Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2022

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2022 [1].

Nonmetal[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A non-metal, like oxygen or sulfur, is a chemical element that is not a metal, like aluminium or iron.

This is my fifth time at FAC for this article, attempt #4 having closed on February the 5th. All feedback up to then has been considered and acted on accordingly.

The article was subsequently referred for its second PR, which was recently archived on 2 August. SandyGeorgia (to whom, thanks very much :) helped me copy-edit the early part of the article. Sandy also helped me with images, listiness, stylistic considerations, prose, sourcing and the overall structure of the article; based on what I learned from her, I copy-edited the rest of the article. I thank Double sharp, DePiep, Graham Beards, Z1720, Bruce1ee and Jo-Jo Eumerus for their contributions to PR2.

I have hidden pinged participants in FAC4 and PR2, aside from the FAC coordinators. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reaper Eternal[edit]

Prose:

  • First section: "Broadly, they lack a preponderance of more metallic attributes such as [list of attributes]." This sentence has too many "generalizing" terms. Perhaps something more concise like "They lack a preponderance of metallic attributes like [list of attributes]." (Additionally, "such as" is being used incorrectly here. The word should be "like".) Never mind, I was wrong about "like".
  • First section, third paragraph: The introductory sentence should be much more concise.
  • Similar minor phrasing improvements can be made elsewhere, but I'm no expert in this area.

I'll leave this more to the English experts.

Technical review:

  • Technical information under the sections "General properties" and "Subclasses" seems accurate, at least from my education as a mechanical engineer.
  • Carbon has additional forms beyond the graphite and diamond allotropes. (Section "Allotropes".) This sentence should, at least, be reworded to explain to the user that the list given is not exhaustive. In its current form, it implies that elemental carbon only exists in the form of graphite and carbon. It is explained much better further down the section, but the introductory paragraph shouldn't set a false impression.
  • Allow me to clarify this point. As it currently stands, this is the start of the section: "Most nonmetallic elements exist in allotropic forms. Carbon, for example, occurs as graphite and as diamond." This, to me, reads like "carbon" is an example of "nonmetallic elements with allotropic forms" with two allotropes "graphite" and "diamond".

Source review:

  • The "Boise State University" article is basically a press release. You should cite the underlying studies.
  • Same with the "Cambridge" article, and probably any other similar ones. What even is "carbon candy floss" anyway?
  • The citation "Evans RC 1966, An Introduction to Crystal Chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge" appears to be inaccurate or incomplete. See here. Can you include an ISBN or similar tracking number for better tracking? Additionally, you should probably include which edition this is.
  • Thanks for adding the edition, but I believe the 2nd edition was published in 1964, not 1966. Can you verify?
  • Should the citation "Fraps GS 1913, Principles of Agricultural Chemistry, The Chemical Publishing Company, Easton, PA" contain an ISBN or similar tracking number? This also applies to other books cited throughout the article which do not contain ISBNs. This (and the edition number) is somewhat important since a lot of your citations are to textbooks, which frequently get updated and changed.
  • I wasn't trying to say that ISBNs were necessary—they're more of a nice-to-have for a reader who wants to locate a book source. I'll strike this point to make it clear I'm not going to hold up the FAC over a couple ISBNs.
  • Why are there citations to two different editions of Glinka's book?
  • What makes "Free Thought Magazine" a reliable source?
  • Your response doesn't really justify why "Free Thought Magazine" is a reliable source for this topic. It appears to be a magazine centered more around humanism and religion rather than natural sciences.
  • Why are there citations to two different editions of Zumdahll & DeCoste's book?

Citations & references:

  • The second paragraph of the "Discovery" section is uncited. If you are importing material from the main article, there's a big banner on that article informing readers that the article lacks adequate citations.

