This seems an odd way to break down the season − six matches, 14 matches, two matches − with the Hawthorn loss the only match singled out. Surely this can be expanded a bit, especially given there are only two paragraphs in the lead as it stands.
  • I have expanded that out by mentioning more matches and ladder positions, but I've kept the 6-14-2 structure, because at the boundaries of those games is a turning point in West Coast's season. The first six matches saw West Coast lose a surprising number of times. After that, they settled into winning almost every match, until the last two matches, which derailed the team's trajectory towards top 4 and even top 2. Steelkamp (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Liam Ryan won Mark of the Year with a mark clumsy phrasing that recurs a couple of times throughout
  • Hmm. I'm not sure how to rephrase this in a way that makes sense. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Latter part of the lead is oddly out of chronological order − jumping from post-season awards to injuries during the season.
  • I've reordered some sentences in the lead. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Games played → Games, and should be sortable.
  • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• The fixture for round one was revealed on 27 October 2018. Is this genuinely significant information?
  • Removed. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• I won't go through every little prose detail in the season summary, but suffice to say there were a few recurring issues:
  • Editorialisations, which are frequent in sports reporting, but not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice: (e.g. The Eagles did not look like winning from half time, It now looked unlikely for the Eagles to finish in the top two, West Coast fell apart in the final quarter etc.)
  • Unattributed statements (e.g. Brisbane were regarded as a team that West Coast should have comfortably beaten (by whom?) billed as a possible preview for the Grand Final (by whom?) etc.)
  • Some informal diction (Gaff getting 34 disposals)
  • A couple of awkward phrasings (The only injury was to Shannon Hurn, who injured his hamstring)
    • I have gone through and reread the entire article, making many of these small fixes. Steelkamp (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• For me, the most pressing issue is that too often the article focuses on collating objective information and statistics at the expense of summarising analysis of West Coast's list management and season performance. To plagiarise my own GA review for Geelong's 2018 season, which had a similar issue: "The reader might come away from the article knowing every West Coast player, trade, match result and award recipient for 2018, but unable to discern to what extent West Coast's season was considered excellent, poor or somewhere in between. How was West Coast's trading and drafting evaluated? Considering West Coast's performance in 2018, how did they perform relative to expectations? The reader should be able to find at least a consideration of these questions and a summary of major viewpoints, even if there is no objective answer."
  • Working on this. Steelkamp (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Teratix: I have added some analysis and reviews to the article. What do you think now? Steelkamp (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Luke Shuey's second John Worsfold medal uppercase medal?
  • Fixed. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• leading goalkicker, awarded to Jack Darling bit odd to speak of this being "awarded to" Darling, since it's just a title for the player who kicks the most goals; it's not like the best and fairest, which actually is "awarded to" a player in the sense that they are selected by a committee.
  • Leading goalkicker is actually an award, with a medal presented at the awards night, as shown here and here. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Do we really need an external link to the AFL website?
  • I've removed the external links section. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• A comprehensive article in terms of results, statistics and award winners, but the reader is sometimes left wondering about this information's overall significance, due to the article's scarce discussion of analysts' views. – Teratix ₵ 06:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Due to real-life circumstances I'll be on wikibreak for a few weeks, so unfortunately I'm not going to be able to follow up my review. Apologies to Steelkamp, but I'm confident the article's issues are well on their way to resolution. – Teratix ₵ 14:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The lead states this was their 33rd season in the AFL, but the infobox states "AFL season: 5th". What is the difference between these two?
  • Seems to be a poorly worded infobox. The parameter is "regularseason result", but it displays as "AFL season". I have removed that from the infobox. Steelkamp (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• "They finished the 2018 home-and-away season second on the ladder. They continued on through the finals series to win the Grand Final against Collingwood by five points, thus becoming the reigning premiers. " Source?
  • Added sources. Steelkamp (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• FN3 is missing date
• FN4 is missing agency and date
• FN7 is missing date, check for others (there seem to be many)
  • Quite a lot are missing dates. I will fix that soon. Steelkamp (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I have put dates in for all the references that have dates, and added agency parameter for all the references with a news agency. Steelkamp (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
      • On a quick check there are still a few missing - eg FN15. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
        • SEN don’t have dates on their articles. Steelkamp (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
          • It appears that they embed publication date within the URL? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
            • Good to know! Steelkamp (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• FN13 should have capitalization normalized. Ditto FN15
  • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• What makes afltables a high-quality reliable source?
  • The Age describes AFL Tables as a "leading footy stats website".
  • ESPN describes AFL Tables as a "statistical bible website".
  • The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has used AFL Tables as a source.
  • The Conversation has used AFL Tables as a source.
  • The Age has used AFL Tables as a source.
  • AFL Media has used AFL Tables as a source.
  • Fox Sports has used AFL tables as a source.

