Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2018

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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 [1].

Brachiosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC), LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC), MWAK (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most iconic dinosaurs, and the first member of its family (Brachiosauridae) to be nominated for FAC. It is also one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. We believe most information published about the animal is summarised here, and the article is now a GA. The article came together as a WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

1a lead:

  • "in the Colorado River valley in western Colorado, in the United States." Perhaps remove the last "in the"? Or "in the US state of Colorado".
Took your first option. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However,"—I'd personally prefer "But", but it's up to you.
Just removed it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, you can’t start a sentence with “But”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A unfounded superstition. Sentences starting with "But" are to be found in the King James Bible, in Shakespeare, and in modern authors such as Iris Murdoch. See p. 125 of the current edition of Fowler. Tim riley talk 11:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are unlike most sauropods: the forelimbs were"—muddled tense?
Changed to past. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its tail was proportionally shorter than in most other sauropods."—inside them, the tail? Perhaps "than that of other".
Said "those of other". FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most popular depictions of Brachiosaurus are in fact based on Giraffatitan, a genus of brachiosaurid dinosaur from the Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania that was originally described by German paleontologist Werner Janensch in 1914 as a species of Brachiosaurus, B. brancai, but moved to its own genus in 2009."—That's a looong sentence. "in fact" seems to flag contrast; it's a back-reference, is it? What was originally described: the genus or the location? Try: "... Tanzania. Giraffatitan was originally described by German paleontologist Werner Janensch in 1914 as a species of Brachiosaurus, B. brancai, but moved to its own genus in 2009."
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three other species of Brachiosaurus have in the past been named, from Africa and Europe, but two them are currently thought to be invalid and a third has become the separate genus Lusotitan." Have in the future been named? "based on fossil evidence from Africa and Europe? Personally, I'd use a semicolon after Europe, but it's up to you. Do you need "of them"? Perhaps a separate genus, Lusotitan. Unsure. Does "currently" add anything?
reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The type specimen of B. altithorax that was originally described by Riggs in 1903 is"—remove two words.
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably and possibly?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "finds it to have been"—quite high certainty level. "suggests it was" would be lower. But your choice might well be what is reflected in the best sources.
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brachiosaurus has appeared in popular culture, notably in the 1993 film Jurassic Park."—yeah, they're cute.
Are you suggesting to leave this fact out of the lead? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think it was just a statement. "Think of it as a big cow"... FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was my attempt to be ironic/humorous. :-( Tony (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan probably possessed a small shoulder hump"—possessed ... sounds like a fashion handbag.
changed to a simple "had"; also removed the word throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs auditing throughout, though the lead may be the most problematic. Glancing at the next para I see a looong sentence. And "most recently" ... but you give two sources. "more recently"? Fixes needed throughout. Tony (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "more recently". Is that in the same sentence that is too long? Or did you just reiterate the point about the sentence in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I get my points mangled? I'm not sure I understand your query. BTW, it's a very interesting article! Tony (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I mean what sentence does "Glancing at the next para I see a looong sentence" refer to? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My glitch. Size and general build subsections:

  • "Brachiosaurus was a quadrupedal animal with a small skull, a long neck, a large trunk with a high-ellipsoid cross section, a long, muscular tail and slender, columnar limbs."—Is it just the large trucnk that had that cross-section, or the whole body. The former is indicated at the moment. And a serial comma after "tail" would clarify the list-item boundaries here.
It is the trunk that is meant. Fixed the comma. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The estimates of size: they're surprisingly exact at one decimal point. Are they meant to be averages? The last estimate has a different precision ...
Not averages; these are single estimates as given in the sources, usually of the most complete specimen. The precision does not reflect the level of confidence (as the estimates range between 20 and 60 tonnes), and even rounding them up to get rid of the decimal point would suggest a higher precision than there actually is. We usually give decimal points when the sources do so (we also had that discussion in the German Wikipedia – same result). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, would it be possible to convey this to non-expert readers, perhaps for the first list of mass (and we hope the reader will assume it's the same for the subsequent list), by adding "has been estimated on the basis of individual fossils at 35.0 ...."? (Italics mark the possible insert.) You have one ISO symbol "m" in that list, against the expanded forms. These lists are still cluttered, though. Why do we need the old British empire unit conversions in a scientific article? Our rules say: "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,508 kilometres (1,558 mi) long. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." It would be so much easier to read, even for American grade-school students (who do, after all, have learn about the metric system). Tony (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of conversions in science articles is a bit contentious, there was a long discussion about it here[2] (started by me), don't remember what the conclusion was, but it seems there was general agreement that "some special reason to do so" was too vague wording... FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, looking through that discussion again, it seems it was you, Tony, who created that guideline in the first place. I thought the issue had been solved after the long discussion and multiple proposals, but seems they were never implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you Americans learn the metric system?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In studies including estimates for both Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan, the latter was estimated at 31.5 metric tons"—"estimates/d" twice. And is there a reason to clutter up the proposition with "both x and y"? It's just about Giraffatitan. Why not just: "Giraffatitan's [average?] mass was estimated at ...". Were these estimates based on computational results using the sizes of fossilised bone samples? How many, about? Half a dozen, or scores? Just trying to get an idea of the reliability.
See also answer above. The reason for the clutter is that we can only compare estimates made in the same study, since the methodology for obtaining the estimates varies too much between studies. So these values must be compared to those for Brachiosaurus given in the previous paragraph, which is not ideal. I'm not sure how to make this clear, maybe we should either repeat the Brachiosaurus estimates or remove the sentence altogether. Pinging MWAK if he has an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A solution might be to explain for each estimate which method was used. This would make the entire subchapter less repetitive and highlight the rôle the genus had historically played in the development of such methods.--MWAK (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MWAK, I will see what is possible shortly. Fixed the inconsistency "m" vs "meters". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This lead to the trunk being inclined, with the front much higher than the hips, and the neck exiting the trunk at a steep angle."—Lead is on the periodic table. There's only one "and", so do we need the comma before it in a sentence that's not too long?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These bony rods were attached to neck muscles at their ends, allowing these muscles to operate distal portions of the neck while themselves being located closer to the body, thus lightening the neck."—The neck is part of the body. Do you mean closer to the trunk? And does it make the neck lighter, or just lower its centre of gravity? Try to remove "thus" if it doesn't damage the meaning.
yes, corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ribcage was unusually deep."—What, for a dinosaur or for a subclass?
added "deep compared to other sauropods". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the elongated forearm and metacarpus known from other brachiosaurids"—from ... moving away. Why not "... metacarpus of other ..."?
yes, changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ... this. It's repetition-sensitive. Second one "the"?
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "show" -> had? Since your model has mostly been to look at them metaphorically as if on a movie, rather than scientifically via fossils. There's another one, too.
replaced throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "given its more elongated dorsal vertebrae"—which of the two does "its" back-refer to?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the broadened neural spine" ... "a"? Since you haven't talked about this aspect before, unless I've overlooked it.
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Paul, in 1988, suggested that the neck was shorter in Brachiosaurus than in Giraffatitan, two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus suggest identical proportions.[2][3]" So we get a year for Paul's suggestion, but no time-anchor for the update. And "suggest/ed" twice. "Paul had suggested the neck ..., more recent work points to ..."? Tony (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the detailed suggestions! Will remember these things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I see something to improve in nearly every sentence, further down. I've listed suggestions for a section or two:

  • "Large air sacs connected to the lung system were present in the neck and trunk, invading the vertebrae and ribs, greatly reducing the overall density." What do you mean by "invading"? Is it overall density of the lung system or the whole animal?
The latter. "Invading" is the term that most sources use. It was a gradual process during the life of the animal, in which the diverticula replaced bone tissue, penetrating the bone walls and slowly replacing bone tissue internally. Quite invasive.--MWAK (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is written for lesser experts than readers of academic journal articles, I'm presuming. Could some brief explanation such as you've given here be inserted in parentheses? I suppose we don't allow footnotes, do we? This is part of the service to our readers—to explain jargon where it can be done without much clutter. It is a balance in the end, but if I'm not understanding the meaning, it's a problem, I think. Tony (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added "invasion by bone resorption", trying to keep it as brief as possible; do you think this would be enough to get the reader on the right track? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The neck would have been held in a slight S-curve, with bended lower and upper sections and a straight middle section." So ... "would have been" is an attempt to reduce the certainty level, right? Rather than simply "was". If you're reflecting the certainty level of the source, I guess that's ok.
Yes it is. The source uses "probably", but is contradicting some earlier works with this statement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the neck is not preserved in the holotype specimen, it was very long even for"—past or present?
"It is currently not known" and "the neck was long", we have to switch tenses here I think. Or do you mean the use of "while", which somehow indicates "during the same time"? Replaced it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ribcage was deep compared to other sauropods"—was deeper than that of other ...? And past again ... you decide, but be consistent (where possible).
Hm, I don't see the problem with the current formulation yet, could you elaborate? "Was deeper than in other" would be a bit too much, the source only states that it was deep. When describing the animal, we usually use past tense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grammar is odd: "This resulted in an inclined trunk with the shoulder much higher than the hips and the neck exiting at a steep angle." Exiting is the problem. What exits? ", which both exit at"?
I see, a comma was missing: "This resulted in an inclined trunk with the shoulder much higher than the hips, and the neck exiting the trunk at a steep angle." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • overall overall.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, this vertebra"—do you need the additive connector?
no, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paul, in 1988, suggested that the neck was shorter in Brachiosaurus than in Giraffatitan, although Taylor, in 2009, pointed out that two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus had identical proportions." Bumpety-bump

    "In 1988, Paul suggested that Brachiosaurus's neck was shorter Giraffatitan's; but in 2009, Taylor pointed out that two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus had identical proportions."

    Do watch your comparison grammar. Sometimes "that of" is necessary in precise scientific language. A must be cast as B in the grammar.

Reformulated, hope its better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowadays we use a little more possessive apostrophe than last century, in English. "the arm of Brachiosaurus appears to have been ..." -> "Brachiosaurus's arm appears to have been ...". Not too much, but here it helps. And here it's much less clumsy:

    "This might indicate that the forelimbs of Brachiosaurus supported a greater fraction of the body weight than is the case for Giraffatitan.

Generally it might be true that the genitive has gained terrain. But we have to take the special case of Brachiosaurus into consideration. Perhaps "Brachiosaurus's" is, typographically, so clumsy in itself that it is best avoided completely in a written text? And a tongue-twister in spoken language...--MWAK (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Tony (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A snake needs splitting up, and there are no other thises around. Good.

    "Although the vertebral column of the trunk or torso is incompletely known, the back of Brachiosaurus most likely comprised twelve dorsal vertebrae, as can be inferred from the complete dorsal vertebral column preserved by an unnamed brachiosaurid specimen, BMNH R5937."

    "Although the vertebral column of the trunk or torso is incompletely known, Brachiosaurus's back most likely comprised twelve dorsal vertebrae; this can be inferred from the complete dorsal vertebral column preserved by an unnamed brachiosaurid specimen, BMNH R5937."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The centra (vertebral bodies), which form the lower part of the vertebrae, were more elongated" ->

    "The centra (vertebral bodies) that form the lower part of the vertebrae were more elongated"

    Native speakers sometimes mess it up too; but you need to get it right.

Ah, but it wasn't meant to be restrictive... "The centra (vertebral bodies), the lower parts of the vertebrae, were more elongated" might remove all ambiguity.--MWAK (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Tony (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Included MWAK's suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The upwards projecting neural spines, when seen in side view, stood vertically and were twice as wide at the base than at the top, while those of Giraffatitan were tilted backwards and were not broadened at their base." Bumpy. Grammar. Typography. Fluff. Explore better syntax.

    "In side view, the upward-projecting neural spines stood vertically and were twice as wide at the base than at the top; those of Giraffatitan tilted backward and did not broaden at their base."

    My editor makes me cut ALL the eses: "toward", "backward", etc. It's optional, though. You might also consider adopting the US "though" rather than "although". I now prefer it (personally). Do you spell out double-numeral numbers in your other work?

Took your wording, thanks! I also followed your suggestion with the "although" and eses, didn't know those are British English only. I personally would spell out numbers up to twelve, but only if they are not part of a comparison including higher numbers (e.g, "the humerus is 8 cm long in A, and 32 cm long in B"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you printing it out and marking changes with a pen? Try to read it differently, and apply some of the issues I've raised. Tony (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keen to see this promoted. Tony (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your effort, Tony. I will try to copy edit the rest of the article, watching out for similar issues, but it might take a few days as I currently have limited time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any more, Tony1? LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but I'm afraid my Brachiosaurus budget is way overdrawn. I'm not opposing. Tony (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, a "Brachiosaurus budget" sounds like something that would be big, so fingers crossed that you'll return! FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd been right through it to weed out redundant/complex wording. We need you to skill up on this. Your reviewing and editing input is valued. So it's disappointing to find so much to improve in another paragraph chosen at random:

  • "Though no skull remains were discovered with the original Brachiosaurus skeleton, one partial skull from a different location, referred to as the Felch Quarry skull (specimen USNM 5730), may belong to Brachiosaurus." ->

    "Though no skull remains were discovered with the original Brachiosaurus skeleton, one partial skull from a different location may belong to Brachiosaurus: the Felch Quarry skull (specimen USNM 5730)."

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the largest sauropod skull known from the Morrison Formation"—Do you need "known"?
Not necessarily, there might be larger skulls in the ground we don't know of, but removed anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never use interrupting dashes. Why not? It makes your job easier, and is a better read:

    "Overall, the skull was tall as in Giraffatitan, with a snout that was long (about 36% of the skull length) in front of the nasal bar between the nostrils, which is typical of brachiosaurids."

    "Overall, the skull was tall as in Giraffatitan, with a snout that was long (about 36% of the skull length) in front of the nasal bar between the nostrils – typical of brachiosaurids."

Can't say for the others, but I am not personally accustomed to this usage. Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can snout snout be avoided? Explore different grammars:

    "The snout was set at an angle relative to the rest of the skull, which gave the impression that the snout pointed downward." ->

    "The snout, set at an angle relative to the rest of the skull, gave the impression of pointing downward."

The second snout was unnecessary I see, I would just have said "it", but took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fused together" – do you need the second word?
Maybe for clarity, but removed anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skull differed from that of Giraffatitan in having a its U-shaped (instead of W-shaped) suture between the frontal and nasal bones, enhanced by the frontal bones extending forward over the orbits (eye sockets)." What was enhanced? And is that the right word? Tony (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Took your suggestion, as for "enhanced", it is the U-shape which was "enhanced", worded as such in the source. I have added "a shape enhanced", but I wonder if "made more pronounced" or "emphasized by" could be used too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ... "appears more pronounced"? Tony (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "a shape which appears more pronounced by", or is "shape" redundant? I wonder if the reader would be certain of what is referred to otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further feedback, we'll get to it. It should be noted that three out of four of the nominators are not native Anglophones (including me), so perhaps another time a copy edit should have been requested first. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several copy-edits, for such a long, technical article. Tony (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Lusotitan[edit]

Great to see this finally get here! I know everyone has put a lot of hard work into this article, and it's been a long time coming for such a well known and important genus to get to this level. I'll probably wait until Tony1 gets a bit further into the article to start my reviewing so I'm working on the most recent pass and we don't step on each other's toes.

It seems the review above has ended, Lusotitan (at least for now), if you want to continue the review. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still plan to do a review, but it may be a few days because I'm busy with some important personal matters this weekend. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for the delay, but I do have some things to input:

  • I hate to say it, but the size section feels quite inadequate. Numbers are just thrown out in a list; I haven't read all the papers in question, but surely they explained the methods that led them to their estimates a bit? The estimates are differ by up to 30 metric tonnes and some discussion of what might be leading to these very different numbers would be very useful, to the best extent possible. It might end up a tad technical, but I'd say a general reader could at least glean a little bit of why the numbers are so uncertain. Also, noting the dates of the estimates in the text as opposed to just the citations might be worthwhile.
I earlier proposed something similar. I decided this was a good moment to expand the Giraffatitan article and I can rewrite its size section along these lines. This can then be used, mutatis mutandis, for this article also.--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related, but the Giraffatitan estimates given below are certainly relevant but the note of it being found as smaller as a rule would be better shown if you actually stated what that particular study found for Brachiosaurus in the same place in the section as the Giraffatitan ones (I'd personally go with parentheses right afterwards).
Seems a good suggestion.--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, for how big a deal Riggs made about it being the largest dinosaur ever, it seems odd there's no acknowledgement of this historical claim and when and how it was dethroned.
That can only be done if there's a good source for it to avoid a forbidden synthesis. Claims about sauropods "bigger than Brachiosaurus" were fashionable in the seventies and eighties but "Ultrasaurus" proved to be the same animal and Seismosaurus was not unequivocally larger.--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, unfortunate, I do think it's a rather important aspect of the topic. If it can't easily be sourced it'll have to be left aside for now, perhaps we could revisit adding a bit on it in the future. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I at least added Taylor's claim that Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan were the two largest brachiosaurids known. Paul (1988) states that they were as large as sauropods used to get but that leaves the dethroning uncovered.--MWAK (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link the first use of the word "trunk" to the torso page to avoid any possible confusion, in both the lead and "general build" sections. The meaning is established in the "postcranial skeleton" section, but the word has been used a half-dozen times before this.
Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specimen numbers such "BMNH R5937" and "FMNH P 25107" should have the abbreviations link to their respective museums on first use per section.
Fixed, but I couldn't find anything for "SMA". LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't happen to be any chance "spinodiapophyseal" or "spinopostzygapophyseal" have any precedent for containing a dash somewhere in them?
Probably someone has on occasion inserted a hyphen after spino~ but this is not a usual spelling so I would avoid it. If people know a bit of Latin and Greek the etymology can be figured out. If they don't, that hyphen won't be of much help either :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the Felch Quarry skull actually preserves is layed out clearly in the history section but doesn't seem to be in the skull section unless I'm missing it; it should be made clear which parts we actually have there as well.
Well, the parts described in the description section are those that are preserved. Usually, dry lists of preserved bones are kept in the history section. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems important to me that there can't be any confusion that we know stuff for certain about parts we don't actually have. As a general reader, am I going to think about the implication of the statement "partial skull" or am I going to glance at the picture of what's very obviously a complete skull (the reconstruction of one)? I'm going to see the skull and assume we dug that thing up. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brachiosaurus is based on a partial postcranial skeleton discovered in 1900 in the valley of the Colorado River near Fruita, Colorado. - "based on" as the first way used to describe the holotype could be interpreted as it being all we have, could something more like "Brachiosaurus was first discovered through" be used?
"Based on" is used precisely because it is the holotype. That Felch skull was discovered earlier. But I agree it's ambiguous. Tentatively, I added "The genus...".--MWAK (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kimmeridgian is linked but I think it'd be a good idea to give a rough time-range after its first use in the history section too, especially since it's such an easy and brief addition.
A time range is desirable but a rough one, like "about 150 million years ago", is confusing. It suggests that the animal indeed lived 150 mya but there's no proof for that. I'll add the more precise dates.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a concluding ten-day prospecting trip, the expedition returned to Grand Junction and hired a team and wagon to transport all fossils to the railway station, during five days; another week was spent to pack them in thirty-eight crates with a weight of 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg). - don't we usually use kilograms and then pounds, at least within the WikiProject?
Perhaps this expresses better that the source uses pounds only.--MWAK (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The titles of Riggs' 1901 and 1903 articles emphasized that the specimen was the "largest known dinosaur". - the 1903 article is never established before this point (within the history section). Either it should be introduced beforehand or introduced within the sentence more properly so it doesn't sound like the reader should already know what it is. It actually is more properly introduced at the end of the paragraph, but this is backwards to how it should be treated.
Rewrote the paragraph along a strict chronological order.--MWAK (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dry mesa scapulocoracoid is never referred to as such in the text. Additionally, Taylor's 2009 paper is cited but his notes that it differs from B. altithorax' are not. It's ambiguous whether or not he considers it referrable to Brachiosaurus generically [in his paper].
I'm not sure what specimen you are referring to now.--MWAK (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of paragraph four in the "assigned specimens" section and the associated image. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It was referred to Brachiosaurus altithorax by Paul (1988), to a Brachiosaurus sp. by Curtice (1996) and denied to have been B. altithorax by Taylor. I'll rewrite the paragraph to reflect this.--MWAK (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These include a humerus (specimen USNM 21903) from Potter Creek that is not clearly referable to Brachiosaurus despite its large size of 2.13 meters (7.0 ft). - note why it is not referable if possible.
The problem here is that Taylor does not provide any detail. He states "it is in some other respects different" but doesn't mention what these differences are exactly.--MWAK (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was worried that might be the case, hence the "if possible". You could change it to say "...not clearly referable to Brachiosaurus according to Taylor, despite..." but I'll leave it up to you. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Followed your suggestion.--MWAK (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly before the publication of the 2004 book - it wasn't established that the 2004 publication was a book. Ideally, it should be identified as The Dinosauria and linked as such.
Done.--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lusotitan is recovered outside of Brachiosauridae now and then, and this should be noted; right now the text treats its assignment to the family as definitive.
Nuanced. You might want to add a study recovering it as a non-brachiosaurid :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're trying to say here? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need not include all studies, so if there's a paper that you find specially relevant in this respect, the easiest way would be for you to cite it.--MWAK (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the "B. brancai and B. fraasi" and the "B. atalaiensis" sections should have main article links. Also, should the binomial be abbreviated in a title? Not a rhetoric, I'm unsure but it seems like it'd be improper.
Not sure if tis is really a requirement, as long as the respective articles are linked in the text. But I'll add it if a guideline can be provided that states this should be done anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's a guideline, but isn't it kind of the whole point of the template? Of course it's going to be linked in the text if it's being talked about with its own section, but the point of using a the "main" or "broader" template is have this indicated at the very top of the section. This is a brief coverage of the topic, there's a full article about it, is there any good reason not to use the template here? It's a textbook example. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll insert full species names in the chapter titles. These abbreviations are puerile anyway :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some unordered references, but I can go fix that myself.
Yeah, I have never seen anyone actually point to a guideline that says this should be done, so it is up to whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a strict guideline, but to me it seems like a very obvious professionality thing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have for the first two sections. I'll look at the rest once responses come through. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think MWAK knows the most about the relevant sections. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lusotitan, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're about ready to wrap this up so if there are any last-minute comments, pls speak soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing an image review, it has been requested for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably give further feedback on the remaining sections, but seeing as I'm active in the dinosaurs WikiProject there's no reason that has to be here. There's definitely no chance I'd end up opposing in the end, so I'll throw in support and suggest pushing this through once the image review is done. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Just passing by to say I'd recommend not starting all three paras in the lead with "Brachiosaurus". Fantastic work to all those involved on improving this article, though! I'm kinda surprised it wasn't an FA yet, but it sure deserves to be. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made some tweaks to the third paragraph of the intro. By the way, this is the last dinosaur appearing in Jurassic Park to be nominated for FAC, if it passes, they are all FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear! Looks like all the dinosaurs from the first three movies will be FAs then, with the exception of Spinosaurus and Corythosaurus, which are GAs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 06:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few genera from the second film which are unlikely to go anywhere soon due to taxonomic instability too (Pachycephalosaurus, Mamenchisaurus, Pteranodon). FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber[edit]

Reading now.....

'' The proportions of Brachiosaurus were unlike most sauropods: the forelimbs were longer than the hindlimbs, which resulted in a steeply inclined trunk, and its tail was proportionally shorter than those of most other sauropods. - why not just, "Unlike most sauropods, Brachiosaurus had longer forelimbs than hindlimbs, which resulted in a steeply inclined trunk, and a proportionally shorter tail."
was very eager to add a large sauropod skeleton to the collection, to outdo other institutions - I'd not have a comma here.

Otherwise looking polished and on track for FA-hood Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hence support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by IJReid[edit]

Been busy with life and work but I'll get this done asap. I will bring some querries in a few minutes. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Size section goes right out and introduces "Brachiosaurus brancai". I would recommend cutting that mention out, leaving just Giraffatitan, or otherwise restructuring so the reader understands the species relevance before getting to the size section.
Do you mean this sentence: "Most estimates of Brachiosaurus's size are based on the related African brachiosaurid Giraffatitan (formerly known as Brachiosaurus brancai)"? I'm not sure I understand the issue. Perhaps it should start out by also spelling out the binomial Brachiosaurus altithorax? FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess yeah. Establishing the multiple species at the beginning is basically out-of-context in my opinion, but adding in "altithorax" is good enough. Not gonna make me withhold support. I'll nail all my other points out imminently. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length of 21m is mentioned and cited twice, maybe just double-cite the first one?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "very similar in size to those of the Brachiosaurus type specimen, the former specimen was found to be somewhat lighter than the Brachiosaurus specimen given its proportional differences" repetition of "Brachiosaurus specimen" and "specimen"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Build - Paragraph 1 last sentence: perhaps note that diplodocoids were contemporaneous? Otherwise noting them specifically is unecessary
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postcranial skeleton - Paragraph 1 Sentence 1: missing period, I think?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " " Sentence 4: why mention "in cross-section" twice. I think its a given
removed last mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holotype specimen - Paragraph 3 Sentence 2: I think you mean "confused" and not "confirmed"?
The real femur being just as long seemed to confirm that his identification of the humerus as a thighbone was correct. I'll rewrite the sentence to remove ambiguity.--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neck Posture - Paragraph 2 Last Sentence: under what times/situations were the necks thought to move side-to-side? Locomotion? Habitual movement? Feeding?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion on nostrils is broken up into three places currently, its own section, the last paragraph of feeding, and the last paragraph of skull description. Perhaps rearrange these into either two groups, or one.
I can see what you mean, the first occurrence is mainly on morphology, whereas the later text is mainly about function. I have changed the title of the section accordingly, "nostril function", does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah certainly. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it, once these are done I will give my support. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems these have all been answered, IJReid. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Guys, with little outright support for promotion after almost a month, I'm afraid this is teetering on the brink. I'll give Lusotitan some time to do their promised review and we'll see what comes of that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that IJReid has also begun a review, so there are two ongoing reviews in addition to one support. So though this might be a bit drawn out, I don't think the situation would be any different during a potential second nomination. The main problem is that three regular FAC reviewers of animal articles are nominators of this FAC, which means the pool of interested reviewers is quite small for this nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth, and Dunkleosteus77, who are animal FAC regulars, if they are interested. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot that Dunkleosteus77 already GA reviewed this. Perhaps PaleoGeekSquared might want to take a stab at reviewing, it can give good insights for writing one's own articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That said, support as the guy who already reviewed this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

  • I was so impressed by finding an error in the very first sentence (dinosaur should be plural) that I thought I had better read on!
Thanks for the review! Not sure about that being an error though, it is the same as saying "the hoatzin is a species of bird", if that is the part you are referring to. That is how pretty much all dinosaur FAs are written, as well as those of many other animals. I found a discussion of this issue here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some scientific sources using the phrase "genus of dinosaur"[4][5], and one that uses both versions in the same abstract:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would follow "species of" with a singular and "genus of" with a plural. That seems right to me, and is what I use in the genus and species articles I write, but I am not going to make a big issue of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something I feel strongly about, but I'll see if some of my co-nominators have any thoughts on this first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to keep the current wording, as in dinosaur paleontology, the genus (and not the species) is the unit one usually works with (and in this specific case, we only have a single species within this genus). I do not mind changing it though, but also would like to see other peoples opinions first as we would have to adjust almost all other dinosaur articles as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ... more recent research suggest it was warm-blooded." - Suggests
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The length of Brachiosaurus has been estimated at 20–21 meters (66–69 ft), 18 meters (59 ft), and its height at 9.4 meters (31 ft) and 12–13 meters (39–43 ft)." - In this and similar sentences, you need an "and" between the first two factoids instead of a comma.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giraffatitan specimen MB.R.2181 does likely not reflect " - I think "likely" should be before rather than after "does".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even for sauropod standards" - should be "by".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with bended lower and upper sections" - Suggest "with the lower and upper sections bent".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brachiosaurus likely shared the very elongated neck ribs with Giraffatitan," - suggest "Brachiosaurus likely shared with Giraffatitan the very elongated neck ribs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its overall build resembles a giraffe" - You should not be using "It" here because Brachiosaurus was not the subject of the previous few sentences.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1988, Paul" - You need to state who Paul is the first time he is mentioned.
  • ... and Taylor.
Fixed. both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vertebral column preserved by an unnamed brachiosaurid" - "by" is probably not the best word here.
Changed to "in". FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Differences to Giraffatitan are related" - I think "differences from".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Skull" section, the conversion is to feet rather than inches as it was in "Postcranial skeleton" section. Feet might be better all round seeing that the image of femur and humerus has a foot rule scale.
Changed to inches. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continuing thereafter as a shallow through" - I think you mean "trough".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ended just before and below the fenestra" - Suggest "ended just in front of and below the fenestra"
Good idea, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these animals were inaccurately" - Suggest incorrectly or erroneously.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have "In the spring of 1899" and later "Arriving on 20 June" and "on 4 July 1900". From the prose, these events seem to refer to the same year but the dates given seem to indicate a longer time span.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additional discoveries of Brachiosaurus material in North America have been uncommon and consist of a handful of bones" - I object to the use of a "handful" in this casual fashion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1998, Carpenter and Tidwell described the Felch Quarry skull, and formally assigned it to B. sp." - I assume that B. here refers to Brachiosaurus?
Yes, spelled out here to avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the latter renamed Ultrasauros shortly thereafter because another sauropod already received the name." - I think "had" is missing from this sentence.
Said "had already received". FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "therefore suggested to separate them not at genus, but only at subgenus level," - Suggest " therefore suggested they be separated not at genus, but only at subgenus level,"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atalaia" - Needs disambiguation.
Seems we don't have an article for the exact place, so removed link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cladistic analyses also allow to determine which new traits the members of a group have in common" - Missing word?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea of near-vertical postures in sauropods in general was popular for until 1999," - Extra word?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting "The paleontologists Olivier Rieppel and Christopher Brochu .." is too long and complex.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brachiosaurus, with its shorter arms" - This statement surprised me because I thought that Brachiosaurus had particularly long arms.
But Giraffatitan had even longer arms! Hence the name, it was even more giraffe-like... FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would have helped smell proper vegeteation in a terrestrial setting" - ?
Removed "in a terrestrial setting", goes without say8ing, as we have already established it wasn't aquatic. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead the air was from the trachea sucked into an abdominal air sac" - Suggest "Instead the air was sucked from the trachea into an abdominal air sac"
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the meantime" - suggest "same time"
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its dorsal vertebrae still completely lack such pleurocoels." - The subject of the previous sentence is the pleurocoels.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its bone structure indicates that Brachiosaurus was able to reproduce when it reached 40% of its maximal size." - That's a bold claim, all from a handful of old bones!
Cwmhiraeth, done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with the responses and actions taken and now Support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil[edit]

This is doable, and fun to read, but have quibbles, many of them re tense. Can ye substitute phrases like "would have" with "had" as much as possible.

  • Following blue linked technical terms with a brief explanation in parenthesis is a very nice touch.
  • No need to link Africa and Europe
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
maybe North America could also go. Ceoil (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past, three other species of Brachiosaurus have been named based on fossils found in Africa and Europe; two are now thought to be invalid - don't like "in the past", nor "invalid"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Invalid" is standard terminology for such taxa, would probably be best to say "not valid" or similar instead of "not legitimate", a term never used in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant parse this - "The large nasal arch has been as an adaptation for cooling the brain, as a surface for evaporative cooling of the blood". For one, the word adapted is missing.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead "one of the largest known," is incomplete and inelegant. Ceoil (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged, does it look better?
  • Lead: ...sauropods. Unlike most sauropods - repetition
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Size

  • In studies including estimates for both genera, Giraffatitan was estimated at - lots of redundancies here: Simpler is "Various studies have estimated Giraffatitan as within xyz range"
  • (MB.R.2181[10]) - mostly you put the refs outside the brackets, which I think is better
Agree, moved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the former was found to be somewhat lighter - using this as an example of word redundancy throughout; just "was somewhat lighter" is tighter and less taxing.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is the case with the Brachiosaurus main specimen - as with the main...
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giraffatitan specimen MB.R.2181 does likely not reflect the maximum size of the genus - likely does not
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Postcranial skeleton

  • Very long paragraphs here, and makes for fascinating but dense reading! Any chance you could break up at least the first two?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • an unnamed brachiosaurid specimen, BMNH R5937[19] Vertebrae of the front part of the dorsal column - is there some punctuation missing here
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Air sacs did not only invade the vertebrae - did not only? "not only"
Said "not only invaded", is that what you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General build

  • Section header would be better as "build"
The following subsection deal with in various ways with "build" so "general" is a good clarification. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brachiosaurus was a quadrupedal animal with a small skull - Was a quadrupedal with a small
You mean "was a quadruped"? Changed to that, though could also be "was quadrupedal". FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "a quadruped". FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes better. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The neck would have been - "Its neck was"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brachiosaurus likely shared the very elongated neck ribs with Giraffatitan, which ran down the underside of the neck - they didn't share neck ribs. And the word "neck" is twice in once sentence leading to vagueness (neck ribs run down the underside of the neck - ORLY)

Feeding and diet

  • if it ate during sixteen hours per day - if it fed for sixteen
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • biting off between a tenth and two-thirds of a kilogram, taking between one and six bites per minute - consuming rather than taking. Then "its daily food intake"
You don’t consume a bite   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and gaa. I misread as one and six kg. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • with its shorter arm and lower shoulder it only had one arm?
Hehe, changed to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The forward position of the center of mass would have led to problems with stability - "its" center of mass
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • relatively little from rearing (only 33% more feeding height)- why "relatively little" if we know c. 33%
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The downward mobility of the neck of Brachiosaurus would have allowed it to - why say "would have"?, just "allowed it to". Maybe "the neck of Brachiosaurus" should be "a Brachiosaurus' neck"
These are really conditional statements. You mean to say: "If indeed the neck was as ventrally mobile as is usually assumed, this would have allowed Brachiosaurus to...". It would be very cumbersome to make this explicit every time (another conditional :o). To solve this problem, the conditionality is implied by the "would have" construction which is very common and immediately understandable by the reader. Natural language is full of such handy tools. You're not supposed to critically reflect on them :o).
The genitive construction has been discussed above. I don't think "Brachiosaurus ' neck is syntactically correct: in spoken language you would probably have to pronounce the second s to avoid Brachiosaurus being understood as an adjective (not that there would be much data on this). Also, in our code the series of three apostrophes without being directly followed by a letter is read as a boldface command. So you would have to write Brachiosaurus's neck, which is typographically cumbersome and not a happy pronunciation either. The formality of "the neck of Brachiosaurus" avoids these problems and perhaps well fits an encyclopedic text.--MWAK (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is very interesting MWAK, thanks for clear explanation. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, now Supporting. Great to see team work like this. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoGeekSquared[edit]

Got your ping, FunkMonk. I don't usually do this but I'll give it a go, some mostly minor comments down below.

Thanks, it's probably a good place to start! FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do the first mentions of Paul and Taylor use a last-name basis whilst the other paleontologists (such as in the History of discovery section) fully spell out their names before doing so? It seems inconsistent, they should at least be linked since most general readers won't be familiar with Mike Taylor or Gregory St. Paul.
I think because some text was removed, now their names are spelled out and linked at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • another week was spent to pack them in thirty-eight crates - Is there a reason why "38" is not used? I thought that was the format for all numbers above ten.
WP:Numbers allows both for numbers above nine and below a hundred.--MWAK (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't aware of that, will keep in mind for the future. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riggs described the coracoid as from the left side of the body - Are three citations really necessary for such a simple claim by one person?
The point is that he repeated the mistake in all three studies.--MWAK (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstone is linked in its second, not first mention.
Moved link. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Supersaurus/Ultrasauros in the fourth para of Assigned material and then including the new genera Supersaurus and Ultrasaurus after that, then back to Ultratsauros again. is this a typo or were Ultrasaurus and Ultrasauros named as separate genera?
Ultrasauros was a renaming of Ultrasaurus, as stated in the text.--MWAK (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, must've missed that! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atalaia should be linked.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again, we don't have an article for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • so this might have also been true for brachiosaurids as well - Remove "also" or "as well"
Removed as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "theropods" on first mention.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • though part of its lower end are lost to erosion - is lost to erosion?

▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Said "was lost". FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be it, PaleoGeekSquared. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything else to comment on (then again this is only my first attempt at this) so Supporting now. Kudos to everyone who worked on this, looks like an exceptionally written article to me! Reading it even gave me some ideas for ways to improve my future FAC on Irritator, particularly the description section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a win-win then! You caught a good deal of stuff not noticed by anyone else. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Is ISBN 9781852837747 a reliable source?
A book on the making of Jurassic Park being cited for Brachiosaurus appearance in the movie. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A non-childrens book written by expert. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The David Lambert Book … not an optimal one, yes, and part of an old bit of information that was present in the article before we started working on it. I replaced it using better sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is written by palaeontologists, and the info contained isn't exactly controversial, but I wonder if a better source can be found. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source should be fine, but replaced it anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Brachiosaurus". Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. McFarland & Company. a reliable source?
According to Amazon "...this is a dense and rigorously scientific tome meant for only the most dedicated dinosaur lover. Part 1 contains an excellent background history of scientific findings..." and "Written by well-known paleontologists and organized alphabetically by subject, the signed articles cover kinds of dinosaurs, biology, geology, research, and museums where dinosaurs are on display, including a worldwide list of museums and sites". LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of text written by the guy who described the genus. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is basically just the text from a journal article, which would otherwise not be accessible. The citation is to the journal article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No spotchecks done. Everything else seems good to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we are all set source wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I didn't do this previously because the number of images here is scary, but being the author of Parinacota (volcano) I shouldn't really complain, so...

Thanks, well, at least images of dinosaurs and volcanoes are easier to the eye than biographies of long dead people full of black and white headshots... FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Brachiosaurus mount.jpg: I don't like saying this, but which CC-BY license did they license this under? There is more than one; are we assuming that they are referring to the most recent one?
You can see they specify at the bottom of the text, and also give a link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already linked in the second one, but not needed in the first one, because the blog isn't the original creator (so PD US is what matters). FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Altithorax.jpg: I take we are sure this image was published shortly after it was created? Some images are published shortly after creation, others aren', and since the copyright expiry clock starts ticking at the expiration date we need to be sure on this.
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure it must have been published in some science magazine or journal back in the day (the first version I uploaded looked pretty wretched), have you come across it in an old source, MWAK or Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in Matthew's Dinosauria. The earliest publication I know of is Brinkman (2010). That would mean the picture is free from copyright 120 years after its creation in 1899, thus in 2019.
I wonder if it might be in the following article, if anyone has access to it: Brinkman, Paul D. 2000. “Establishing vertebrate paleontology at Chicago’s Field Columbian Museum, 1893-1898.” Archives of Natural History 27(1): 81-114. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Brachiosaurus nougaredi Sacrum.png: Do we have information on the original image (since this image is "based off" another one)? Especially since the (first) uploader apparently has a history on Commons of making undeclared derivative works.
The original is a photo in a journal article, so I guess the artist has just filled in the known parts with colour in a drawing he made. IJReid can maybe confirm, he said he followed its creation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original images are not taken from any orthogonal angles, so the sacrum is approximates based on the known measurements and proportions, with specifics taken from approximating perspective distortion. Short story theres nothing like this, even the photos its based on. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if we really need it anyway, as it does not add much and is not of the highest quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the known bones are casts and the unknown parts are based on those of related animals, there isn't anything copyrightable in them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, it only seems to be visible in the PDF version, so I have linked to that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This usually does the job:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these, it looks like each image is pertinent. ALT text would be nice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just added this new usermade image from Commons to the article:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing worth noting about that image, IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2018 [9].

San Junipero[edit]

Nominator(s): — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mirror is an infamously dark and depressing anthology series, but as it moved to Netflix, Charlie Brooker marked the show's new era by writing what is, in my opinion, the most beautiful and uplifting love story in the history of television. A previous FAC for "San Junipero" failed only due to lack of comments. I hope the article does the episode justice. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments

@Aoba47: I've addressed all the comments you made at the previous FAC other than the following:

  • I will have to preface my comments by saying that I have not seen this episode (or any episodes from this series). I find the “Plot” section to be confusing, particularly the jump from the first paragraph to the second paragraph. There is a large time jump between 1987 to 2002, and that left me confused. Are Yorkie and Kelly in 2002 played by the same actresses from 1987 version? Are they treated as being the same age? I am just lost with the whole timeline. I would imagine that writing a plot summary for a show with twists must difficult.
    • Yes, they're played by the same actors. They appear as the same age. It's like they're in a different level of a video game, but as the viewer doesn't yet know that they're in a simulated reality, they're not supposed to understand exactly what is happening yet. Can you think of any specific bits which could be rewritten to make this bit of the plot clearer? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure how to make it clearer without making the prose awkward so I believe that it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (Kelly follows and propositions Yorkie, who declines, saying she is engaged.). What sort of “proposition” was Kelly offering Yorkie? A sexual one? A romantic one? I would clarify this in the prose.
    • A sexual one. Kelly says "Wanna go to bed with me?" What rewording do you recommend? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would make it clear in the rose that is a sexual proposition. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence ( After Yorkie leaves, Kelly follows and confesses that she is dying), does Kelly say how she is dying in the scene?
    • Nope, we don't know. Kelly says "They tell me three months. It's spread basically everywhere. They said three months before six months ago. So, you know, what do they know?" — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention multiple songs being featured in the episode in the body of the article, but only one song is in the infobox.
    • I've added the others mentioned in prose, but it's not an exhaustive list as the infobox documentation says "Television episodes often include numerous songs; only include the most notable". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable, and thank you for the edit. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the need for the rainbow flag image in the article.
    • Well, the Analysis section has a paragraph about Kelly and Yorkie's sexualities. I've replaced it with a bi flag, with a bisexual lighting–related caption, as this is perhaps a little more pertinent. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems more appropriate to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Goodman and Atad both opined that the story would leave viewers in tears,), the references need to be placed in numerical order. I would check the article for this.
    • That's not policy, and I consciously chose to place them in the opposite order so the first ref is the first reviewer mentioned, and the second is about the second. See, for instance, WP:REFORDER for previous consensus about this. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't it make more sense to just switch the reviewers' names around as I do not see any clear reason for them to be placed in that order? However, I will leave this up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will look through the article again by the end of the week, but please ping me if I do not add additional comments by the end of Saturday. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. It is a far less commercially/critically acclaimed piece of television (i.e. it was terrible and a flop), but any help would be appreciated. Good luck with this round, and I hope that this receives more comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the last couple of points. I'll take a look at your FAC soon. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were very well-received and the episode's plot twist was widely praised), I am not sure if the word “very” is necessary.
    • I think it's more accurate with the "very". As the Reception says, "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were universally praised, even by reviewers who disliked the episode." I think I found one reviewer who didn't like their acting versus dozens who praised it. To say "well-received" is a huge understatement. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (along with the uplifting tone of the episode and its visual style.), I would say (along with the episode’s uplifting tone and visual style) just to be a little more concise.
  • For this part (but later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people.), I would add the citation to make it clear what is supporting this information, particularly since two citations are used in the following sentence.
  • I am somewhat confused by this sentence (Brooker was involved in the choice of arcade games for the set). The “Plot” section does not reference arcade games (unless I am reading over it by accident). Were they involved in the episode, or were they brought it on set for the actors during filming for some reason? It kind of comes out of nowhere.
    • I've rephrased slightly. They're part of the 1987 and 2002 nightclubs, and we see Yorkie playing on one in 1987 and Kelly playing on one in 2002. These bits are very brief so they're not included the plot (which has a very tight word limit), and reviewers don't seem to have really mentioned them, so this is really the only place they can be mentioned. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wikilink “plot twist” in the “Critical reception” section, though you use the words “twist” and “plot twist” in previous sections. I would move the wikilink up to the first time you mention it in the body of the article.
  • I would avoid beginning the sentence (But Wallenstein criticised Mbatha-Raw and Davis for an inability to "pack the emotional punch that this crowd-pleaser needs to truly shine”.) with “But” as it reads slightly awkwardly to me as a transition.

Great work on the article. Once these relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. It definitely inspires me to work on another television episode article, as it has been a while since I have done so. I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these last points. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: are there any more comments I need to address? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I thought that I already supported this. I support this for promotion. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gonnym[edit]

  • Whilst series one and two of Black Mirror were shown on Channel 4 in the UK, Netflix commissioned the series for 12 episodes (split into two series of six episodes) in September 2015,[1] and in March 2016, Netflix outbid Channel 4 for the rights to distributing series three with a bid of $40 million - I don't understand this. If Netflix commissioned the season 3 episodes in 15, why did it have to outbid Channel 4 in 16? I'm assuming Netflix didn't plan in 2015 on paying for a season to be shown on Channel 4 at the time.
    • Sorry about this—turns out I made some mistakes. The $40 million bid was in 15, not 16; and it's distribution in the UK under discussion. It is a confusing situation, but here's what happened: in 2015, Netflix commission the show for 12 eps. Now C4 could still get the right to distribute series 3 in the UK first, perhaps with it being released on Netflix later (not a rare deal—for instance, it's what happened with The End of the F***ing World). They bid on this and Netflix outbid them, the result being announced in 2016. Anyway, that's too much detail (and a bit of OR), particularly for a page about an episode and not the series/show itself. I've done a bit of rewording but let me know if you think there are still problems with it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alongside "Nosedive", "San Junipero" was first shown in 2016 ahead of its Netflix release at the Toronto International Film Festival. - You should mention that Nosedive is another episode from the season, as without it, it's not different than the many other TV shows/films shown in that festival.
  • Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series." - I have a problem with the word "Authored" as it isn't used in television and it's also not used by you in the article lead or infobox. "Written" should be good enough here. I've also have a problem with how the sentence is constructed. I don't know why but it just seems like it's cut short. Actually the whole paragraph seems off to me. See next point.
  • "San Junipero" was the first episode written for series three.[6] Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series".[7] The show previously focused on technology's negative effects;[8] this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible.[7] Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists.[9] He later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people. Having repeatedly thought of writing an episode set in the past,[6]Brooker wrote "San Junipero" as a period episode.[10] - These short rapid sentences make the flow seem off to me. As an example change Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists, but later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people..
    • I've used your example and linked the first two sentences. Let me know if you think it's any better. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible - (maybe if the previous point is fixed this won't be an issue) - this seems like a response to someone saying it isn't possible, but all you have here is this statement which seems like we're reading half a conversation.
    • It's intended as a response to "The show previously focused on technology's negative effects". The full context of the quote is: "[Brooker:] Every show that I've done starts with a character in a trap, who stays in the trap. San Junipero was a nice trap. It proved to me that you can do an uplifting episode of Black Mirror." ([10]) How would you like this reworded? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brooker told The Daily Beast that in the rough treatment - I know you linked to the Daily Beast in the box on the right, but this is the first time in running text it's mentioned and could probably be linked here also. I didn't even notice the box while reading.
  • Director Owen Harris described the 1980s - could probably link to the director as that is the first mention of him since the lead.
  • Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who plays Kelly, had heard of the show but not seen it when she received the script, though she did watch "Be Right Back" before the shoot - similar to a previous comment. You should probably mention that Be Right Back is another episode from the series, as the context is missing.
    • It's mentioned in the paragraph below as "the series two episode "Be Right Back"" so I've just moved that description to this paragraph. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a bus journey from Oxford Circus to Brixton - I'd link these two. I'm not from the UK and I had no idea where these two are so no idea how long that bus journey was and I actually did search these here to find out, linking would have been easier and faster.
  • Davis first saw the show with a friend - You should probably write her full name as you did with Gugu Mbatha-Raw and as its the first time she's mentioned since the plot. I had to re-read the previous section to see if I missed who Davis was.
  • Elfring described it as the only episode with "warmth to it, and Jeffery called it the "most upbeat and positive. Handlen believed that the previous episodes' sad tone heightens the effectiveness of "San Junipero",[41] and Stolworthy thought that it was consequently the show's most ambitious episode.[42] Saraiya notes that technology is portrayed as good in "San Junipero", a rarity in the show.[43] Sims noted that the episode follows the season's darkest episode, "Shut Up and Dance".[44]" - who are Elfring, Jeffery, Handlen, Stolworthy, Saraiya and Sims? (probably critics/reviewers, but you should give them their full name and website/newspapper)
  • Its Emmy Award wins were considered by some to mark a cultural shift in relation to portrayal of lesbianism - should link to the Emmy Award ceremony.
  • They are not the focus of exploration in the episode, but its plot raises many philosophical questions,[45] including the nature of consciousness and experience[37][45] and the consequences of digitally simulated existence. - I don't understand who "They" are. If "They" are the philosophical questions, then please consider revising as it is not clear.
    • Yep that's what was intended—I've essentially just moved the first clause to the end of the sentence. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers have questioned what San Junipero would mean to believers in an afterlife - is the "San Junipero" here the episode title or a place in the episode? If it's the title then its missing the correct style.
  • I stopped at Critical reception as this took longer than I expected, but I'll add notes about the table.

Thanks so much for the review! I've responded to each of your points. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another table related issue - I don't see a reason why reference 87 should be using rowspan="2", as Category, Recipients and Result are all in one row, and it makes verifying more confusing compared to the other references.
    • I don't understand the issue here. Ref #87 has two links, one to Category/Recipients and one to Result, and each link applies to both rows. If I removed rowspan="2" then I would just have to cite ref #87 in both rows. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know each link applies for both rows as you wrote For the award nominations, see Beachum, Christ; Dixon, Marcus James [...] For the award winner, see Montgomery, Daniel [...] which implies that one ref is for the first row and the other ref is for the second row. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact I don't believe I was the one who wrote that but anyway, I've changed it to "For the list of nominees" and "For the list of winners". Is that any better? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is better worded now, but I still don't think there really is a real reason for that. Just stick the nomination ref to the one that was only nominated and the winner video the other, or if the video does does both, you could just use that (but I'd say cite the nomination list for the non-winner one, as it's much reader-friendlier to skim a written list than to see the video). Also, I just checked [11] and the website doesn't actually say who the winner is, the video does [12] so I'm not sure if Template:Cite web is the correct ref template, or maybe Template:Cite AV media is a better choice here, as it will allow adding the specific timestamp of when they actually say who the winner is, although I've myself not cited something like this in the past, so not sure how to handle this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • There was a real reason: when we use {{nom}}, it means "nominated and didn't win". Otherwise we use {{won}} (or {{pending}}). So the award which didn't win still needs the source announcing the winners. But I've changed the winners source to a text source, and as it also mentions the other nominees, I've removed the nom source which is now redundant. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure you need to find a source that proves a negative. You said it was nominated and sourced it as such. This isn't the article for the award which you need to also say who was the winner. Anyways, glad you found a source that makes this issue moot altogether. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: are there any more comments I need to address? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good (except for my personal dislike of a missing cast section :) ). I have a few more comments, but for me the article condition looks ready. One major caveat though, I haven't verified any of the references, so take that into account.