I'll continue this review later. There's a ton of stuff to review. As this is basically my first FA review, if the FA coordinators see any issues with my review, please bring it up to me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by Sandbh
Thank you very much Reaper Eternal, and a warm welcome to the FAC review experience.
Prose:
  • I've replaced the "Broadly" in the first section with "More generally" since this sentence follows on from the more specific first sentence. On the question of "like" or "such as", I've followed the guidance here, which seems to favour "such as". For example, "luster" is not like "deformability".
  • I've shortened the introductory sentence and adjusted the rest of the paragraph accordingly.
  • Probably any FA can be further improved in terms of phrasing improvements. Over the course of four FAC and two peer reviews this article has been seen or commented on by about 38 unique sets of eyeballs so I hope that scope for phrasing improvement is approaching an effective end. But please feel free to have your say.
Technical review:
  • Good to hear the technical information looks OK.
  • The mention of carbon in the allotropes section says, "Carbon, for example, occurs as graphite and as diamond." As such, it doesn't imply that C only occurs as graphite and diamond.
  • Headslap! I've adjusted the prose accordingly. Thanks!
Source review:
  • Re the Boise University press release, the underlying study only refers to the high cost of black phosphorus, and the low cost of their proposed method. Certainly the listed price is consistent with what I can recall of prices from commercial providers. I'm not aware of any WP prohibition on citing media releases, especially from an organisation of the presumed calibre of Boise University.
  • I've (reluctantly) replaced the Cambridge article with a journal reference. Carbon candy floss is basically "spun" carbon nanotube wire.
  • Per WP:HOWCITE, ISBN's are optional when citing sources. I believe I accessed Evans's Book from here, which lists the date as 1966. There are two further 1996 listings here. I've now added that it's the 2nd ed. Per WP:HOWCITE, since the ISBN given at the Cambridge site is for the 1964 printing I haven't included it.
  • Evans was reprinted with corrections in 1966; that was also the year of the first paperback edition.
  • For Fraps (1913), books before about 1970 usually don't have ISBNs (although if published in the UK during the 1960s, they may have an SBN).
  • For the two Glinka's, thanks, I've removed the 1965 edition, and corrected the entries for the earlier edition.
  • For Wakeman (1899) I cited this as the oldest (English) source I could find for CHNOPS. I've added a hyperlink to it.
  • I feel that reliability is not relevant here; rather, what the source says is correct:
"To this carbon is added, in chemical combination, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and a touch of phosphorus and sulphur; these five [sic] elements make the chemical symbol word C. H. O. N. P. S."
  • For Zumdahl, thanks, I've removed the later edition and adjusted the originally later citation.
Citations & references:
  • I suspect the second para doesn't need citations since it serves as an introduction to the remaining paragraphs of the section, in which the citations are included.
Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Sandbh (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. Sandbh (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper Eternal: Are you able to indicate your overall position with respect to the article? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only just got back from a business trip. I'll give it one more look through over the weekend., then I should be good to support once other people do a prose review and an image review. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh, I believe I can support this article once another more capable reviewer does a proper prose review. I can do the image review if nobody else does in the meantime, but I'd rather not since that's not one of my strong points. I still disagree regarding "The Free Thought Magazine" and would like another editor to give a third opinion, but I won't hold up the article over that one thing. Specifically, I believe that the article "Nonmetal" meets the featured article criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 2a, 2c, and 4. I'm not sure about 1a, 2b, and 3 right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, while I'm capable of performing the image review for this article if nobody else wants to, I'm not the best editor at prose analysis. (You can see that my review primarily only covers sourcing and breadth of content.) Furthermore, I believe this article needs a reviewer who can take a detailed look at the prose before I can support. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose is not up to FA standard and the article needs more work in this regard. For example, there is redundancy ("being") and fused participles ("with most of these involving" and "with the latter being"). I suggest we request a copyedit from an uninvolved editor who can bring fresh eyes to the prose before considering promotion. Graham Beards (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll happily seek a ce by an uninvolved editor in the event the nomination is archived. Sandbh (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think this needs further work off FAC if it is to generate a consensus to promote, so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
  • 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2022 [2].