– Steelkamp (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• FN78: is Leo a middle name or surname?
  • I'm not sure. After Googling, I found out that he always goes by "Simon Leo Brown" or "Simon", so I don't see removing "Leo" as an option. I think it is more likely that Leo is a middle name. Steelkamp (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Considerable formatting cleanup needed here. While I was looking at sourcing, I also noticed some persisting issues with prose and style, enough to suggest that the article would benefit from another read-through. Examples include "; Nick Dal Santo saying", "they aren't giving up the large amount of picks", and "seven year long deal". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Thank you for reviewing this article. I have read through the article again, and addressed all the issues you brought up. Steelkamp (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Hi Steelkamp, as this is your first FAC, it is going to need a spotcheck for source to text accuracy as well as the standard source review just completed. I posted a request in the usual place a few days ago, so it is a case of being patient. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Sandbh

I saw the request from User:Gog the Mild for a spot check of sources. Since I know about Australian rules football I thought I'd have a look at the article. I further speak from the perspective of having FAC nominations both fail and succeed.

My general impression is that the article is not well structured; paragraphs are too long; some contain unconnected ideas; and there is not enough analytical content. The opening paragraph, for example, runs to 230 words; for better readability, 100–150 words, or so, make for an easier read. The average para. length is ca. 155 words; the round 22 para. is 269 words.

In FAC criteria terms it does not meet:

• 1a. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
• 1b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• 1c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;
• 2a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.
  
  
• There're about 60 duplicate links. The two lede paragraphs have ca. 39 links. So much blue is distracting. MOS:LEADLINK may help.
  • I have removed all duplicate links, and removed some links from the lead. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• What is the significance of the "JLT Community Series"?
  • The West Coast Eagles played in the JLT Community Series. Therefore, it falls under the scope of this article. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Why is there no content cited from the 2019 AFL Annual Report? Is there a 2019 West Coast Annual report?
• How did the season compare to past seasons for West Coast? How does a 15-7 win-lose record stack up to season win-lose records generally?

More specifically, I can't follow the logical progression of the article. Below the HR is a compilation of the lede sentences from each paragraph + some of my comments. The lede sentence of a paragraph should encapsulate what the rest of the paragraph will cover, and all the lede sentences should tell the story of the article.

---

THE LEDE

• The West Coast Eagles are an Australian rules football team based in Perth, Western Australia. 
• Daniel Venables suffered a career-ending concussion in round nine. [so what?]
  • Well it's not every season that a young player with years ahead of him suffers a career-ending injury. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The lede is supposed to summarise the article. The current lede falls well short of this requirement. The lede includes factoids not mentioned in the rest of the article.

• • I strongly disagree with this statement. The only thing I could see that could be considered as "not mentioned in the rest of the article" is expectations were high for West Coast in 2019, which I have now made more specific. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

• The West Coast Eagles are an Australian rules football team based in Perth, Western Australia, that competes in the Australian Football League (AFL).
• Prior to the start of the 2019 season, most of a group of 15 AFL.com.au reporters predicted that West Coast would finish the season in the top four again.
• In October 2018, it was announced that the West Australian Football League (WAFL) had decided to allow the West Coast Eagles to enter a reserve team into that competition starting in 2019, after the idea was unanimously endorsed by a meeting of WAFL club presidents. [so what?; why is this pertinent to the 2019 West Coast Eagles season?]
  • It is pertinent because it means that the WCE are competing in the WAFL for the first time in 2019. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• West Coast's on-field leadership went unchanged going into the 2019 season.
• In March, Sam Kerr, the captain of Australia's women's national soccer team, was announced to be West Coast's number-one ticket holder for 2019–20. [so what?]
  • I don't see what the problem is with this. It is relevant. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The first paragraph ends with, "Continuing on through the finals series, they won the Grand Final against Collingwood by five points, thus becoming the reigning premiers." What does this have to do with a background?