  • The episode has a substantially more hopeful tone than other Black Mirror stories; it was popular with critics, and received numerous awards. - this is then repeated in the 3rd lead paragraph, so should probably be removed from the first paragraph as there is no real point to summarize the lead.
  • Harris has said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California.[16] Mbatha-Raw said that almost every scene was shot at night or dusk, particularly the exterior scenes.[22] Harris said that, during the shooting of the argument on the beach between Kelly and Yorkie in their wedding dresses, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean and it turned into this really beautiful scene", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture".[16] Mbatha-Raw recalled an ostrich walking onto the beach during one filming session.[23]. - this reads a bit akward as a "he->her->he->her" and could probably change to something like
    • Harris has said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California,[16] and noted that during the shooting of the argument on the beach between Kelly and Yorkie in their wedding dresses, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean and it turned into this really beautiful scene", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture". Mbatha-Raw said that almost every scene was shot at night or dusk, particularly the exterior scenes.[22]
  • Mbatha-Raw recalled an ostrich walking onto the beach during one filming session.[23] - Could also probably remove this. I'm not sure what it added really, seems a bit trivia (unless there is a significance to it, which isn't explained).
  • The episode contains hints leading up to the reveal of the twist. A factor considered during the editing process was how overt the hints should be. Annabel Jones says that "there may be visual signifiers that you think were going to work and then didn't, so you need more exposition in the edit". Adjustments were also made using sound design techniques such as sound effects.[11] - seems this paragraph is not related to either "Cast" nor "filming".
    • It doesn't really fit anywhere – I've given the paragraph its own section, "Editing". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Marketing" and "Future" sections should change places as chronology the marketing should come first (personal note, not sure I'd put them in production, but rather in their own sections).
    • Swapped. After a bit of thinking, I've given both of them second-level headings, because they're not exactly part of the making of the episode. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Junipero" is a highly optimistic,[29] emotionally rooted[30] love story and a work of science fiction. - maybe revise so it doesn't sound like this claim came from us (which reads a bit like original research) or is a universal claim, but from the people you are citing so something like "Reviewers have called "San Junipero" a highly optimistic..."
    • Yeah, these things aren't particularly controversial but done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode provides an example of bisexual lighting, as colours from the bisexual pride flag are used to represent the sexualities of Kelly and Yorkie. - This is in the flag box and is missing a reference (even if its in the article, the box doesn't have it)
  • Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were universally praised,[b] even by reviewers who disliked the episode. - are the people quoted later the ones that disliked the episode? It wasn't clear to me (without reading references) who liked their performances but disliked the episode.
    • This is referring to the next paragraph, which begins: "Mbatha-Raw and Davis also received praise in negative reviews." I've removed the latter half of the sentence, which hopefully solves the confusion. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I think I've addressed all of these points. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Good job! --Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this matters to the FAC, but while you are already at it, you should probably add a Template:Short description (Wikipedia:Short description) --Gonnym (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant to the FA criteria. If a short description is needed on Wikipedia (not just Wikidata), I would want descriptions to be standardised with {{Infobox television episode}}, so I don't think adding on a page-by-page basis is helpful. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from theJoebro64[edit]

I'll take a pass at this; expect comments by tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend archiving your sources: https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle
  • "Some critics believed it to be one of the best television episodes of 2016" → "Some critics considered it one of the best television episodes of 2016"
  • "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were very well-received"—"very" is virtually never needed; just let the verb speak for itself
    I defended this above (Aoba47's comments) but if multiple people are bringing this up independently then I'm happy to remove it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the "Future" section should be below the "Critical reception" section, as that's how I've seen most articles (film, BLPs, and video games, specifically do it)
  • "It has been very favourably received by critics"—see my point above
  • Most of the quotations in the "Critical reception" can be paraphrased. Quotes should only be kept when a critic says something so unique, particular, or just so well-written and fully descriptive of the episode that paraphrasing doesn't do it justice.
    I'll do another round of copyediting for this in a second. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related notes, the introductory statements in each paragraph (i.e. "The episode's plot twist, revealing that San Junipero is a simulated reality, was highly commended by critics") are generalized statements that should have direct refs as they can be challenged. A refbundle might be useful here
    They're really just topic sentences. A refbundle would just be a list of citations in the paragraph. The statements that I thought would not be covered sufficiently be refs in the paragraph are the three sentences with notes at the end. If you want I can go digging up a wider range of sources with all of them (plot twist was commended; visual style was well-received; praise of new genre), but I think these are less controversial statements. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is a really clean article. Nice work JOEBRO64 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Quietly watching this to help out since I worked on the article) - Archive run done. --Masem (t) 20:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I think they've all been addressed. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: just a ping in case you hadn't seen this. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, was meaning to come back to this. Looks like you've addressed all my concerns (and if you didn't you explained why), so I'll lend my support. Great work ! JOEBRO64 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Black Mirror - San Junipero.jpg: Bunch of "N/A" fields in the rationale that should probably be filled in. Speaking of, I presume that the screenshot is of some key scene that is discussed in text?
  • File:Bi flag.svg: License and use seem OK to me, doubly so given that the use of the flag is explicitly discussed.
Lead screenshot has no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd—the screenshot should have the alt text "Two women dressed in 1980s-style clothing." This shows up for me both in the edit screen and in the Altviewer tool. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I generally search the page source for "ALT=". The NFCC#8 rationale in the first image may merit some expansion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a fair bit. (It's quite long now but tbh there's still more I could say about it if necessary.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to a recent edit adding archive links, the citations have become extremely bulky due to their each having three (!) dates—of publication, retrieval and archival. Since WP:CITEWEB suggests retrieval dates are only "required if the publication date is unknown", I believe they can definitely be removed.—indopug (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with the sources at the moment. Accessdates aren't prohibited when the publication date is known, and as {{cite web}}'s documentation alludes to, they're important if the source can change. Many of these sources could change—the most obvious example is the Episode rankings, where many of the sources updated to include the series 4 episodes once they had been released. (This will happen again with later series and any of the sources which didn't update could update at any time.) More generally, a lot of sources are online news articles for which corrections could be issued. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - We're getting there, but this needs pushing over the hill or it will have to be archived soon. Since this is the second nomination and some good commentary has been generated, I'll wait a bit. MoS errors are present ("Annabel Jones says that") and the citation issue brought up by Indopug above needs discussion and resolution. I don't see any reason for the citations to be exploded with three different dates each. WP:V should be the driving factor in such decisions, along with readability. --Laser brain (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: thanks for keeping this open because I would give up on the FA process if this had been archived without warning for a second time. I'm afraid I don't understand the issue with "Annabel Jones says that". I'm also unsure which FA criterion is broken by including accessdates (note that the criteria don't even require citation templates). Can I ask what specifically is necessary for "pushing over the hill", as I'm not clear on the standard in this area? Would one more review be enough? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Past tense is typically used when quoting what someone said in the past about a thing. The use of present tense there reads quite awkwardly. Having the article styled well for readability and accessibility is part of both MoS compliance and criterion 1a, so if someone brings up an issue about the citations being ponderous, that's actionable and at the very least requires discussion and consensus. --Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Yes of course; my mistake. I've gone through the article and fixed the tenses. And are we reading the same thing for 1a—"well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? This quite clearly doesn't refer to non-prose portions (e.g. citations). I also can't see any part of the MOS which prohibits accessdates when archivedates are used. It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss the issue—I explained the necessity of the accessdates above. I don't know what more I can do. I notice you didn't answer the last question(s), but as I'm quite busy at the moment, it would be useful for me to know how many more reviews the nomination needs before consensus is achieved. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 00:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general metric historically is that we look for at least three declarations of support where it's evident that the reviewer has examined the article against WIAFA, before we'll even start considering promotion. If there are other outstanding issues where consensus hasn't been reached on actionable comments (on sources, images, style, etc.) that will also hold up promotion. You have an image review but you will also need a full source review for formatting and reliability. --Laser brain (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. I notice you've posted a request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Image/source check requests—thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "is the fourth episode in series three of British science fiction anthology series Black Mirror. Written by series creator and showrunner Charlie Brooker and directed by Owen Harris, it premiered on Netflix on 21 October 2016, with the rest of series three." - can we avoid so many series' in such close proximity?
    • We can. I've removed the "series creator" phrase, which doesn't seem essential. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were well-received and the episode's plot twist was widely praised" - too wordy; suggest changing it to "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances and the episode's plot twist were well-received".
  • " Brooker first heard it while running, and knew it would be perfect for the final scene" - I feel like the part after and is presented as if it were a fact, when it's merely Brooker's opinion.
  • "Mbatha-Raw read the entirety of the script" - can't it simply be "the entire script"?
  • "The episode's director was Owen Harris" - I would suggest using present form here (or the usual is directed by); he is still the director of the episode even if it has been completed. For example, you don't say a film starred X, but stars.
  • "According to Mbatha-Raw, the episode was shot in 14 days across a three-week period,[21] with a week shooting in London and another week in Cape Town, South Africa" - week...week...week
    • I've changed this to "According to Mbatha-Raw, the episode was filmed in 14 days across a three-week period, with shooting split equally between London and Cape Town, South Africa." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She described the shoot as "very rapid", saying they "didn't really have much time to rehearse"" - this can easily be paraphrased.
    • I've cut this to "Mbatha-Raw said there was little time to rehearse and no read-through." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harris said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to.." - an incredibly long sentence. Suggest splitting.
    • Yes, good idea. I've divided it in two and shortened a bit: "Harris said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California. He noted that whilst shooting Kelly and Yorkie's argument on the beach, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture"." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It has been favourably received by critics, receiving.." - receive...receive
  • "Instead of by quality, Proma Khosla of Mashable ranked the episodes by tone, concluding that "San Junipero" is the second-least pessimistic episode of the show." As a fan of Black Mirror, I would really like to know (and as would the readers, perhaps) which is the lest pessimistic episode; my guess would be "Hang the DJ"?
  • "But in an interview with NME, Brooker mentioned" - a strange use of but in the beginning of a sentence (maybe it's just me). Should a however suit better here?
    • I don't think it's necessary at all—I've changed to simply "In an interview ..." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good that it's not been archived. FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your points; let me know if you spot any more areas to improve upon. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, in which case I can Support this nomination. I have made a change in the lead in this edit, which you are free to revert in case you disagree. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree that that edit is an improvement, but I've made a tiny follow-up change here. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations and/or publishers for newspapers
    • I've added publishers consistently. As for locations, I can't see any that were included—perhaps you saw "New York", which I've changed to "New York Media, LLC" for clarity. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN23: the source has the title in all caps - are you sure it is intended to be "Us" and not "US"?
    • Well, that's also the date it was released internationally. I can't find conclusive proof either way, but I'm willing to believe that "US" was what was intended, so I've changed it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See commentary at WP:ROTTEN regarding statistical accuracy
    • Which part specifically? It says 200 reviews is enough and 10 is not enough, which tells us... exactly nothing here. As the essay suggests, the prose mentions the number of reviews and the relevant aggregate data, so readers know it's based on 18 reviews. I'm of the opinion that 18 is enough so unless there's consensus you can point me to that prohibits this, I don't see what exactly needs to be changed. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 18 is still a relatively low number of reviews, to the point that accuracy seems questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about 21 (three more have been added since I last checked)? I note that List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, after a very large amount of detailed discussion, count films which have received at least 20 reviews (or a Critics Consensus). Hence there is precedent for 20 being sufficient for statistical purposes. I would expect a lower threshold for television episodes since they receive a lot fewer reviews, but "San Junipero" passes the 20 mark anyway. And again, no-one is being misled here as the article says "based on 21 reviews". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether leading "The" is included in relevant newspaper names
    • Do you have any specific mistakes to point out? They use "The" when it is part of the name (e.g. "The New York Times") and don't use "The" when it isn't ("Los Angeles Times"). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Washington Post in FN53 but Washington Post in FN18. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Junkee a high-quality reliable source? WhatCulture? Mashable? Flickering Myth?
    • Junkee: It's being used to cite a critics' opinion so I suppose all that matters is that the author is a professional and the website is respected for its pop culture content. Junkee has an Alexa rank of 1,150 in Australia, so it's very popular, and it's a news website with a heavy focus on pop culture.
    • WhatCulture: The author is Christian Bone, a professional critic who has also worked for Starburst and We Got This Covered. However, I see now that WhatCulture accepts submissions from anyone (though there is of course an editorial team) so I've erred on the side of caution and removed it.
    • Mashable: The site's Alexa rank of 813 makes it one of the most well-known journalism sites in the world, and it is most well-known for publishing content about entertainment and culture, and articles are written by professional critics.
    • Flickering Myth: The site has an editorial board and Liam Hoofe is a professional critic (who has worked at HeyUGuys, for instance). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Popularity or Alexa rank doesn't equate to reliability. What are the specific credentials of the authors of the Junkee and Mashable pieces? What are the editorial policies of these sites? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not trying to say it does; I'm trying to say that these aren't fringe sites, but mainstream critical opinion. Caitlin Welsh (Junkee author) has written for The Guardian, Cosmopolitan, TheVine etc. Proma Khosla's main credential is being a professional critic for Mashable, but she has a public LinkedIn profile here. Both sites have an editorial board who review content that their paid employees (i.e. Welsh and Khosla) have been assigned to write. I don't really know what more there is to say. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure citing a student newspaper is appropriate here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to look this up before and couldn't find a consistent position on whether student newspapers are reliable sources for this type of content. I've removed it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your comments. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: any more comments? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain: can I ask what remains to be done on this nomination? Since your comments, there has been another prose review and a source review (I understand from their userpage that Nikkimaria does not support on sources, but I have addressed all the points that were brought up). By my count, that makes four prose reviews, an image review and a source review, all with no outstanding issues. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2018 [13].

Albert Pierrepoint[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Pierrepoint is an interesting individual. The first hangman of the television/mass media age, whose name became well-known in the press (and not through his efforts), despite the home office restrictions of secrecy regarding the role. He hanged some of the most notorious killers of the 20th century, including over 200 Nazi war criminals, the last men executed for treason and treachery (including William Joyce (also known as Lord Haw-Haw) and John Amery) and undertook some of the more contentious executions of the mid to late century, including Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Moise[edit]

Hi SchroCat, I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. The article looks pretty good, only noticing small issues so far. I noticed a couple but may not be able to type them all up at once, just have a few minutes now.

  • The lead says possibly over 600 executions but the Approach and legacy section gives a maximum estimate of “up to 600”. Moisejp (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2016 John Paul Hurley portrayed Pierrepoint in the BBC remake of Rillington Place starring Tim Roth and Samantha Morton." I think this means it's a remake of the 1971 film 10 Rillington Place? If so, it would be better if this were clearer.
  • I've re-worded as "the BBC production", as I am not sure it was a remake, and what I thought said remake isn't as clear as I thought it was! - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a second read-through soon to see if I notice anything else. Moisejp (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Moisejp, all good here, thanks: I hope I find you similarly well? Both good points, and I've actioned them accordingly. If you have any more, I'd be glad to go through those too when you have time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well too, thanks, Schro! Reading through again, typing up comments as I notice them:

  • "but received an invitation for interview six months later": I would say "an invitation for an interview" but if what you have is good British English, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. It sounds OK to me, but that may be my informal ear. Tim riley, which would you consider to be more correct? - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest to be consistent with uncle Thomas vs. uncle Tom throughout the article. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) "round his neck... around Richter's wrists". For me, "around" sounds a little more formal and correct, but at minimum I'd suggest it could be good to be consistent. I haven't noticed if there are other instances of one or the other in the article. Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bottom two comments now done: I'll let Tim adjudicate on the interview question as I'm really not sure which is correct. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious how the choice of noun or verb affects the choice of preposition. I think I'd write "invitation to an interview" but "was invited for interview". But I think the present "invitation for interview" is perfectly idiomatic BrE, and not theoretically ambiguous as "invitation to interview" (to interview whom?) would be. Tim riley talk 10:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brian Bailey is mentioned as "his biographer, Brian Bailey" in the As lead executioner, 1940–1956 section, then next quite a bit farther down as just Bailey, then shortly after that as Brian Bailey again. It might make more sense to repeat his first name in the second instance (and possibly remind the readers that it's his biographer, since the mention was so much earlier—up to you if you don't think that's too much) and then just by his last name in the third instance, where the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either focusing on him, or with other executioners": A parallel construction would be better here. Maybe "either focusing on him, or on him with other executioners" but it's a bit repetitive. Another way to make it parallel would be ""either focusing on him, or [-ing verb]...". I don't have any perfect ideas off the top of my head, but maybe you have a good idea, or if you don't then you could also possibly leave it as is. Moisejp (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone with "or alongside other executioners": does that work for you, or do you think "or him alongside other executioners" would be better? - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subject of several biographies": Just confirming, sometimes editors use the word "several" loosely. Were there definitely several? (You only give references for two.) Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll stick with several: the two we mention in the same sentence are the main two that focus largely on him, but there are others (including the DNB) including those where several hangmen are covered, (Bailey's Hangmen of England, Fielding's The Executioner's Bible being two of the main ones). - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My last few comments are quite minor, and I am happy to support on prose for this very interesting and well-written article. Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Moisejp - your thoughts (and edits) have been most useful and welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

Just a quick comment for now (more later) this sentence in the Lead seems odd: " He wrote his memoirs in 1974 in which he concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent, although he may have changed his position after that too." I don't understand the "too". Graham Beards (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, Long time no see - I hope all is well with you. Yes, the "too" is utterly superfluous, and I've taken it out now. I'd be delighted as always with any comments you are able to come up with. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read his autobiography a few years ago - let's hope he was a better hangman than he was a writer - and he came across as a cold, spooky man who clearly thought he had been chosen by God. I suppose nice people don't go into the business. This is an excellent article that does not rely too heavily on Pierrepoint's often self-contradictory autobiography. Graham Beards (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Graham, your comments are much appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from SN54129[edit]

  • Re. GBeard's point above of the lead; perhaps "...although he may subsequently have revised his opinion again", or something.
  • I've just struck out the too - let me know if you think that suffices - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The traitor John Amery", "the murderer Ruth Ellis", etc. It sounds rather in Wikipedia' voice; elsewhere you describe what they had done and I think that works better.
  • I've tweaked them both, but by the time Pierrepoint went to work, it was the court's voice that was calling them that - not ours! - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "Britain's top executioner" jars slightly, I think because officially he was "Lead Executioner", rather than "top", and the latter sounds a little like "West Ham's top man"  :)
  • Tweaked, although no-one was officially the "lead" executioner - all executioners were deemed "capable" by the Home Office, with no distinction between them. ("West Ham's top man"- isn't that a contradiction in terms?!) - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer a couple of times to Wandsworth Prison museum (per the source, I suppose?) but it seems not to exist anymore. Our link goes to the prison article, which doesn't mention it, and the exhibits that you mention appear to have ended up in various "Justice Museums" up north (going by the article on Pierrepoint (film), which discusses them).--struck: I do not think I know what I am talking about.
  • I hope it's still there - I was there on Saturday, and a bloody fascinating place it is too! The curator is an absolute mine of information about the place! - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "As lead executioner" section is quite long; have you considered maybe making the chunk about the Nuremberg trials / Austria its own sub-section? It's certainly important enough, and it's probably the thing he's most well-known for outside the UK.
    Cool article though! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 10:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me mull over the split for a while. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks SN - I've dealt with all your points, and I'll mull over the last one to see what would or could work best. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Serial Number 54129 and SchroCat: anything to add here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, forgot about this. I've split the section further into war and post war within the overall "Lead executioner" section. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me too, thanks Ian Rose. I see that SchroCat has obeyed my every earthly command addressed my points nicely ;) it's looking good. Look: sorry to be a pain, but I've just noticed the sentence "After the war, Pierrepoint left the delivery business...he left the delivery business because [QUOTE]". Two things about this just jumped out at me.
i) "delivery" as in "delivery business" is repeated; suggest dropping the second one, viz "He left the business because..." More importantly,
ii) it's out of place where it is, in the middle of his war work—it says, "after the war", so suggest making it the last line of the section; that way it introduces the first line of the next. Or make it the new first line. Ether way, chronologically later.
Sorry, I know this is all about wrapped up! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was an excellent and logical reason for putting it where it was, but I have absolutely no idea what that was now! I've dropped into the next section, where it should make a little more sense. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, dealing with both points together. @FAC coordinators: , I'm all done here. ——SerialNumber54129 15:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Not a number, I'm a free man - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

1a: Support, with the caveat that the points below cover only the first half.