Dan Fouts[edit]

Nominator(s): Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about quarterback Dan Fouts, who led the NFL in passing for four consecutive years from 1979-1982. He led the Air Coryell offense, which placed an unprecedented emphasis on the passing game. As a Hall of Famer, his article is graded as top priority by the National Football League WikiProject. This is my first attempt at a FAC article after getting 10 articles to GA status, so I'll be interested to see the difference. Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:1986_Jeno's_Pizza_-_53_-_Dan_Fouts_and_Don_Macek_(Dan_Fouts_crop).jpg: if this was from a republication then Jeno's would not be the author. Was there a copyright notice in the original publication? Ditto File:Jeno's_Pizza_54_Fouts_vs_49ers.pdf. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the alt text and deleted where I'd fixed a px size. The Jeno's Pizza card comes from this image originally.[3] I struggle with the rules on when these images are allowed, but there are about forty images from the Jeno's Pizza series in use on Wikipedia, so I thought they would probably have been challenged by now if they weren't okay. I'm just going to tag in @Bagumba:, as a contributor to the Fouts page who I think understands image usage better than I do. Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't the file uploader. From what I generally notice on Commons, these promotional card sets typically are noted as not having a copyright notice on them.—Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the original image has this quote under licensing: This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macau), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I see that, but if the Jeno's cards were a republication as stated in the description, then the lack of copyright notice on them does not preclude the images having been copyrighted - for that we would need to confirm there was no notice on the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I think I understand; I've found one of the images in a recent article (image 12 of 44 in the photos section).[4] As it's credited to (AP/Al Messerschmidt), does that mean that it's unusable (and the rest of the Jeno's set, by extension)? Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            That link is from 2021, and is not the original publication (if any) prior to the card's release. If there is still concern, I'd suggest nominating it for discussion at Commons, where it can be formally vetted. —Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            That might be best. I'm not very familiar with Commons; should I start a thread in the Help Desk?[5] Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Okay, I've opened up a thread in Wikimedia. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            @Nikkimaria: please see response in the copyright forum. Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            The image appears here credited to AP/AI Messerschmidt. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I've relayed this on to the copyright reviewer for response. Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            @Nikkimaria: The copyright reviewer has responded now. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Note: The Commons discussion was archived here.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Drive-by comment'

  • The "honors" section has TEN separate paragraphs, all of just one sentence. Surely some of these can be combined? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh[edit]

I read the introductory sentences for the lede paragraphs:

"Daniel Francis Fouts (born June 10, 1951) is an American former football quarterback who played for the San Diego Chargers of the National Football League (NFL) for his entire 15 season career."

What value does "entire" add? What years did his career span?

"Fouts played for the Oregon Ducks in college, breaking numerous records and later being inducted into both the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame and the University of Oregon Hall of Fame."

What's the home state of the Oregon Ducks? What value does "both" add?

"Early in 1978, Don Coryell became the new head coach of the Chargers, overseeing a rapid on-field improvement, and installing the pass-oriented offensive scheme that would become known as Air Coryell."

"What does this have to do with the Dan Fouts? Was the on-field improvement the result of installing the Air Coryell scheme?"

"Fouts led the Chargers to three consecutive AFC West division titles (1979-81) and a further playoff berth in 1982."

What is a playoff berth?

"Fouts lives in Sisters, Oregon, and was a color analyst for NFL games on CBS television and Westwood One radio."

What does living in Sisters have to do with being a color analyst?