• • Again, I don't see what the problem is with this. The previous season's performance is directly related to the current season. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Playing list 2018 off-season changes

• After the end of the 2018 AFL season, Eric Mackenzie retired due to consistent struggles with fractures in his feet.
• On 7 October 2018, the day before the start of the 2018 trade period, Andrew Gaff signed a new contract with West Coast. [Who is Andrew Gaff?]
  • I've added after much consideration to leaving under the AFL's free agency rules to that sentence. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• West Coast were one of the least active teams during the 2018 trade period, making one trade.
• 2018 was the first year where the trading of draft picks during the draft was permitted. [so what?]
  • I've now reorganised that paragraph so the significance of that statement is clearer. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Season summary

• In the 2019 AFL season, each team played 22 games and had a mid-season bye. 

Rounds 1–12

• Going into the start of the season, Nic Naitanui, Andrew Gaff, Jamie Cripps, Josh Kennedy and Willie Rioli were unable to play.
• West Coast won their next match, beating Greater Western Sydney by 52 points at Optus Stadium.
• West Coast had their second loss of the season in round five against Port Adelaide, being beaten by 42 points at Optus Stadium. 
• West Coast then won their round nine match against Melbourne, despite the Demons dominating the first three quarters.
• West Coast had another comeback victory in round ten, this time against Adelaide.

Comment: Starting each paragraph with "West Coast" is too repetitive. Did nothing happen in games 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12?

• • I have changed some instances of "West Coast" to "The Eagles" Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Did nothing happen in games 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12? I'm guessing you didn't read the entire paragraphs. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Rounds 13–23

• West Coast had a bye in round 13.
• Round 16 saw West Coast win the 50th Western Derby 122–31; the 91-point margin was the second largest in a Western Derby, and Fremantle's 31 points their lowest score. 
• In round 19, West Coast heavily defeated North Melbourne 121–72, placing the Eagles two wins inside the top four. Josh Kennedy kicked seven goals, one of which was his 600th goal.
• In round 22, West Coast faced Richmond, 2018's minor premiers, in what AFL.com.au called the "game of the season", and a possible preview for the Grand Final. 

Comments: What is the "Western Derby"? According to whom did the outcome of round 19 represent a case of the other team being "heavily" defeated? What is a minor premier?

• • What is the "Western Derby"? That question is answered earlier in the article, when the first Western Derby of the season occurred. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have removed the word "heavily", although I am of the opinion that it is evident from the scores, and doesn't need a specific person/entity saying so. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Minor premier is linked. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Finals

• West Coast had a solid 116–61 win in their elimination final against Essendon; Nic Naitanui was reported for shoving Zach Merrett into the fence after Merrett pulled on Naitanui's hair.
• In a post-season review for AFL.com.au, Travis King rated West Coast's season a "B-", writing that "inconsistency plagued the reigning premiers", and that "the Eagles could – and should – have finished top-four". [who is Travis King?]

Comment: According to whom did did WC have a "solid" win. What happened to WC in the finals thereafter? Which teams did Nic and Zach belong to? What was the outcome of the report? The last paragraph says:

"In a post-season review for AFL.com.au, Travis King rated West Coast's season a "B-", writing that "inconsistency plagued the reigning premiers", and that "the Eagles could – and should – have finished top-four". He also said "their inability to put poor teams away cost them valuable percentage", but praised the decision to trade for Tom Hickey.

If that is so, how did they manage to win the premiership?