  • also, also, in the lead. Neither is strictly necessary, but please not two. We could add "also" to almost every sentence, otherwise.
  • Done - throughout, not just in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which led" ... "which he continued", within three seconds. "payment, leading to"?
  • English can be ugly: "the family often had financial problems, exacerbated worsened by Henry's heavy drinking", and "that weighed approximately about the same as the prisoner"
  • I've done those in the lead, but I'll go through the rest again to see if any more examples catch my eye. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Execution Box, No 8, containing all the equipment needed for an executioner". Any reason for the first comma? Dot needed. "Execution box No. 8, containing all equipment needed by an executioner"
  • No dot necessary in BrEng, but I've made the point moot by re-wording to "Execution Box number eight, containing..."
  • "would" occurs an awful lot when you recount what used to happen. Any chance of removing it? I see you don't use it here, for the habitual: "He and his assistant arrived the day before the execution". Why not introduce it clearly as the routing (you do that, anyway: "the practice was for Pierrepoint, his assistant and two prison officers to"), then to go plain past indicative? Tony (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one should be cleared up now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Tony, your thoughts most helpful. I've made one quick fix before I have to start work, but I'll return shortly and complete the rest. Much obliged - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews[edit]

Image review

  • At the given size, it's almost impossible to see the outlines on the X-ray
  • File:Albert_Pierrepoint.jpg: looks like this was published elsewhere prior to the Flickr upload, anything to suggest the uploader has the right to release it?
  • I couldn't find anything, but I couldn't find anything to suggest they didn't have the right either - there is no published authorship of the image elsewhere that I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with the claim without anything more to support it - I suspect this might be a case of laundering. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, that's a fair point. I've done a fair amount of searching in the last day and can find nothing to support or deny the Flickr uploader took the image. It does look too small to be an original, however, so I've uploaded the same image as non-free. This is the only one in the article, and is used at the head of the page, so should be OK. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Henry_Pierrepoint.jpg: per the tag, image description should include details of steps taken to try to ascertain author
  • File:The_traitors_Amery_and_Joyce.png: both of the images are dated after 1923, yet there's a pre-1923 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked to have supporting licence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Looks like the McLaughlin cite has a parameter error
  • Be consistent in whether online news articles include accessdates
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria - the sources all tweaked now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Maybe merge the third paragraph into the opening. That way the opening gives a more extended of his career, while the now 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are of his life and views. Reading through, and impressed. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok have read it, brutal stuff, very well told, Support Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ceoil. I'll have a think on the merging of paras. What we have was a move away from the previous version which wasn't great in having names too 'up top', which made the article seem more about them than Pierrepoint, which I think was what concerned Kafka Liz when she made this comment on the talk page back in the early days of the re-write. We may be able to slim the list down to a couple of people if we have it in the opening para, maybe that would work, but we'd be losing some good names from the lead entirely, unless we have two lists of people, which wouldn't work.... let me think to see if there is a way that might work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me. I’m sorry I didn’t help more: finding sources here is a real bear unless you’re in Dublin, which I’m not.
I really miss good libraries. That said, this looks very good, and I am happy to support. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kafka Liz, no problems - it was a bit of a struggle getting some of them - even getting just second hand copies of some of these is a pricey business! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I peer reviewed the article, and my small clutch of (very minor) quibbles was dealt with then. Revisiting the article I think it meets the FA criteria. It is highly readable (in a chilling sort of way), balanced, well and widely referenced and as well illustrated as one could imagine, given the date of the subject. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 22:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim, your thoughts at PR and here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

This nom is going very well and nothing is really holding it back from promotion but given it's been open barely a week I'd like to let it go a bit longer in case anyone else wants their say. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, No problems - there is no rush on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2018 [14].

William Matthews (priest)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article was the first Catholic priest born in British America. He became an influential figure in 19th-century Washington, D.C. and played a significant role in the establishment of Catholicism there. This article has undergone significant revision and honing, including two FACs, a GAN, a peer review, and a GCE copyedit. The last FAC failed due to lack of continued comments. Thank you in advance for any and all input. Ergo Sum 03:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil[edit]

  • Support - Excellently written and researched article. The issue with the last nomination, which was around page numbers for the Durkin book, is now resolved, and the article has improved in several other ways in the interm thanks to the tireless Ergo Sum. Disclosure, I have closely followed this articles progression. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Charles_Carroll_of_Carrollton_-_Michael_Laty.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I've added an archive link to the image's Commons page and added the date it was published. Ergo Sum 19:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

1a: It's not bad.

  • Lead: three alsos. The first is necessary. The second and third should be dumped.
  • "Matthews was the first ordained Catholic priest born in British America and the fifth Catholic priest in the United States." Here's a place you might insert a comma, to stop the momentary query over whether he was born in British American and within it somewhere specific. Instead we realise in reverse that it's a quite new proposition.
  • "in the small village of Port Tobacco in Charles County, located in the Maryland Colony of British America." Why not: "in the small village of Port Tobacco in Charles County in the Maryland Colony of British America."?
  • The agency metaphor might be thought rather precious by some readers: "Matthews' matrilineal ancestry traces its origins to the noble O'Neills of Ireland." Then, the hated "thus". The explicit causality doesn't quite add up. Because his folds were "noble" in Ireland automatically means they were a "prominent, established" family in Maryland?
  • "he witnessed British troops burn part of his family's estate"—it's grammatical, but why not "burning". Supports the vividness of being a witness.
  • Me, I'd put a comma after "Jesuits" to stop the momentary query over whether they became Jesuits and something else too. Seems to work with the sentence size and rhythm.
  • "Although he was a student at St. Mary's Seminary, Matthews often served as a professor of English at Georgetown College because the professors and seminarians at St. Mary's were asked by Bishop John Carroll to assist with the teaching duties of the Jesuits at Georgetown." Opening is ambiguous. You mean though (I prefer the US "though") he was just a student, or though he studied at the Seminary? This was an informal swapping arrangement, was it? "often served as a professor" sounds rather grand. And occasional professor? Check the source: perhaps he just filled in for them when necessary, taking a few classes.

That's down to the end of "Early life". Perhaps an audit of the rest by you? Tip: print it out and go somewhere different with a pen. Tony (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: I've incorporated your suggestions. For your last bullet point, the source does, in fact, use the term "professor." However, in this instance, instructor works just as well. I believe I've reworded the sentence to dispel any confusion. I'll go through the article to see if there are any other unclear phrasings, though the last time I checked, nothing stuck out to me. Ergo Sum 03:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: I've gone through and copyedited the rest of the article. It should read more clearly now. Would you care to go through and see if you spot anything else? Ergo Sum 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: Did you have a moment to give the article another look? Ergo Sum 04:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Returning to his alma mater, Matthews received a professorship in rhetoric at Georgetown in 1796."—it's unusual, the "received". Maybe, but why not plain "took up"? Or "accepted", since "took" is in the subsequent sentence.
  • "On December 23, 1798, he took his minor orders. He was strongly attracted to the Jesuits because of his uncle Ignatius Matthews' membership." I'm being fussy, but do check that the source, in its context using your expertise, is really presenting a good case for causality here ... or was it lazy wrting by John Shae? Not thrilled with the clunky grammar (uncle ... membership) ... and we have to pause to think "ah, membership of the Jesuits, I guess it means".
  • "British America" is linked in the lead and in the infobox and in "Early life". Do we really need yet another one?
  • "Matthews spoke with General Robert Ross and persuaded him not to destroy the church." There was no cell-phone texting in those days. Nor emailing. Can't it be "Matthews persuaded ..."?
    • Reducing the phrase to your suggested one would not quite convey the same idea. One can persuade another without speaking with them, especially in this situation. One could gesture, place obstacles, board up the church, or take any number of other hypothetical measures that are different from speaking to persuade. Ergo Sum 02:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Matthews gestured and persuaded with General Robert Ross not to destroy the church." Really? I'm surprised you didn't argue that he might have persuaded Ross in writing, which is an alternative slightly less unlikely. One of the problems with the current wording is that there are two clauses, two actions: speaking, and then persuading. But you meant them as one action, right? So it's clumsy at the moment. I don't know the context as explained in the source, but I'm sure the wording is better than this. Tony (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try not to scratch the "also" itch unless it adds something: "He also performed". AND there's yet another one soon after. The readers will understand that you're listing things. They're cool about it. Does "pipe organ" really need a link?
  • Repetitions and possible fluff: "During his time as pastor, Matthews purchased a pipe organ for the church from an Episcopal church in Dumfries, Virginia; it is believed to have been the first organ in the District of Columbia." Your para begins with "During his tenure as pastor,". I let that one go; but not twice, please. "As pastor, ...". "...Virginia – probably the first ...".
  • "... with establishing the second Catholic parish in Washington, St. Peter's Church." Consider using a colon, not a comma. Or "to be named".
  • "While construction started on a building for the church"—Seems weird. "Matthews was to ensure the project was brought under control and completed." Now I'm confused. Establishing a parish and building the church: when and when, name and name. This is a messy section. This is also wavering and confusing: "Matthews did not want St. Peter's Church to be governed by lay trustees because the issue of trusteeism was still active in the United States.[29] He was opposed to the control of church properties by lay trustees, which resulted in his later selection for an ecclesiastical mission in Philadelphia. The church was eventually completed in 1821." Huh?

"to be able to use the"—remove three words. Comma before "but", I think.

It's long and I'm tired. I find lots of wording that needs tightening up, and worse, clarifying. Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: I've gone ahead and made those changes. I do wonder, however, whether these are issues of syntactic propriety or personal preference. The phraseology didn't seem faulty to the copy editor who recently reviewed the article, to Ceoil, or to myself (though, admittedly, I am biased). Ergo Sum 02:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, probably better that you don't cast aspersions on others here. "syntactic propriety"—too intellectual for me to understand. I've provided reasons for every point: is there something that's not crystal clear? Tony (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: I don't mean to cast aspersions at all or do anything of the sort. I very much appreciate your comments. I was merely suggesting that reasonable people might have different opinions of what is concise, clear writing without either being incorrect with respect to the rules of grammar and syntax. Do you not agree? Ergo Sum 13:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, English-speakers usually do agree on proposed improvements to a text—despite the big, baggy nature of the language and its spread around the planet. I'm interested to know where you think my criticisms/suggestions wouldn't improve the clarity and simplicity of the text. And I think there's a misunderstanding in your comment: "might have different opinions of what is concise, clear writing without either being incorrect with respect to the rules of grammar and syntax". Most flabby, redundant wording is grammatical. Good style involves simplifying the grammar and tightening the flab. Tony (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken. Ergo Sum 00:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a single object should be be fatal; Tony's comments are mostly correct, and have thus far been met. Note I am giving this another top to bottom revisit, based on his general suggestions. Ergo is of course free to revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I will do the same. Ergo Sum 15:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1 and Ceoil: I just went through and did another thorough copyedit of the article. I believe I've addressed any of the specific issues you've pointed out. From my perspective, it looks to be in good shape. Ergo Sum 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy:

  • "In the mid 1870s, to allow for construction of a new church, his body was exhumed along with the rest of those in the cemetery. It was transferred to a new coffin on October 31 that year, and it was observed that the body was remarkably intact." Hyphenate mid-. What is "that year"? The remarkably intact ... this assumes you've told us it was out of the ground for some time. I'm confused.
  • "Upon his death, Matthews bequeathed monies to St. Vincent's Asylum, enabling the construction of ...". So his ghost did the bequeathing (why not just remove the opening phrase)? And the wording leaves open whether his bequest for specifically for the construction, or whether it was given to the Asylum to do what it wanted with. "... Asylum for construction of" is one clear wording, if that's the intended meaning. the construction ... the construction: I'd dump the first "the". There's a surprising amount of detail about the death. Why?

And:

  • "Matthews had a particularly strong spiritual commitment, and he was especially fond of"—kill one word.
  • "For this reason, ..." and "The following year, ..."—you don't have to insert a comma after such short opening phrases. But you can. Judge by the rhythm, bumpiness, clarity.

Overall, it's reasonable. I won't oppose. But in my view it was underprepared for nomination. Tony (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Thanks for the comments. I've made the changes you suggest. As for the relationship between his bequest and the construction, the source doesn't make clear the causality, so I've left the wording as is. Do you feel comfortable enough to support the nomination or would you rather not vote? Ergo Sum 15:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose. Tony (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Display name 99[edit]

Priesthood

  • Can we add more detail on his time as a professor of rhetoric? I'd like to make the first few sentences a separate section if possible and I want to see if we can put more information there. It's a little bit short right now for a FA nominee. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-read the source and looked for others, but I don't find any more detail on his professorship. If the Durkin book doesn't go into detail, it's unlikely that any source would. Ergo Sum 19:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Church

  • The fifth priest in the ENTIRE country? Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, fifth Catholic priest. Ergo Sum 19:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that Matthews was ordained in 1780 by Bishop John Carroll. The problem is that Carroll did not become a bishop until 1790, and in the Catholic Church, only bishops can ordain priests. Looking at the dates right above that, are you sure this isn't a typing error of some sort? Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for catching that. That was a major typo. I've corrected it. Ergo Sum 19:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the original building? Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which building are you referring to? Ergo Sum 19:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the original St. Patrick's building. After looking at it again I think I see the meaning clearer now, but it would be nice to know why he decided to replace the original building at St. Patrick's. Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reason in the Warner book and added it to the relevant area; the original church was too modest. Ergo Sum 05:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have numbers for baptisms, conversions, etc? Is there any more detail on the slave purchase that can be added? Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any sources that concretize the numbers. They all tend to say "a lot". As for the slave purchase, that's really all that it says in the Durkin book. I'd be surprised if any such records exist going into detail on these things. Ergo Sum 19:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Church

  • Any idea why he objected to the transfer of Norfolk to the Diocese of Richmond? Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Display name 99:Presumably because he was a priest in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and was well-connected with its leadership. However, this is just my speculation. I find no sources that give a reason for this. Ergo Sum 17:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of Ann Mattingly

  • Please state and link the name of the pope. Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did Matthews live when he was pastor of both St. Patrick's and St. Peter's? How far are the two churches from each other? Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unclear, but given that he was the pastor of St. Patrick's and that was his primary duty (and also given his reluctance to live at Georgetown even though he was the president), he most probably lived at St. Patrick's. The two churches are not far from each other at all. Even in his day, it would surely have taken less than an hour between them. Ergo Sum 17:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown College

  • What is the evidence that he quit his position as Director of Georgetown in 1815 vs. later? Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Curran book says he served until 1815. I can't seem to locate the claim that he may have served later, but I will doube check to see if it is in that book or elsewhere. Ergo Sum 17:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the duties of Director v. President? Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A director is just a member of the board of directors. The president is the head of the school. Ergo Sum 17:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could we say "member of the Board of Directors?" Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fixed. Ergo Sum 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just another note: I'm not trying to be rude, but why is there so little information available on him? This is easily the shortest FA nominee that I've ever involved with, and I'm wondering why my questions (which seem fairly basic) are so difficult to answer. Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Display name 99: I don't find it rude; it's a legitimate question. I don't know if I would agree that there's little information on him. Considering that he lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in what was then a small, backwater city and that he wasn't a major political figure or bishop, I'd say there's actually a surprising amount of information that has been preserved about his life. While there very well may be other primary information out there, pretty much anything of significance that has been stated in secondary sources about Matthews has been included in the article. Answers to your questions might just have been lost to history. Also, I'm not too familiar with the typical length of FAs, but the article is currently longer than today's TFA (70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)). Ergo Sum 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. This article has 26 kB or 4,332 words. That one has 31 kB or 5,018 words. Display name 99 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Ironside an Episcopal priest at the time? Was he won before and then he converted to Catholicism? I'm not certain from the language in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No to the former and yes to the latter. Ergo Sum 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know more about his political leanings? Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of an above answer, not really. The only mention of his politics comes from Durkin and that's all that he says. Ergo Sum 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove double-link to Andrew Jackson under "Return to Washington." Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: Thank you. Your comments have been helpful. Do you have any opinion on whether this FAC should go forward? Ergo Sum 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • Planning to post some notes here soon, with the disclosure that I am an alumnus of Georgetown. ceranthor 16:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became influential in the formation of Catholicism in Washington, D.C" - not entirely sure "formation of Catholicism" actually means anything; maybe establishment?
  • "and oversaw the continuity of the school during suppression and financial insecurity." - religious suppression I assume - implied but still probably worth adding that adjective
  • "Matthews received from his parents a sizable inheritance that he drew from throughout his life for the advancement of the Church.[5]" - not a fan of this sort of pretentious phrasing... why not just avoid the inversion and say "From his parents, Matthews received a sizable..."
  • "This made him one of the last young Americans to be sent to the English school at Liége.[5] " - presumably the students there were all relatively young? why is that detail worth mentioning?
  • "While a student at Georgetown in 1796, he was chosen to be the first to greet President George Washington upon his visit to the college.[8] " - "the first" among whom? Among the student body? Any idea why?
    • Done. The source doesn't specify how/why he was chosen. Ergo Sum 00:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was not an especially successful professor, as his lectures were described as monotonous.[12] " - that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a "successful" professor IMO... rephrase? What does the source actually describe?
    • The source does describe him as "not successful." However, in context, it seems to be a bit of editorializing by the author, since the only evidence provided is the monotony. So, I've removed the successful part. Ergo Sum 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matthews became a subdeacon on August 22, 1799, and was ordained as a transitional deacon on March 26, 1800.[13]" - don't need a comma before "and was"
  • "This new St. Patrick's was consecrated by Archbishop John Carroll and the mass was concelebrated by Leonard Neale.[8]" - I'd add a comma before "and the mass"
  • "and served as a liaison between the bishop and Catholic institutions and priests in Washington." - I'd add "he" between "and" and "served", or I'd lose the comma before "and served"
    • Second part done. I think "he" might be redundant there. Ergo Sum 00:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would have provided some weightiness to Maréchal's petitions but it is unclear whether he ever made use of this arrangement.[34]" - comma before "but it is unclear"
  • "Matthews responded by criticizing the priests who exaggerated the story, but described the event to the National Intelligencer as a miracle.[35]" - same note as above; I'd add "he" or lose the comma
    • I would reiterate my previous comment. The comma is unnecessary because it separates an independent clause, but I think "he" would be redundant here. Ergo Sum 00:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matthews' relationship with Anthony Kohlmann, a subsequent president of Georgetown, was particularly difficult.[39]" - elaborate... how so?
    • The source doesn't elaborate on this. However, it may have been related to the disagreements between the two described under Recovery of Ann Mattingly. Ergo Sum 00:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wedding took place on November 29, 1832 at the White House,[77] and signified the first Catholic ceremony in the history of the White House.[78] " - I would remove the comma before "and signified"
  • Stylistically, I think any instance where the refs are not in ascending order (ie. [81][26] instead of [26][81]) should be fixed