On a separate matter, "also" is used about two dozen times in the article; in most cases it can be deleted and still get the same point across. Three of the four "however"s used in the article could likewise be deleted. Sandbh (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified these sentences to hopefully deal with the problems, and reduced the instances of "also" and "however". I removed the reference to where he lives from the lede entirely, as it's not crucial to the article. With regard to the home state of the Oregon Ducks, Oregon is itself a state. I took out the bit about the on-field improvement from the Coryell line, but left in that his offense was pass-oriented, as this was directly relevant to Fouts. Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the items I raised are examples that should mostly be ironed out before coming to FAC, e.g. via WP:PR or WP:GOCER. FAC is not the place for these processes, as I've learnt. What I'm concerned about is that if I found these shortcomings just by (mainly) reading the introductory sentences in each lede paragraph, then I'm not looking forward to reading the paragraph intro sentences for the rest of the article, let alone the following sentences in each of the rest of the paragraphs that make up the article.

I intend to read the introductory sentences in the rest of the article, and maybe some sample paragraphs, and form an overall view on that basis. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the introductory sentences in the rest of the article, and some of the paragraphs. I was not able to follow the logical flow of the article on the basis of its introductory sentences. Some of them do well; at other times there were numerous references to the Chargers, and the occasional introduction of coaches like Bill Walsh, without indicating the overall premise of the paragraph in question. I had to do too much work to figure out where Fouts entered the picture. Of course, I could do this by reading the rest of the paragraph and eventually working it out, but that defeats the purpose of the introductory sentence. On this basis, I am unable to support the FAC nomination. Sandbh (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment at three weeks in and no general supports, this one is likely to be archived in a few days if progress towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bagumba[edit]

Generally, there should be less reliance on analysis of Fouts' performance by citing statistics from primary source stats databases, and more based on statements from reliable secondary sources. For example, this passage is based purely on pro-football-reference.com stats as chosen by Wikipedia editors: "His touchdown total was less than his interception total (16–22) for the first time since 1977, his completion percentage of 58.6% was his worst since 1976, and his passer rating dropped to 71.4, his worst since 1975 and below the NFL average of 74.1."

A secondary source offers more analysis, and less concern over OR by WP editors. For example, the Evening Tribune wrote: "A high-percentage passer who produced 47 300-yard games prior to last year, Fouts last year completed 252 of 430 passes, with 16 touchdowns, 22 interceptions and only one 300-yard performance. His quarterback rating of 71.4 was his lowest since 1975 and placed him 17th among NFL passers. Some observers said Fouts can no longer throw deep, while others charged the future Hall of Famer was too beaten up, too battered to be effective anymore."[1]—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator[edit]

Thanks for the feedback, all. Hopefully I can use some of this in future. As the article seems to be a long way off passing without a major re-write, I'd suggest failing it on the occasion. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Judge, Clark (March 19, 1987). "Saunders committed to Fouts". Evening Tribune. p. E-1. Retrieved September 19, 2022 – via NewsBank.

Withdrawn per the nominator's request. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2022 [6].

Robert Plunkett[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an English missionary to the early United States. He became the first president of a then-tiny school that would become Georgetown University. His life is an interesting window into the state of the Jesuits in England at the time. Ergo Sum 14:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Coordinator comment[edit]

Almost three weeks in and little movement towards a consensus to promote. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2022 [7].

Duckport Canal[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The little cousin of Grant's Canal. A single boat made it through, but this one wasn't really successful either. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

Reviewed this at ACR, happy to support as FA standard. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Also performed the source review for ACR; similarly willing to support the sourcing as meeting the higher FA standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Added
  • File:VicksburgCampaignAprilJuly63.png: suggest adding legend, but see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually swapped this map out with a crop, as only a small portion is really needed for this article. For now, I've added a legend, although I've made a request at the Graphics Lab to see if something can be done here to fix the accessibility issues. Hog Farm Talk 23:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nikkimaria: - One of the good folks at the Graphics Lab has fixed the red/blue color contrast and says it should be fine on that front. Anything further that needs done with it? Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - This may as well be archived; it's been over a month since the last review and I think it's extremely unlikely at this point that it's going to garner enough reviews to gain a consensus to promote in a reasonable amount of time. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. Note that the usual two week waiting period does not apply due to the lack of commentary here. (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2022&oldid=1112479533"