• • I have removed the word "solid". Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • What happened to WC in the finals thereafter? Read the rest of the paragraph. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Which teams did Nic and Zach belong to? Nic Naitanui is mentioned earlier in the article, and in the list of players. I've now clarified that Merrett is an Essendon player. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • What was the outcome of the report? The following sentence answers that question. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If that is so, how did they manage to win the premiership? Reigning premiers means they won the premiership in 2018. The post-season review was written before the 2019 Grand Final happened. This is a direct quote anyway, so it can't be changed. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

WAFL team

• West Coast's WAFL team was captained by Fraser McInnes in its inaugural season. [So what? What is the WAFL? What does this have to do with the article?]
  • WAFL is mentioned in the Background section. WAFL is relevant because the article is titled "2019 West Coast Eagles season", not "2019 West Coast Eagles AFL season". WAFL is only mentioned in a small paragraph because the WCE WAFL team would not be notable enough for a season article on its own. No other WAFL clubs have any season articles. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Awards

• Liam Ryan won the Mark of the Year award for a mark he took during West Coast's round 9 match against Melbourne. [Can we have an image of the mark?]
  • I wish we could, but no, there are not creative commons licensed images of that mark, and I don't think it falls within fair use. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• West Coast held its awards night on 3 October [so what?]
  • That tells when those awards that followed were awarded. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

---

General comments: I some cases it transpires that, apart from the lede, the rest of the paragraph is consistent in its coverage. However, the general reader should be able to work what the paragraph is just from reading the lede sentence, rather than having to get the end of the paragraph to work out what the idea unit is.

• • I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that the first sentence of each paragraph should outline the rest of the paragraph. I don't think this is possible in a football club season article anyway. For example, in the season summary, there would have to be 25 paragraphs for each round plus a paragraph at the start. Either there will be many small paragraphs, or the season summary would have to be lengthened, however it is quite long as it is. Looking at similar articles (2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season, 1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season), they don't do this either. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with User:Teratix that the reader is sometimes left wondering about this information's overall significance, due to the article's scarce discussion of analysts' views.

The article would have benefited from listing it at WP:PR. As further set out at WP:FAC, "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." Sandbh (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for undertaking this review, Sandbh. I agree that there should be more analysis of the season included in the article, and I agree that there should be information included from the annual report. I am working on both. However, I disagree with many on whether the article is well written or whether it meets the criteria for the lead, and you can see my replies to individual points above. Steelkamp (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Withdraw I would like to withdraw this nomination to work on it without the time pressure that comes with a FAC. Steelkamp (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 4 September 2021 [27].

---

Frozen II

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article by Pamzeis, Chompy Ace and Wingwatchers

Significant copyeditor: Tenryuu

From previous archive: @Nikkimaria:, and @Aoba47:

The highest-grossing animated film of all time, the sequel to Frozen (2013), the proposal is well written, clear, and engaging, having been recently copyedited and corrected by a GOCE member; its coverage is broad and are notable; it is backed by archived reliable sources; it has a neutral point of view; it's not subject to an edit war; all images used on the article are from Wikimedia Commons or placed under a claim of fair-use with appropriate rationale. Wingwatchers (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Come on, some supports or opposes? responses? anyone? Wingwatchers (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It sometimes takes a while for reviewers to look at an article. Continuing reviewing other FACs; this demonstrates to other reviewers that you understand the FA criteria, giving them confidence that your article is ready. It can take up to two months for a FAC to get the 5+ reviews that it needs for promotion, so get ready for a long but fun ride! Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

All right. :) Wingwatchers (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• "The Germanic water spirits Nøkk, as painted by Theodor Kittelsen, was notably heavier" - source, and notably heavier than what?
• File:Frozen2_Elsa_Hairstyle_Animation_Development.jpg: why is the use of this particular image justified?
• File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg: when and where was this first published?
• File:Magic_Kingdom_castle.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg: the publication date was 1904 in Norway [28].

Publication or creation? In what form was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

How would I know, but I can tell you that the author died in 1914, so it's in public domain. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It has a tag stating it's in the public domain because it was published before 1926. If we don't know that, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Then to clarify the matter, I switched the image File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg to a more descriptive equivalent from Flickr, File:Nøkken (12924042635).jpg. Wingwatchers (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Magic Kingdom castle.jpg, transcluded in a portal template, the image's licenses are GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2, and CC BY-SA 3.0.