Happy to support once my comments are addressed. This is a well-written article. ceranthor 16:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments. They were very helpful. With the exception of two (which concerned the same issue of commas), I've implemented them. Ergo Sum 00:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ceranthor 12:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Looks like we need a source review for reliability and formatting, unless I've missed something -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Can you explain why those are necessary? It seems that the reservations above have been addressed. Ergo Sum 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A check that the references are reliable and that the citations and sources are formatting consistently and correctly is a requirement of all FACs -- again, if a reviewer has done that and I missed it above, feel free to point it out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Must that be done by a reviewer, or can that be done by the nominator? Ergo Sum 00:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's done by someone independent, i.e. a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Will list it. Ergo Sum 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: It appears a source review is now complete. Ergo Sum 20:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I won't necessarily hold up promotion over this, several duplinks in the article need rationalising -- you can use this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about citation format[edit]

@Seraphim System, Ceoil, Display name 99, and Ceranthor: I recently reorganized the references section by moving all books and journal articles to the bibliography section, to make the citations section cleaner and easier to read. This leaves only short citations and citations using {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} in the citations section. I am not aware of any policy regarding segregation of full- and short-form citations. This was also discussed in this article's last FAC nomination. However, for the sake of streamlining citations, I am wondering whether it might be better to move all full-form citations to the bibliography section, leaving only short-form citations in the citations section. Any thoughts? Ergo Sum 03:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After I quick spotcheck I this looks pretty good. I'm not sure how moving the long form citations should be done but the citations sections of my FAs have always been a mix of mostly Harvard citations and a few citations in the cite web form to different webpages. Yours is basically the same. So like I said, after a quick spot check it definitely looks to be FA quality. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: The only reason I ask is because if there are some long-form citations in the Citations section, then technically the Bibliography doesn't list ALL the works cited. I'm not sure if the norm on Wikipedia is to consider a bibliography a listing of all printed works cited (the traditional way) or all works cited no matter their medium (the more modern way). Ergo Sum 05:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I've always done it the same way as you on my nominees and it was fine. Display name 99 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sounds good. Ergo Sum 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I usually go with "Sources" (used) and "further reading" (not used). To me, bibliography implies exhaustiveness. "Further reading" brings issues however, for larger scope articles it is redundant, for smaller it may indicate lack of comprehensiveness. This is not good enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I don't have a strong preference for sources vs. bibliography. However, by definition, a bibliography is just a list of all the sources used in creating a work. Ergo Sum 02:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

In-lines and full references all formatted correctly. Spot checks to follow.

  • Cruz 1991 needs a pg number as is a book
  • The Devitt 1912 journal also, but i see the problem, the reproducing source doesn't give the pg nrs. Is "New Advent" a RS? I see "Copyright © 2017 by Kevin Knight" at the foot of the page, and its front page is highly political and partisan; is this essentially a blog? I am extremely weary of keeping this, to the point of opposing.
    • I don't know anything about the other content on New Advent, but the portion that is referenced is just a translation of The Catholic Encyclopedia, which was a reputable early 20th-century encyclopedia. I could try to track down other websites that also provide free access to the encyclopedia, but I don't really see why that's necessary. Ergo Sum 00:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its home page carries the banner "Trump administration to strengthen religious liberty rules on birth control, homosexuality". Can we find a better publisher, one more specialised in church history. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I've replaced all references to the Catholic Encyclopedia via New Advent with references to the original encyclopedia via Google Books. Ergo Sum 01:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I would make that a habit on your other pages. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll say this again, for things like "JSTOR 40066838 – via JSTOR." you have already said "JSTOR", no need to say "from..."
    • Done. That one had slipped through the cracks. Ergo Sum 00:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Washington, D.C" & later "City of Washington, D.C"
    • Where are you talking about? Footnote [c] explains why "City of Washington" is used in certain places, since at the time there was a distinction between the District of Columbia and the City of Washington, which is no longer made. Ergo Sum 00:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was a just a question. I am not american so it seems ok to ask. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly, an acceptable question. City of Washington and Washington, D.C. are completely interchangeable today, though the latter is more common. Historically, they were not interchangeable, hence the footnote where the distinction is appropriate. Ergo Sum 01:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but you are citing in 2018. We dont say: Dublin (in yesterdays British Kingdom). Any region could say similar; distinguishing here seems pointless. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, either style is perfectly acceptable to today refer to Washington, D.C. I rephrased one use to be extra clear. The remaining references to "City of Washington" refer to the historical portion of Washington, D.C. that was once known as the City of Washington. The distinction is quite relevant, since there was no such thing as a unified District of Columbia at the time Matthews lived. His church was in the City of Washington, the university was in Georgetown; while today they are part of the same city, they were not at the time. For an analogy, see London vs. City of London. Ergo Sum 02:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for explanation. Sorry to be so slow, but happy now. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To note a lot of the sources are 19th c, which is to be expected. That being said, they should only be used to establish fact, and any opinion is likely highly dated and should be fully attributed AND in quotes.

Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you provide an example of where an opinion is stated? Ergo Sum 00:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is just making a general point, and covering off, in case it comes up in another source review. I dont see evidence. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Ergo Sum 01:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo, having thought more about this, I really dont like mixing sources used and not used in a general biblo section - it gives the impression that the article has wider breath of research than it might actually have. Have moved D'Arcy (1861) [And for that ref, what is the value of [15], if its not in the in-lines], can you look at the others and untangle pls. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I'm not quite sure what you mean. The William D'Arcy Haley book is referenced inline (which I understood to mean it should always go in the bibliography section). There are no cites in the References section that do not correspond to an inline reference. Ergo Sum 00:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, my searching in the in-lines was for D'Arcy. Doh! Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I see. I believe I have addressed all of your above concerns. Ergo Sum 01:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do some spot checks shortly. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am finding use of google snippets eg. Not a good sign, unless you have the actual book, in which case why are you linking to rather unhelpful snippets. A worry is that the article is built from weaker sources, seemingly reinforced by easy to find snippets. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Can you explain what you mean by snippets? Anything that I've added to the article was directly taken from either a physical book or a book found online (and referenced accordingly). Ergo Sum 02:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo, by snippets I mean that for me, the google books link renders as scan of a tiny section of the page with only a few words visible. I suppose it comes down to citation style; I know you are highly diligent in research, but by linking to snippet views you are undermining this position. I would remove all the GB links all together. Ceoil (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and forgot to say - spot checks done, and no issues found. I take Ergo's word that he/she has the actual books or access to the full on line text, so the source review is closed, except for "Advent" and the linking thing, which may be viewed as a matter of style, but would urge him/her to address. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Thanks for the thorough review. As for the Google Books links, I only have them in there as convenience links. The immediate area of the book that is linked to is not the totality of the book consulted, just the part that is most immediately relevant to the associated inline short cite. Ergo Sum 15:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2018 [16].

SMS Wettin[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another entry in the battleships of Germany series, this ship had a fairly uneventful career, as far as these things go. Obsolescent by the outbreak of World War I, the ship spent the first year in the Baltic Sea but she saw no action against the Russian fleet. By late 1915, the Germans were having serious crew shortages, so older ships like Wettin were removed from active service to free up men for more important activities. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "The exercises concluded on 12 September ... concluded": Avoid concluded ... concluded. You could drop this first sentence entirely if you like.
    • Cut most of the first sentence and merged the date into the preceding one.
  • "The squadron departed Vlissingen until 20 July, for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet." I don't know what "until 20 July" means here.
    • That got changed by a copyedit during the A-class review - don't know why they did that.
  • "In consequence of the British visit, the 1905 autumn maneuvers were shortened considerably. It consisted of exercises in the North Sea from 6 to 13 September.": Something doesn't sound right.
    • See if how I reworded it works for you.
  • "{{illm|Kopparstenarna|sv|Kopparstenarna}}": Either a stub or a red link would work, preferably a stub. Same goes for Schilksee.
    • Is there a reason not to use the interlanguage link?
      • Would you rather have that discussion in this review or somewhere else? - Dank (push to talk)
        • I've created stubs for both locations. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist A-Class earlier this year and had precious little to quibble about then. A few comments:

  • Imperial Diet as a translation of Reichstag doesn't work for me, I would have thought parliament was the common term? You use parliament later.
  • link ceremonial ship launching
    • Done
  • "The squadron departed Vlissingen until 20 July"? on?
    • Fixed above, per Dan's comment - this was something that got garbled during a copyedit.
  • drop the comma from "cruiser, Danzig"
    • Fixed.

That's me done. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All the sources are of high quality and reliable, standard reference works on German WWI and WWII warships. No formatting issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:SMS Wettin NH 47897.jpg - looks good, though the caption does not use a hyphen for Wittelsbach class when the main article does. Also, does line drawing need a hyphen? "Line-drawing of the Wittelsbach class"
    • I think you're referring to the hyphen for the image below, not this one. The hyphen is used when "Wittelsbach" and "class" form a compound adjective (meaning, "Wittelsbach-class" is an adjective that describes "battleship"), not when "Wittelsbach" is an adjective describing the noun "class". Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • English is a tricky one. You are right, I meant for the below, and sounds good. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk)
  • File:Wittelsbach class linedrawing.png - what is the source country and reason that this cannot be PD there?
    • Brassey's was published in the UK, and we'd need to know the name of the illustrator and when he died to know it's PD there. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you include the page number in the source? Just wanted to do a sanity check that the illustrator is unknown. Used up all my phone data trying to find it (my fault). Kees08 (Talk)
        • It's there already - Plate 40 - Brassey's doesn't number the line-drawing pages in sequence with the rest of the work. They're in the end of Section II (after page 345). Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Europe 1911.jpg - looks good

Let me know on the second one. Kees08 (Talk) 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you be able to add alt text? Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 06:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Lead, criterion 1a:

  • "She was built by Schichau Seebeckwerft, in Danzig."—Such a short sentence: is the comma necessary?
    • No, removed
  • "Wettin was laid down in October 1899, and completed October 1902."—Elliding "was" doesn't work here: "and Wettin completed ..." was my first parsing, and I had to reverse back then. Again, is the comma necessary?
    • I have repeatedly been told that repeating the helping verb in constructions like this was not necessary (or had other copyeditors remove it, as with Dan in another article), and now you're telling me the opposite.
      • Don't you see the momentary ambiguity? I spelt it out above. It's not a "helping" verb. You need to insert it. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her sister ships were Wittelsbach, Zähringen, Schwaben and Mecklenburg. They were the first capital ships built under the Navy Law of 1898. The ship was armed with a main battery of four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns and had a top speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)."—Let's take advantage of the nice short sentences to merge two: "Her sister ships—Wittelsbach, Zähringen, Schwaben and Mecklenburg—were the first capital ships built under the Navy Law of 1898. The ship was armed with a main battery of four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns and had a top speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)." You just mentioned four ships. Which one is "The ship" in the last sentence?
    • Done, that works for me.
  • "the majority of her career"—you're not counting numbers here, so why not "most of"?
    • Works for me.
  • "The training exercises conducted during this period provided ..." — this period is "most of her career", is it? And I presume that "most of" is co-extensive with the "extensive annual training". Given that, why not just: "The training exercises provided ..."?
    • Sure
  • "The ship was decommissioned in June 1911 as newer dreadnought battleships began to enter service but was reactivated for duty as a gunnery training ship between ..." — I'm not an expert, so you're writing for my type. I suddenly thought "newer" meant that Wettin was a dreadnought. You see the problem? It was a "pre-dreadnought", I had to cast back to see at the top. Would it work without "newer"?
    • I suppose, though I don't read it that way.
      • Obviously you didn't "read it that way", or you'd not have written it thus. You need to write for readers, not yourself. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By late 1915, crew shortages and the threat from British submarines forced the Kaiserliche Marine to withdraw older battleships, like Wettin, from active service." The sentence isn't so long that you're looking for optional comma opportunities. Would it flow more smoothly without them?
    • Those were introduced during a copyedit by another editor. I preferred it without them, TBH.
  • "The ship was stricken from the navy list"—should it be "struck"?
    • I think "stricken" is correct in this sense - see, for instance, this. It's also commonly used, for example here, here, and here.
  • I'm done fighting MilHist about the use of the female for ships, so I'll have to endure this. But it's THICK with "she" and "her". Any opportunities to substitute with "Wettin", "the ship", etc would be welcome. Here's one ... I've substituted the first word and ellided the second "she": "Wettin saw limited duty in the Baltic Sea, including the Battle of the Gulf of Riga in August 1915, though saw no combat with Russian forces." Concerning that sentence: it's pulling in opposite directions: "limited", then "including"—I don't know how to fix it, or whether it's possible, so no big deal. Do you feel that positive–negative tension too?
    • See if how I reworded that works for you.

To start with, audit comma usage (your writing needs to focus on this ... look at sentence lengths and existing density of commas ... look at the rhythm ... say it in your mind's voice ... ensure no ambiguity whatever your comma choices). Less of a problem, but do check your back-refs are unambiguous (she, it, which, they, her, them, etc). Topic is a bit grey (this happened, then that happened, then ...), and almost bereft of any personal aspect ... or drama. I suppose the sources don't provide scope for that, and it's not an FAC criterion.

Is the rest of the text better-written than the lead? I'm not happy with this. You're a significant editor in this field, so I'd like to see you attend to some technical things in your writing. Tony (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I rewrote the article, I didn't pay enough attention to the lead - I should hope the rest is better. I'd suggest that some of the things you're pointing out here are subjective (seeing as other copy-editors disagree - as is apparently the case with your second point - not to mention the comma issue, which was to some extent introduced during the copy-edit that was done as part of the Milhist A-class review). I suspect we won't always all be happy with a given piece of prose, but I do appreciate your help in tightening things up. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd suggest that some of the things you're pointing out here are subjective"—playing reviewers and people you call "copy-editors" off against each other never works well. It's a put-down. I point out technical issues, so I doin't react well being told that it's just my opinion. I'm not supporting at the moment. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing reviewers off each other, I'm just pointing out that you appear to be criticizing based on your own opinions. You think one thing, others think other things – that's life, move on. And for someone complaining about put-downs and not reacting well to being told something is just your opinion, I suggest you re-read some of the things you've said in this review. I've been writing FAs for a decade, I don't need condescending lectures. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that drops from my lips is my opinion. Goodness, this is like the old days, 2005–07, when nominators were routinely rude to reviewers. I see you're an admin, which suggests that you're used to pushing editors around and getting away with it. And clearly you don't like criticism of your writing. Please don't bring that behaviour here. Let's do some spot-checks a little further down, where you claim to have paid more "attention" to the writing.

  • "After the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) ordered the four Brandenburg-class battleships in 1889, a combination of budgetary constraints, opposition in the Reichstag (Imperial Diet), and a lack of a coherent fleet plan delayed the acquisition of further battleships."—It's a long, winding sentence. Consider dropping "the" before "acquisition", which would trim just a little and work nicely.
  • "The law authorized the last two ships of the class, as well as the five ships of the Wittelsbach class, the first class of battleship built under Tirpitz's tenure."—authorized what? Their launching? Their crewing? Their design? Their funding? Their construction? "Built" occurs late and doesn't really clarify what the first proposition is about. The specs are well-handled.
  • "under construction number 676. She was ordered under the contract name "D", as a new unit for the fleet."—I hope this means something to all naval historians, and isn't jargon imported from early-20th-century Germany that is rather exclusive. It could almost be footnoted, but that's up to you.
  • Another possible simplification (please look for these opportunities throughout): "In August 1902, a crew of 60 men took the ship to Kiel for sea trials, which were supervised by KAdm Hunold von Ahlefeld."
  • "concluded with cruises"—c c ... consider the simpler, more germanic "ended with cruises".
  • "while the other units went to other ports"—I can't see how to avoid other other. But you might have a way.
  • Caption: "Map of the North and Baltic Seas in 1911". We might write that in 2050 after climate change has raised sea levels, but not at this time.

Oppose for 1a. To make it worse, the nominator is continually rude and appears to be unwilling to cooperate on improving the prose. Tony (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? I don't think further interaction here is going to be productive. Parsecboy (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take your staggering lack of self-awareness somewhere else? I'm rather unhappy that this FAC has gotten derailed by your seeming inability to interact in a collegial manner. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guys can we try and take things down a notch? Nate, I value Tony's recent re-engagement with the FAC process -- we've all probably become a little complacent in our writing because editors with his eye for detail haven't routinely been reviewing our noms, so the way he challenges us on prose can be a shock to the system. It's not meant to be personal -- I've talked to Tony at several meet-ups and it's not his way. I include myself when it comes to possible complacency, and I look forward (albeit with a certain trepidation!) to him giving my prose the once-over next time I nominate an article here. BTW Tony, I've worked with Parsecboy since forever at MilHist, and I've never seen him unduly throw his weight around as an admin. I hope we can just focus on article assessment and improvement, which is why we're here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with my writing being challenged - what I do have a problem with is someone complaining about me being "continually rude" (when I haven't been) while at the same time being incredibly condescending and insulting. If Tony wants to collapse all this and start over, I'm fine with that. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you don't seem to realise how not to annoy (and insult) reviewers; some introspection would be helpful, but I don't want to know about it. To turn the tables, I don't like to see such a skilled Wikipedian who has worked so hard on a piece feeling upset—that is contrary to the purpose of the FAC process. Your contributions to milhist are admirable. Tony (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clikity's support[edit]

Weak Support: The article meets the criteria. The prose is okay for FA right now, but it will need a bit of a cleanup later. The prose is okay for FA, but it's not very engaging. It effectively communicates what you need to say in the article, but it has room for improvement. Clikity (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it's OK. But I don't understand: if it will need a clean-up later, it's not OK now. Tony (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • I was one of the reviewers at A class, so let's see what strikes me now.
  • Suggest deleting German in the opening sentence and adding Imperial German Navy in parentheses after Kaiserliche Marine
    • See how it's worded now. I don't like to translate "Kaiserliche Marine" as "Imperial German Navy" since that's not strictly accurate.
  • Not gonna get into comma usage here as I'm still not entirely sure what's what.
  • the ship was mobilized with her sisters as IV Battle Squadron Perhaps, "the Wittlesbach-class ships were mobilized and designated as IV Battle Squadron"
    • Done
  • Link Baltic Sea, training ship on first use.
    • Done
  • went on one major operation being the Awkward, perhaps simply "played a minor role in..."
    • Done
  • Gotta run, more in a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russian battleship, Slava No comma here
    • Fixed - I need to go back through the copyedit done at Milhist and look at commas that were inserted there.
  • Link Riga on first use--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2018 [17].