I know that. I'm asking about the licensing of the work being pictured, not the image itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wingwatchers (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The castle. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Still don't get it, the castle is a three-dimensional building, why would it be copyrighted? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got it. The Magic Castle was in public domain because it was constructed in 1971, therefore it was not protected by copyright. See Copyright in architecture in the United States. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed File:Frozen2_Elsa_Hairstyle_Animation_Development.jpg and File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg's descriptions. @Nikkimaria Wingwatchers (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Portions of the former are not supported by the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Added a citaion if that was what you are referring to. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Prose review. I have seen the film, and know some information about it, but other areas (such as animation jargon and how the film industry works) will be a little outside my scope of knowledge.

• "Frozen II was green-lit" Green-lit is MOS:JARGON for the film industry, suggest "Production for Frozen II was approved..."
• "after an internal debate over" An internal debate where? Among which people?
• "if it would be a let-down to the original." Maybe -> "if it would be a disappointment to audiences compared to the original."
• "from several other animation departments due to its complication." Delete several as redundant.
• " She also learns Runeard was the one who started the conflict" -> "She also learns that Runeard started the conflict"
• "Wood was cast since her voice sounds similar to Menzel and Bell's voices." This should be placed in the part of the article that talks about how the producers chose the voice actresses/actors.
• "Voice recording began in September 2017,[11][12] though Menzel started a couple weeks later due to her concert tour.[13]" This should be placed in the development section

• "The Voice's 4-note call is derived from the Latin sequence Dies irae, but is delivered in a manner inspired by the Scandinavian music form kulning.[10]" This pertains to the development, so should be placed in that section.
• "He was previously voiced by Maurice LaMarche in the first film." Again, this switch should be described in a casting or development section, not here.
• "Paul Briggs also briefly reprised his role in the film's post-credits scene as Marshmallow," -> "Paul Briggs reprised his role..."
• Looking ahead in the article, it looks like there isn't a "Casting" section. I suggest adding this as a level-three heading in "Development" to describe the actresses/actors that returned to do voice work, as well as the casting process for the voices not featured in the first film. Some of the information outlined above would go in this section.
• "said that a sequel was not potentially considered because" delete potentially
• "Lee confirmed that Walt Disney Studios then-chief creative officer John Lasseter" delete then. The reader know that we are speaking of the chief creative officer of 2014 and that this role will change.
• "The pair decided to collaborate on a film entirely unrelated to Frozen." What film was this?
• "While working on the short film Frozen Fever, they realized how much they missed the characters." It's weird how the previous sentence says they worked on a project unrelated to Frozen, then describes a short-film they were making that was in the Frozen universe. Why did they create this short film?
• "Meanwhile, Del Vecho had been accepting speech engagements around the world, where fans asked him unanswered questions regarding Frozen's future." Delete unanswered.
• Delete the LA Times editor's blockquote. It is not adding to the article, and there's already a blockquote talking about this from Lasseter
• The Development section is long; I think the text about Disney pre-announcement of Frozen II's development should be in its own section
• "From the Scandinavia research trip, the production team concluded that Elsa is a "mythic hero" who possesses magical ice powers, while Anna is a "fairytale hero" who lives in a world with magic but does not have magical powers herself,[26] and that the first film succeeded by how it combined these two sets of elements." This is a long sentence, put the information after the [26] footnote into its own sentence.
• "New York City to Burbank with camera crews in tow and ended up shooting 1,300 hours of footage on 115 shooting days from December 2018 through the November 2019 world premiere." -> "New York City to Burbank with and shot 1,300 hours of footage over 115 days from December 2018 to the November 2019 world premiere." To reduce redundancy
• " and the moment and reason ended up in her documentary." Did the film crew have to leave the room so the production crew could resolve who the voice was?
• "The film was produced by a team of approximately 800 people, 80 of whom were animators." What about the rest of the 720 people?
• "while Wayne Unten again served as animation supervisor for Elsa." -> "while Wayne Unten reprised his role from the first film as animation supervisor for Elsa."
• "and also drew inspiration from modern dance," delete also, redundant.
• "from several other animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its difficulty," delete several
• "The visual mythical adoption required additional collaborations from several other animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its difficulty, as estimated by visual supervisor Steve Golberg, the process took at least 8 months to complete." Recommend changing the comma after difficulty to a semi-colon
• "than the ocean as depicted in Moana." Delete as
• "while an undisclosed number of shots were cut and left out of the finished film." -> "while an undisclosed number of shots were cut from the finished film."
• "For example, approximately a dozen animators and artists had labored for two months on a far more elaborate resurrection scene for Olaf before it was cut." The blockquote after this sentence talks about Show Yourself, but doesn't mention Olaf's resurrection scene. I'm confused about why this blockquote is here and what it is trying to tell me.
• " production team locked the picture" locked the picture is unnecessary jargon, and most people will have to click on the wikilink to understand what this means. Why not simplify to "complete the film"?
• "The musical team used a self-encouragement strategy, by pumping themselves that things would eventually be clearer in the near future." I don't think this sentence is necessary
• "and they ended up doing most of the work off-camera." -> "and they completed most of the work off-camera."

This brings me to Marketing; I will continue my review once the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720, Done. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

More comments.

• "In the U.S. market, Disney heavily marketed the film through a variety of internal and external partners." This statement feels very generalised and I am not sure how it is contributing to the article. Either give some examples of partnerships, or delete.
• "To support the film's marketing campaign, the lead cast members made numerous public and televised appearances." Again, this is a very generalised statement; where did they make these appearances?
• Per WP:OVERSECTION, single sentences and paragraphs don't usually get their own section. Consider merging the theatrical and international release sections.
• "The Blu-ray bonus features include a sing-along audio recording of the film..." This sentence is very long. Consider splitting.
• "In the United States and Canada, the film was released alongside A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and 21 Bridges." This might belong in the release section
• I think the themes section should be a level 2 heading and placed after the critical reception.
• I'm concerned that the themes section is mostly quoted from the sources. Is there a way to minimize the quotes? Any additional commentary about the themes of the film?
• "Kristen Page-Kirby of The Washington Post rated the film 2 out of 4 stars, she panned the film's" replace this comma with a semi-colon
• "Scott Mendelson from Forbes considered the story unnaturally generic, he also deemed the film's songs as "mediocre."" -> "Scott Mendelson from Forbes considered the story unnaturally generic and deemed the film's songs as "mediocre."
• Why are the sources listed in "Further reading" not used in the article?
• There are lots of things in External links. Per WP:ELNO should they all be there? Die Hard is a recently promoted FA and might provide guidance on what links to include.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully done. @Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a couple of questions above that you need to answer. Also, some follow-up comments:

• Why is the trailer listed in External links? Couldn't a person access the trailer from the movie's official website?
• In the Voice cast section, should each entry end in a period? This needs to be consistent.