John Glenn[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7, Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six Distinguished Flying Crosses, eighteen Air Medals. First American to orbit the Earth. Four-time Ohio senator. Oldest person to fly in space.

This article covers the good and the bad of his life. The article failed an A-class review, failed a FAC, passed an A-class review, and is back at FAC. I have greatly expanded his Senate career, got some images from the Senate Historical Office, and used a larger variety of sources. If you took a look at it last time or not, I would love for you to take a look at it this time! Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Here are my thoughts up to the start of the political career:

  • "He was one of the Mercury Seven, military test pilots selected in 1959 by NASA as the United States' first astronauts. " "the nation's" rather than "the United States' is easier.
  • "Glenn quit college to voluntarily enlist in the U.S. Army Air Corps.[21] Never called to duty, he enlisted as a U.S. Navy aviation cadet in March 1942." this is saying the same thing twice maybe three times. I would simplify to "Glenn quit college and enlisted as a U.S. Navy aviation cadet in March 1942"
    No it isn't. He enlisted in the Army, but was not called up. He then enlisted in the Navy. Your version skips his enlistment in the Army. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my bad. I might still cut "voluntarily", it seems implied.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and learned that he had qualified for a regular commission.[30][23]" I don't know your views on refs in order.
    • I think they should always be in order, so that a bot could go through and clean up every page. Suppose that's neither here nor there... Kees08 (Talk)
      There was an automated script for it. The references tend to move around during the editing process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest running the script as there are at least two out of order that I saw.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what the script is? Otherwise I will do it manually. Kees08 (Talk)
Do it manually. There was a lot of angst about it. Some editors were opposed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn, wrote Tom Wolfe" I might mention that it was in The Right Stuff.
  • "Shepard turned to Glenn and said: "Well, I'm glad they got that out of the way."[82]" I've read other versions of this ...
    • Hmm, I will see what I can find. Remember where you saw? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "A portion of the astronauts' training was in space science, but it had a practical aspect, which included scuba diving and work in simulators.[69]" Possibly rephrase, I think the reader might struggle with this sentence.
    • Rephrased to this: 'A portion of the astronauts' training was in the classroom, where they learned space science. The group also received hands-on training, which included scuba diving and work in simulators.' - I could also leave a footnote explaining what a simulator is, because that may not be clear to the layman. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Note to self/other reviewers: I found out that this particular portion of NASA's site is not reliable, per Colin Burgess (I can find a link to that if desired). I will go through and replace the citations. My mistake. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn was a backup pilot for Shepard and Grissom" "a" or "the"?
  • It might be worth mentioning how close Glenn was to his target on splashdown, since this was sometimes an issue with Mercury.
    • Heh, I think I had this in there and someone removed it for excessive detail...I agree though, will find and add this. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Woops, just remembered it is in the footnote. Would you like me to bring it back to the text or leave it as a footnote? Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Wehwalt: Do you have a preference here, footnote or in prose? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "honoring Charles Lindbergh and other dignitaries.[90]" I would say "heroes", or if that's too strong "popular heroes" for "dignitaries".
    • I am fine with heroes; also considered American heroes since they were not necessarily universally considered heroes. Leaving as heroes unless someone wants it changed. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "His military and space awards were stolen from his home in 1978, and remarked that he would keep this medal in a safe." The second part of this sentence lacks a subject."
    • Added
  • The women in space and the later awards matters that come close after the 1962 spaceflight feel a bit out of place, and it would be worth considering moving them elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have considered removing it from the article completely but decided it was important enough to leave, considering he made a speech to congress about it. Chronologically it fits there, and I am hesitant to put it in a separate 'Views' section since that view likely changed later in his career. Long-winded way to ask: any place you recommend for it to go? Kees08 (Talk)
    • For the later awards, I could move them back to the Legacy section, I was trying something new. The legacy section has several paragraphs of awards that are won for specific missions, so I decided to move it inline with the mission, and leave the more general awards in the Legacy section. So do you think I should move them to the Legacy section unless they were won soon after the mission? Kees08 (Talk)
My view is a "Legacy" section should be about the effect the person had on the world. I would suggest viewing some Legacy sections on FAs to get an idea. They aren't always easy to write and require a little more than just putting in facts, but a little more analytical. Glenn undoubtedly inspired many people to take up space (so to speak) or sciences, his legislative service no doubt inspired others. This is separate from a section on awards and honors won.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could put them as a list in a quote box.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I like them where they are. Let me know if you feel strongly about moving the information. Kees08 (Talk)

Thanks for the review; it is a very, very long article and I appreciate it. I will address other comments later. Hawkeye7, would you be able to address the second bullet point? If you are too busy I will make an effort. Also, as a note, the political career section will be the roughest. I rewrote it after the first A-class comments, after the first FAC, and again after the A-class comments. If you could look at it with an extra critical eye I would appreciate it. Thanks again for your time. Kees08 (Talk)

OK, resuming.
  • "Glenn was in consideration to be promoted to full colonel," "in consideration to be promoted" seems wordy. Is there a term used in the military for this?
    • Calling all Hawkeye7s Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Hawkeye7: Repinging, is there a term for this? Kees08 (Talk)
      No, but I re-worded the text to: "Glenn was on the list of potential candidates to be promoted to full colonel, but he notified the Commandant of the Marine Corps of his intention to retire so that another Marine could receive the promotion." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Glenn not seek the Senate seat that was up in 1968?
  • "During that time period, he opened a Holiday Inn with a friend, near Disney World. " Disney World did not open until the 1970s.
    • The book says "...near the site of the new Disney World south of Orlando, Florida..." It does not specify the year, but chronologically it is right before he starts talking about 1967. Construction for the resort began in 1967, so maybe they built and opened it before the park opened in 1971? Not really sure what to do about this, based on what I have in his book. Kees08 (Talk)
I would let it stand as is, on consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn was with him in Los Angeles when he was assassinated in 1968," First, I think it unnecessary to state the year, given it is in the previous sentence. Second, I think a little more detail on exactly where Glenn was relative to RFK at the time of the shooting would be interesting to the reader. One's presence at a major assassination is worthy of a couple of sentences of detail, if possible.
    • I think I could write a whole section on his relationship with Kennedy. I added more detail of where Glenn was, that he went to the hospital with them, and that he took the children home to Virginia. Thought about adding that he was one of two people to inform the children of Kennedy's death, and that in his memoir he said it was one of the hardest things he had ever done, but had decided not to because I was adding a lot of detail to that section. I can add that in if you think I should though. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "4:1" I would make sure MOS is cool with that or if it should be 4–1 (or some other dash).
  • "Metzenbaum later lost the general election to Robert Taft Jr.[1] " I should cut "later"
  • "Glenn continued to remain active in the political scene" I would shorten to "Glenn remained active in the political scene"
  • "In 1974, Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by President Nixon. The Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, resigned in protest of the firing during the Saturday Night Massacre." It was more that Richardson resigned rather than fire Cox as Nixon had demanded. And it was 1973.
    • A little embarrassed at how bad I messed up there. Fixed. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Ohio Senator William Saxbe, elected in 1968, was appointed Attorney General, which freed up an Ohioan seat. In the wake of the new vacancy, Ohio's governor John Gilligan needed to appoint a new senator. Metzenbaum and Glenn both vied for the position." This could be shortened and some duplicative prose eliminated, "Ohio Senator William Saxbe, elected in 1968, was appointed Attorney General. Both Glenn and Metzenbaum sought the vacated seat, which was to be filled by Governor Gilligan." or similar.
  • "with the thought Glenn would ascend to governor when Gilligan was elected to a higher position." I would put a "that" before "Glenn". Glenn's reaction seems a bit extreme, just from the text of what I'm reading, which seems innocent enough.
    • True. The Democratic party backed Gilligan's proposal, which is where the bossism claims came from. Added that in there, as well as Glenn's proposal for a solution. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "in January" "in January 1974"
  • "Glenn challenged Metzenbaum again in the primary for the Ohio Senate seat.[130]" Possibly preface it that Metzenbaum was only appointed to serve the remainder of Saxbe's term, to January 1975
    • I made an effort, but had a different idea on how to phrase it if you do not like how I did it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "The campaign changed their focus," "their" should probably be "its"
  • "In the 1976 presidential election, Glenn was a candidate for the Democratic vice-presidential nomination." Probably more accurate and informative to say that Carter was the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, and Glenn was among several people he was reported to be considering."
    • I rewrote the first couple of sentences. Should be better now. Kees08 (Talk)
  • You might want to mention, in the 1980 campaign, what opposition if any he faced in the primary, and that Betts was a Republican.
    • Added that Betts was a Republican, and a paragraph on the primary Kees08 (Talk)
    • Note to myself and to you that I am adding the primary information into each election. Just taking some time to do so. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Ohio's result was the opposite of the national election, in which Republican President Reagan won a decisive victory.[142]" He was not yet president. I might mention that Reagan won Ohio in 1980.
    • Decided to remove the sentence, it is a bit more detail than needed for Glenn's article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • " his experience as an Ohioan Senator was ideal, since it has diversity." I'd like to avoid "Ohioan" as much as possible, since it stands out a bit. Maybe "his experience as senator from Ohio was ideal, due to its diversity."
    • Did it a little different, but pretty much as you requested Kees08 (Talk)
  • " receiving a reprieve from the Federal Election Commission.[151][152]" Is there a place in the article where the issue of campaign debts is gone through? Reprieve sounds a bit POV if people didn't get paid.
    • That was the exact word the NYT used. Not sure what I could use in its place. I do not go through it all in one spot, but starting at the presidential election it is mentioned in each section. I prefer that strategy; I can add it to other sections if you think I should. I would have to look at how big his debts were, I do not think they became a big issue until the presidential campaign though. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "After winning the race, Glenn remarked, "We proved that in 1986, they couldn't kill Glenn with Kindness."[154] He won the race with 62% of the vote.[155]" These sentences could easily be combined.
  • Since DeWine certainly tasked Glenn with his Keating 5 involvement in 1992, shouldn't something be said about that in the campaign section?
  • "during his inaugural year" I would say "freshman" for "inaugural"
  • "CFOs" I would at least link.
  • The latter portion of the governmental affairs section is a bit disjointed and doesn't tie well together.
    • I agree and am working to correct this. Will update you when it is more jointed. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Wasn't sure where to say this, but this slate article of him shows that we have covered the major points of his political career, which is good! Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Wehwalt: Would you be able to take a look at this section and see if it is going in the right direction? Do you think it needs more work? Kees08 (Talk)
It's better. More organized than it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " at the end of his term in December 1998.[186]" His term ended in January 1999.
    • Fixed. Was not stoked about that ref so I replaced it with a better one. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "He was an original owner of a Holiday Inn franchise near Orlando, Florida, which is today the Seralago Hotel & Suites Main Gate East.[205]" You mention this above, and possibly the link (with more information, perhaps) should be there.
    • Moved it from Personal Life to the section it is discussed the first time. Kees08 (Talk)
Done through personal life.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about being so slow. Resuming.
    • No worries, sorry about taking a lot of time to address them. Speaking of, would you be able to collapse the comments that are addressed? Would make it easier for me to see how much is left. Kees08 (Talk)
  • In addition to the memorial service at OSU, wasn't there one at NASA, I think at KSC, attended by many astronauts?
    • I only saw one astronaut spoke there, did not see anything about more. I mentioned that one occurred but did not add much detail, if I do I would have to expand the other memorial. Let me know if you think that is necessary. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Is the thing about letting people view the remains really worth including? If you do, I wouldn't name the guy who did it. But I'd cut the whole thing.
    • Since it is still being reported on in 2018, I think so. If someone else disagrees I will remove it. I added the new information that came out a couple months ago. Since the official investigation showed he did make the offer, I think it is fine to have the name, but I can be persuaded. Kees08 (Talk)
I guess the feeling that having your name in a Wikipedia article should not be a reward for poor conduct. I agree, there are multiple ways of looking at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legacy section seems more about his awards and honors. I would think a widely admired astronaut/longtime US senator would have more of a legacy of that, through inspiration and legislation if nothing else. Tell me what he left behind him that resonates for the good of humanity today. I'd rather see talk about that than some road in Ohio.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We used to call the section 'Awards and Honors', but since it sometimes included other information we renamed it to Legacy. It was never really meant to recount his legacy. Perhaps renaming the section would be better than rewriting it? Maybe back to Awards and honors? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn was the only senator from Ohio to serve four Senate terms.[200]" This may be true since the 17th Amendment, but shouldn't be stated unconditionally because John Sherman.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird, suppose the newspaper was technically correct, but since it is not the most by a senator from Ohio I removed it since it is not particularly notable. Kees08 (Talk)

I still believe you need a section such as I describe.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I just finished moving and got internet yesterday, so should be able to take care of it soon. Kees08 (Talk) 06:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Could you ping me?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: What do you think of what I have written? Was that at least along the lines of what you were thinking? Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bolden comment is the sort of thing, yes. I don't know about the first two sentences, maybe you should switch that to quotes. Probably he inspired people to take up science, astronauts to join the program, spread goodwill through the world tours NASA sent him on in 1962. I suspect it's all going to be positive, but if you can find stuff that balances a bit, perhaps regarding the Keating 5, that would be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:I switched up one of the first two sentences. Obama's quote had all the major events that add up to his legacy. I left the first sentence to introduce the paragraph, but used an Aldrin quote for the second. Thoughts on it now? Kees08 (Talk) 01:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think more needs to be said. I don't think this is breaking new ground, I feel every biography of a significant figure needs to have some historiographical material, with much of it from a context more neutral than the lauding of the dead.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most astronauts from the 1959, 1962 and 1963 classes have a biography - a whole book written about them - but very few have more than one. After that the books disappear and we have to use anthologies and biographical web pages. Glenn is no exception; he has one biography. This puts him ahead of most senators, whose articles are mainly sourced from news sites, as is most of this article's content on Glenn's senate career. I don't think what you have in mind is possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll take your word on the sources, as I can't ask for what isn't possible. Otherwise seems in good order.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD[edit]

Seems a well-written and comprehensive account. Support provisionally, subject to Wehwalt's comments above. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer[edit]

Initial thoughts:

  • Earwig shows some high results, but spot checks found them to be the result of unavoidable phrases ("Fighter Design Branch of the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics in Washington"). Others might be avoidable, but I'm comfortable with them as they are.
  • By my count, the article is ~9,600 words of readable prose. That's near the upper limit of WP:SIZESPLIT, so keep that in mind if other commenters request for some expansion.
    It is only 56 KB of readable prose. I did consider splitting his military career off into a separate article at one point, but decoded against it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered the same for his Senate career, but would like to avoid it if possible. Kees08 (Talk) 05:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Unlike Audie Murphy, Glenn's three careers (marine, astronaut, politician) overlap, making a split very awkward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Friendship 7 flight supposed to be a subsection of Selection? I feel like that should be a level higher.
    No. Corrected the indentation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take a while for me to read through and give more detailed thoughts. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, thank you for taking the time. Kees08 (Talk) 05:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the opening sentence, there are wikilinks for engineer and astronaut, but not for politician. These all strike me as equally common, so I think they should all be linked, or none should be.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life says his dad "worked for a plumbing firm", then later "his father started his own business, the Glenn Plumbing Company". Are these referring to the same company? If so, I think the first instance should be clarified from worked for to owned and operated.
    No, they are not referring to the same company. His father apprenticed to multiple firms. In 1923, his apprenticeship completed, he went to work fort Bertel Welch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Annie majored in music" - Annie needs to be introduced better than this. She's mentioned three times before the article says who she is. I think the first paragraph (minus the last sentence) from Personal life should be migrated to Early life.
    Done. Moved this back into its chronological position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sports (Football, Volleyball, Swimming) are linked but others (Tennis, Basketball) aren't. This should be consistent, and I lean toward unlinking all of them.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muskingum awarded his degree in 1962, after Glenn's Mercury space flight" - This isn't early life, and it breaks the chronology of the article. I suggest either turning this into a note or moving it to personal life.
    It breaks the chronology a little, but keeps the education information together. It also drums home the point that he did not have a bachelor's degree, and could have been passed over in 1959 for that. Moved to a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War II links to Kansas and Virginia but not Texas, California, or North Carolina. This should be consistent one way or the other. This list of states isn't exhaustive.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some military ranks are linked (second lieutenant) are linked, but others (Major) aren't.
    Actually, major is linked later when Glenn obtains the title, but that isn't its first use.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the staff of the Commandant, Marine Corps Schools" - is there a word missing here? Commandant of the Marine Corps doesn't mention a school. This may just be misunderstanding on my part.
    No, but changed to "Commandant of the Marine Corps Schools", which is also valid. The position of Commandant of the Marine Corps Schools was created at Quantico in 1920. It became the Marine Corps Development and Education Command (MCDEC) in 1968, and the United States Marine Corps Training and Education Command in 1989. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Any more thoughts? No pressure or rush, just checking in. Kees08 (Talk) 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my job got a little busy and then I took a short vacation. I hope to finish looking through the article this week. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few copy edits, please review them for accuracy. Otherwise, I support this nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I reviewed your edits and they are appropriate. I have a tendency to use too many commas, so I typically agree with their removal. Thanks for the thorough review. Kees08 (Talk) 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