When the above are addressed, I will conduct another readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that Chompy Ace has added content and gave suggestions on the article's talk page. Once these are sorted, please ping me and I'll take another look, as I want to assess the new prose before giving my support. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Will. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. @Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• "Elsa stops it and forms ice sculptures." Does Elsa form the ice sculptures or does the tornado?
• "In a post-credits scene, Olaf visits Elsa's ice palace and recounts the events he experienced to Marshmallow and the Snowgies, miniature snowmen that were inadvertently created by Elsa on Anna's nineteenth birthday." Wasn't Marshmallow created in Frozen I? This sentence makes it seem like he was created in Frozen Fever.
• "inspired by the Scandinavian music form kulning" kuling should be wikilinked, perhaps to Kulning
• "and an advisory group, Verdett, was formed." -> "and an advisory group, named Verdett, was formed."
• " her crew was asked to leave the room only once, and the moment and reason ended up in her documentary.[38] The documentary revealed that by December 2018, it had been firmly established that Elsa was following a mysterious voice, but the production team had not yet resolved the critical question of the voice's identity.[41]" -> "Her crew was asked to leave the room only once,[38] when the production team wanted to decide the mysterious voice's identity.[41]" I think this tightens up teh language and removes extra information.
• "and the cultural modern dance," -> "and movement in modern dance" As a dance specialist, this is how I would describe it.
• "of grown-up expository dialogue" I'm not sure if grown-up is necessary here, and I'm not sure what grown-up expository dialogue would entail.
• " "Show Yourself" began to come together," How does a song "come together"? Can a different descriptor be used here?
• " as well as Christophe Beck to compose the film's score." -> "and Christophe Beck returned to compose the film's score."
• "The Korean version of the same song was also released later that month, performed by K-pop singer and Girls' Generation member Taeyeon." There have been many international versions of this song. Why is the Korean one the only one mentioned here?
• The article says, "Disney partnered with 140 brands worldwide to promote Frozen 2" but the rest of the Marketing section only focuses on the American campaign. Is there any information on the marketing in other jurisdictions?
• "Theatrical and international" This section is called theatrical and international release, but no information is given on its release in non-American jurisdictions. This should be added.
• "Documentary series" A lot of the information in this section is repeated from earlier sections, such as filming in LA and in the Lopez home. Can the repetitive information be removed, and instead this section focus on new information?
• "accounting for production budgets, P&A," What is P&A?
• "According to Disney (who did not consіder the 2019 The Lion King remake to be an anіmated fіlm), Frozen II is the hіghest-grossing anіmated fіlm, surpassing the first Frozen." Why is Disney declaring Frozen II the highest-grossing animated film? An independent source should determine this, not an animation studio.
• "Released alongside A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and 21 Bridges on November 22, 2019,[88] in 4,440 theaters, with 2,500 of those in 3D, 400 in IMAX, 800 in premium large format, and 235 in D-Box/4D,[89] Frozen II made $41.8 million on its first day,[90] including $8.5 million from Thursday night previews." This should be three sentences: one talking about being released alongside the other films, one about the screens, and one about its first-day box office success.
• The themes section is extremely short. I can see each of the sentences in this section having their own paragraph. Is there any additional information about the themes of this film? Perhaps the production crew has additional information about the themes they were trying to explore. Reviews might also comment on the themes of the film.
• The critical reception falls into the "X said Y" pattern, especially in the second and third paragraphs. Instead of commenting on what each reviewer said, I would try to find themes that many reviewers talk about and instead give comments on what critics as a group say, rather than individual people. This is especially achievable with this film because there are so many reviews. WP:RECEPTION is an essay with some great tips on how to copyedit reception sections.

Those are my secondary comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 Hopefully all fixed except for the cultural modern dance. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

And Maybe "Disney worldwide partnership" details in the section marketing because there are no reliable sources for this subject. [29] Wingwatchers (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Given to this, this are problems I can not solve:the worldwide partnership details, is because that it wasn't notable enough to be recorded by reliable media sources. The only international marketing details was briefly summarized in quantity as a whole. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis, and any user interested . Sorry for the disturbance, but I hopes you will support, or else will be archived. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wingwatchers: Sorry that I have not responded to this; real life has had to take precedence. I see that HumanxAnthro has highlighted some more sources that you want to include in the article. Since their inclusion might change the article structure, I am going to hold off re-reviewing this article until those sources are included. I suggest that you withdraw this FAC for now so that you can work on analysing those sources. You can also open a PR and ping this FAC's reviewers to get additional comments. Many FAs have had to go through multiple FACs to become promoted, especially popular or large topics like this one. I hope to see this article back at FAC soon. Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Comment: Why is pre-production before development? Doesn't development come first...? Pamzeis (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't it? The sequel was not officially approved until March 2015. So that means it was not in development until that date. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't pre-production either. It can't have been as pre-production is generally planning (of production (animation/voice recording in this case)) and starts after the film has been greenlit. On the other hand, development is mostly the conception, creation and writing. Pamzeis (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And BTW, I don't think a film has to be greenlit to be in development, though it has to be for pre-production. Pamzeis (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What about pre-development? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No idea a word to describe the context, any ideas? @Pamzeis Wingwatchers (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

One option is to title the subheading "Development and pre-production" and make level 4 subheadings to split up the long section (IDK what to title them though). However, it also includes details from the production stage from "Voice recording began in [...]" which may need to be moved into a separate section. Pamzeis (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is not that significant in mass, have it this way. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll give reviewing a try. Keep in mind that I've never done an FAR before so please point out my mistakes. I'll hopefully be able review the whole article by the end of Friday (UTC+07:00). Please ping me if I don't reply before then! Pamzeis (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So here are my first comments:

• 2019 American computer-animated musical fantasy film — WP:SEAOFBLUE?
• follows sisters Anna and Elsa — wikilink "Anna" to Anna (Frozen) and Elsa to Elsa (Frozen)
• It deals with a wide variety of themes — "It" meaning what?
• made greater uses of complex visual computer effects → "uses more complex visual computer effects" (more concise)
• and also accompanied — remove also
• "iceman", "reindeer" and "snowman" are linked in the lead but not the plot or cast sections. Is there reason for this?
• Per MOS:FILMCAST, list items should not have full stops. Pamzeis (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

All fixed except the first one because there is no alternative wikilink for that. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from 👨x🐱

• Let it go, Let it go can't let this run anymore. I haven't read the article in depth, but this article has a major red flag right off the bat. No... Academic... Representation. All it took for me was a Google Scholar search to find out all sorts of interesting stuff from the academic world, particularly the film's themes about ecofeminism. I would close this and wait another few years to do this again, given how blizzardly huge this movie is and how much more analysis could be published about it. The production section is also not taking advantage of several other sources about it, further adding issues to the article's conprehensiveness. Not cited here is [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and others I'm probably missing. Additionally, Refs 40 and 78 are duplicate. Oppose per 1b per the criteria. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't. For ecofeminism are referring to the themes section, it is expandable by a human. I can really made uses of the sources you mentioned, Thank you for the review. Will Fix these things. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  Give it some hopes, coordinator, don't archive it. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've noticed that I overlooked a single-paragraph subsection named "Themes" in the Reception section. We normally don't put Themes as part of a Reception, but rather as its own section near the end of the article (or after the cast section) (See other FAs like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, and Groundhog Day). There's some really good stuff being summarized so far, but the problem is, apart from one quote from a Standford professor, most of it is only cited to newspapers and professional critics. Don't get me wrong, those are great sources too, but all of those sources were published upon the release of the film, and doesn't take into consideration the overwhelming amount of academic stuff that has been published since (which is a lot for nearly two years).

  I'm not saying to give up on the article. It's just that such a huge amount of thematic analysis, plus how difficult it is to read high-end academic journals, would make it longer to fix this issue than the nomination could last. I'm saying to give this a couple months before re-nominating again. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  I emphasized on my last response "Give it some hopes, coordinator, don't archive it", it will only take a couples of fixing them. I will preserve this nomination with all my heart. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  I used my best academic knowledge to expand the nomination section based some sources you cited above, more will follow. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  @HumanxAnthro, you mind giving out more sources for comprehensiveness? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Well there's:

  this Slate source that views the ending as an allegory for reparations,

  this Collider source having the same viewpoint.

  This Korean journal article also interprets how the gender-equal representation of women is achieved through the two leads' model and character design.

  But digging deeper, we have this peer review journal article analyzing Elsa's relationship with the Nøkk in relation to gender representations

  this peer-reviewed journal article that's a long analysis about the film's portrayal of indigenous people

  This big Siggraph article about the film's effects published in August 2020

  Another article from Siggraph is about the huge amount of work of a single scene, "Show Yourself", also published in August 2020

  This is another August 2020 Siggraph source about an innovate way the animators designed, animated and rendered the costumes in a more efficient way than other big animated films.

  A single Siggraph piece about the creation of a Dam.

  More Siggraph pieces specifically about the making and animating of specific characters: the Water Horse and Wind spirt

  Also, more content analysis from [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

  And that's only three pages in my Google Scholar search. Did I mention this could take quite a bit? 👨x🐱 (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks, the more sources pinpointed the better. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Three weeks in and this nomination has yet to garner a general support. Unless there are clear indications of a consensus to promote starting to form within the next two to three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Will do, don't archived it: please anyone, support, comment? Rescue this article. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wingwatchers, no shame in a FAC being archived, and no limit to how many times it can be re-nominated. Z1720 offers good advice in a recent post above: take some time away from the FAC process to work in more sources, and then get some more eyes on the article (e.g. through Peer Review, and let it run its course this time) before another try here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.