This nom has been open more than seven weeks without gaining consensus to promote and really should've been archived by now but it looks to me that the nominators are awaiting follow-up from a couple of reviewers, which might tip the balance. @Argento Surfer and Wehwalt: did you have anything to add? ASAP if so, pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be upset if you closed the nomination. We are still missing an image and a source review. An image review has previously been performed by Nikkimaria, and only a couple have changed since then, so perhaps that could be remedied without much effort, but a source review would be a massive undertaking and the nomination is pretty far into the process. I will leave the decision to you. I hope to make this a featured article, but if that has to happen in the future, so be it. Kees08 (Talk) 02:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some forward progress is being made so I'm loath to archive this. We need the source/image review fairly soon so if the noms can scare up any willing victims that would be helpful. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and Mike Christie: Nikkimaria, would you be interested in performing an image review? You performed one for the A-class review, I can try to find someone else if you would like. Mike, would you be available for a source review? It is a long article with many sources, so I understand if you do not want to. Thanks for the consideration. Kees08 (Talk) 19:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of other commitments and wouldn't be able to do one quickly, and I'm away this coming weekend without much access so couldn't do one then either, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69 - Comments[edit]

  • Support – This is undoubtedly one of the best articles I've read in a long time. It reached "A" class, which many articles never achieve. It should surely be a Featured Article. I see no changes that need to be made. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Friendship_7_insignia.jpg: at the A-class, you indicated that you were waiting to hear back from NASA - did that ever happen?
    This is a bit interesting. Instead of using a stencil on the spacecraft, Glenn had the logo painted by Cece Bibby, an artist under contract to NASA. As such, the image is in the public domain. [18] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since his name is not on the insignia, per NASA's guidelines we are fine as well. Kees08 (Talk) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I forgot to mention that NASA did not get back to me. For this case, I do not think I need to hear back from them. Kees08 (Talk) 02:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding a note re: authorship to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Glenn_Low_Res.jpg: also per the discussion at A-class, suggest changing the source to reflect the information you were provided by email
    When I look this up, I keep finding the black and white version. Do you think the image was colourised? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We could use this image Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Senate historian sent me three images: one was the non-colorized version of the John_Glenn_Low_Res, another was the photo of him talking in the Senate I have in the article, and a third is a color portrait of him. It is not terribly high quality, but I could replace the current image with it. Not sure who colorized the image we have. Unfortunately it would be the same issue where I have no OTRS ticket for it and the Senate historian indicated they did not want to submit one. I can forward anyone the emails I have from them, but that is the only proof that I have. Do you have a preference? Kees08 (Talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the previous review, I would suggest adding details regarding what was learned via email to the image description page directly, rather than using only the dead link as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder. I have updated the source to indicate it is from the email, and included in the edit summary that I can be contacted for the email. Is there anything else you would suggest here? Kees08 (Talk) 02:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a government work. But I cannot see it rising above the threshold of originality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The buttons are in Jimmy Carter's library; the photo was on the library's website, I presumed staff had taken it. There is another photo that we could use, that has a clear license, if you prefer: File:Jimmy Carter Library and Museum 71.JPG Kees08 (Talk) 02:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually less clear - that image would have multiple potential copyrights to consider, only one of which is currently tagged. With regards to the original, under US law, reproducing a 2D work does not garner a copyright for the person making the reproduction. Thus, we don't care who took the photo - what matters is the status of the item itself. On that Hawkeye is potentially correct: it may not warrant copyright protection, although that line is blurry. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your point on reproducing a 2D work. Now we just need to focus on the buttons themselves. I think Hawkeye brings up a great point. It is just plain text, I do not think it crosses the threshold of originality. Do you agree? Kees08 (Talk) 02:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, it's a bit of a grey area - I think you're probably okay to include it but with a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to PD-simple. Kees08 (Talk) 03:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to PD-textlogo, as it is more appropriate. Kees08 (Talk) 03:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Do you think I need to make additional changes here? Kees08 (Talk) 00:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • Not seeing the "oldest living former U.S. Senator" claim in the body - source for this?
    Do we want to source this in the article or toss it out?
    I would rather toss it, though it is in one of those navboxes at the bottom of the page as well. Suppose we can remove both? Kees08 (Talk) 15:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed Kees08 (Talk) 22:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of units in the infobox and text don't seem to match
    We don't normally list every unit someone served with, only commands. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the precise number of seconds in his time in space
    I've removed the list of minor decorations as well, as they are not in the article, and we don't normally list them in the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get rid of the citations in the infobox by adding the facts to the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN277 is dead
    Works for me. Try again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now 279, still dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced it with a reference from a newspaper Kees08 (Talk)
  • What makes famouskin.com a high-quality reliable source? ruaviation.com? brianriley.us? freemasonsfordummies.com? Midnight Freemasons? collectspace?
    Removed famouskin.com and ruaviation.com. Todd E. Creason and Robert Pearlman are considered experts on the subject. The Brian Riley link is an interview with Glenn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Periodical titles should be italicized, but network names should not
    Had another go at correcting these. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include locations for newspapers - for example, why not for The Day?
    Added. At first I thought they should be removed, but so many are small towns in Ohio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the rest of them, including the obvious ones for consistency. Kees08 (Talk)
  • FN23: are you certain that publisher is correct? Looks like it should match FN6
    Matched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all page ranges use endashes, eg FN26, and use the correct parameter, eg FN130
  • FN101 is incomplete. Same with 103, 124, 237, 252, 259
    Expanded all. Kees08 (Talk) 22:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN105: link?
  • FN106 should specify finding aids for what collection/fonds
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include leading "The" in publication titles like NYT
    • I did NYT, I will review the article again and check for additional offenders. Kees08 (Talk)
  • FN176 is missing |via=, check for others
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I found the rest of them. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Be consistent in when you include accessdates
    Add URL cards should have an access date, unless there is an archive-url, in which case it is optional. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN211: why the double publication title?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when publishers are wikilinked
    No publishers are linked anymore. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN233 doesn't match formatting of similar sources
  • Compare FNs 243 and 248
    Reformatted both. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN254: accessdate formatting should match other refs
  • Who is the author for FN259?
    I've replaced it. As an aside, everyone agrees that he had nine honorary doctorates, but we've only list six. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN260 is missing page number and should be templated to match other refs
    • The information was removed at some point, but I added it back with a different citation. Kees08 (Talk)
  • FN267: given link does not appear to include honorees before 2010
    • You have to click 'next' or search for Glenn with the search box. If you know a way to include that in the citation, I can include those instructions. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Compare FNs 256 and 271
    • The publisher is now consistent across the references. Kees08 (Talk)
  • In the External links section, the first C-SPAN link includes the second.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • My own note to myself...this has been shown to be inaccurate according to Colin Burgess and others (all of those pages written by Tara Gray). I will replace all of the citations with more appropriate references. Kees08 (Talk)
    • The ref (Mattson, Dr. Richard H (March 31, 1964). "Doctors Urge He Quit Race". The New York Times. New York. p. 19.) appears to be sourced from the same link, I am having issues finding it elsewhere. Might replace it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Can you link what diff you reviewed to? I must be looking at the wrong one, the FNs do not line up. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 06:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it was this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2018 [19].

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. A seminal event, as it heralded the fall of Constantinople, and showed the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large and determined land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review. first nomination earlier in the year failed due to me not having enough time to devote to the review, but the comments on prose and other issues made there have been addressed since, along with some minor additions. Any and all suggestions for further improvement are naturally welcome. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- Hi, Constantine, am I right in assuming you've launched a second solo nom because Battle of Halmyros looks close to promotion? Well, yes it does, so go ahead, but per FAC instructions pls run it past a coord first next time. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Ian, that's exactly the case. I wanted to have this up and running ASAP, so that I have time to respond to comments before September. I will definitely run it by a coord if the need should occur again in the future. Constantine ✍ 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image in the infobox really the best we have to offer of the walls? It is unsharp, badly lit, and seems to have specks of snow all over. Seems Commons[20] has many superior images, Flickr probably too.
  • You are right, but there are not many good pictures in Commons (in terms of composition, i.e. showing the walls rather than simply a small section fronted by people, tourist buses, trash cans, etc). I don't really have time to look around Flickr, but I have replaced the photo with one that is somewhat better.
I think the new photo looks much more dramatic, with the perspective and the view to the sea. Maybe you can use the old photo under "Fall of the city" or similar? The article isn't exactly image heavy. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give dates for some image captions and not for others, could be nice with dates for all.
  • Good point, fixed.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this up, and looking forward to your comments. Constantine ✍ 11:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with Christopolis (modern Kavala)" You don't mention the modern name of other cities listed, why this one?
  • No particular reason. Removed.
  • You don't link figures and places in many of the captions.
  • Fixed
  • "maintained good relations with the Byzantines, who had supported him" Any details on how they supported him?
  • Added a footnote on this
  • "But you are Latins" I am not sure if if the ancient meaning you have linked, Latins (Italic tribe), is the right choice. Perhaps the wider Italic peoples (which covers Romance peoples and Latin peoples) is more appropriate.
  • You could clarify that the Aydınids and Karamanids were also Turks.
  • Good point, done.
  • Not sure if this is UK or US English, but you mix ise and ize spellings.
  • Generally I prefer Brit. Eng. Fixed now, I hope.
  • "launched a μαξορ attack" Why Greek all of a sudden?
  • Typo error. Fixed
  • "by a coalition of Ottoman and Christian ships" What is a Christian ship here?
  • The source references the Morosini Codex, Vol. II, Fol. 165v. I have searched for a copy of it in its English or Italian translation, but couldn't find one. I assume that the Genoese are meant here (Venice's perennial rivals), but can't find any other source on this.
  • "ambitions of Timur's son" No link or presentation. In fact, you use the version "Tamerlane" earlier, this should of course be consistent.
  • Fixed "Tamerlane". I don't quite understand what "No link or presentation." is about
You don't explain who it is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I still don't get it: "Timur's son Shahrukh", for whom "contemporary rumour ascribed to him not only a desire to restore his father's dominance" etc. Both the name, a link, and his motivations, are already present.
  • "and anti-Latin prelate who had opposed the handover of the city to the Venetians, fearing their "corrupting" influence" I guess this relates to Orthodoxy versus Catholicism? If it was a big deal, perhaps state it outright somewhere (you only mention aversion towards Latins, not Catholics, thouh I assume it is meant somewhat synonymously here)?
  • Good point, done.
  • "that the Venetians preparing to abandon them" Were.
  • Fixed
  • "As the civilian population was being massacred" Were they massacred? The later text seems to indicate the sultan wanted the to stay.
  • Not quite: there was a three-day period of plunder, where people were killed, raped, enslaved, etc. Only after these three days did the Sultan enter the city, and restore order. Only then did his efforts to convince those who had fled during the siege to return, and also ransom some of those enslaved during a sack. 10,000–13,000 were left in the city prior to the sack, and 7,000 were made prisoner and 2,000 remained, that still leaves a number unaccounted for...
  • "when it was captured by the Kingdom of Greece" Maybe add a setnence on what happened to the Turkish population there? I assume it was part of the population interchange between Greece and Turkey?
  • Good point, done.
  • The article body says "down from a reported population of 20,000–25,000." The intro says "from as many as 40,000 inhabitants".
  • Good catch; this represents the upper estimates for the city's population prior to the start of the siege. It was in the article, but got lost during one of the copyedit drives by other editors. Restored now.
Hi FunkMonk, I've answered or addressed the points you raised. Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 14:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added one answer, rest looks good, I fixed a couple of typos too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the typo fixes, FunkMonk. I still don't quite get what is missing with Timur's son, though. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not his son, but Timur himself. The reader might wonder who he was. Something like "the Turco-Mongol conqueror" would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion, added it in the Background section where Timur first appears. Sorry I was a bit dense here ;). Constantine ✍ 19:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Done.
  • Where a specific map has been used, this has been included. Otherwise there are no specific pages, the information is spread over the book content.
    @Nikkimaria: Sorry for the double ping, but how would you do an image review for this particular case? Kees08 (Talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically CITE requires more specificity if you want to push for that, up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • File:II. Murat.jpg - can we get the date in English too? Also the description has English listed two times. Also a dead link for source
  • Done.
  • I think the date in the description is the user's signature and upload timestamp.

The US PD tag I may be wrong on; the files are inconsistent in how they do it. Could we make them consistent, in whichever way you prefer? Kees08 (Talk) 06:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kees08, I thought PD-100 automatically covered US PS. Still, better safe than sorry, so I added a US tag as well. For the rest, I think most if not all the points you have raised are addressed now. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Do you know if we needed the extra US PD tag? Kees08 (Talk) 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, per the wording of the 100 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Clikity[edit]

  • Support -I've been copy-editing for errors in the prose and honestly this is one of the best history articles I've read as far as prose concerns. I've tired myself out looking for errors and found none. The prose isn't stuffy and I had a good time reading this. The article is through and clear, and the sources look up to date. The images are very good, so I'd say this article meets all criteria, and it should be promoted to Featured Article status. Clikity (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)clikity[reply]
Thank you Clikity for taking the time to review, and for your kind comments. I am happy that you found the article interesting and accessible. If at any point you found anything that might be improved, however minor, please do not hesitate to say so. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (1a)—I had a quick run-through of the first part. Tony (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


SupportComments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Declaration of interest: I copy edited this article for GOCE in January 2018. I also made some minor suggestions - see article's talk page.

  • "In the meantime, the conflict was mostly fought as a series of raids by..." May read better if started as 'At the same time...'
  • Indeed it does. Changed. Fine.
  • I suggest Wikilinking "pillage" in the lead. (It redirects to looting.) I would also link "sack" which is likely to be unfamiliar to a non-specialist reader.
  • Hmmm, "sack" would also have to be linked to "looting" then. Of the too, I prefer to link sack as it is likely the more unknown of the two. Constantine, your choice, but my reading of the guideline is that it is acceptable to link twice to an article, so long as it is from different usages. (Of course, I have been wrong about things before.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background seems to start a bit arbitrarily to me. Where is Gallipoli, who are the Ottomans, why did the capture of one by the other (from whom?) initiate "a rapid Turkish expansion in the southern Balkans? (Is a reader assumed to know that Turkish is a synonym for Ottoman?) I think that that first paragraph needs rereading through the assumed eyes of a reader not overly conversant with the period.
  • I've tried to make some changes to start less abruptly, but TBH I cannot really put myself in the position of a total ignoramus here; the links to the Ottomans and the Byzantines are there, the interested reader should read up, the uninterested reader probably won't ever start reading this article in any serious way. I've added a link to the Rise of the Ottoman Empire article and considered also linking to the Decline of the Byzantine Empire, but I dislike the latter article, as it takes Gibbon's old canard of a thousand-year decline and runs with it. Any suggestions or edits to make this intro easier to the average reader are welcome.
  • "Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur". A block of three Wikilinked terms; a little confusing and I doubt that linking "conquerer" to Timurid Empire helps a reader much.
  • Again, there is only so much extraneous context I can put in.... Initially this was simply "Timur"/"Tamerlane", who I assumed everyone with a historical interest knew about. Other users suggested adding "Turco-Mongol" and then "conqueror" as a descriptive. Personally, I would just as soon strike both and leave Timur alone again without further comment, but then there would be no context for the "non-specialist reader" at all...
  • A monor and optional point: "with Thessalonica's local aristocracy jealously guarding their extensive privileges, which apparently amounted to virtual autonomy". "apparently" jars a little. It seems to beg the question: apparent to whom?
  • Clarified. Fine.
  • "Thus, Thessalonica and the surrounding region were given as an autonomous appanage to John VII Palaiologos." Either 'had been' in place of "were" or add the date that this happened.
  • Clarified. Fine.
  • "who was supervised by Demetrios Leontares until 1415." '... supervised by the Byzantine Demetrios Leontares...' may be a little clearer.
  • Hmmm, I rather disagree. It is obvious that Leontares is Byzantine, in a city under Byzantine control, ruled by a Byzantine prince, and appointed by the Byzantine emperor. Why would he not be Byzantine?
  • "if necessary with Western help". You are sharp on this, so it with a little trepidation that I ask: why is "Western" capitalised?
  • "Western European" in this context. Clarified, and moved the term "Latins" in as well. Fine.
  • "assisted by the various Ottoman marcher-lords of the Balkans". The use of "the" implies that he was assisted by all' of the Ottoman marcher-lords of the Balkans. Do the sources support this? (If not, lose the "the".)
  • Done. Fine.
  • "both he and the Despot Andronikos". Either 'both he and Despot Andronikos' or 'both he and the despot, Andronikos,'. (Or, allowably but redundantly, 'both he and the Despot, Andronikos'.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "At long last". Marginally peacocky. 'Eventually'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "The commander proposed..." 'This commander proposed...'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "a group of aristocrats persuaded the Despot Andronikos". See above.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • Who or what is "Pseudo-Sphrantzes"?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "they feared the disruption in trade that open war..." '...to trade...'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "from the collapsing Byzantine Empire, providing bases that secured the city's valuable trading links with the East." Is the city refered to Venice or Byzantium?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "but more immediately a secure flow of supplies". A comma after "immediately"?
  • Fixed. Fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gog, are you still planning to return to this? Constantine, have you actioned the comments so far? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This policy brought the republic into conflict with the Despot of Serbia," Should that be 'Republic'? (Genuine query.)
  • Indeed, per the other occurrences in the article. Fixed. Fine.
  • "and other members of the Ottoman court, to gain a sympathetic hearing." Suggestion: 'in order to gain...' may read better.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "a clear indication of the unwillingness of the Venetian nobles to undertake the unprofitable and perilous task." Suggestion: 'this' instead of "the".
  • Fixed.
  • Hmmm, I am not sure here. The siege is linked to in the first mention, you mean linking the second mention? To what end? Well, OK. It's not a deal breaker. (And you are probably correct on reflection.)
  • "From a population reported at between 20,000–25,000 to 40,000 by contemporary Italian sources". This reads very oddly. '20,000-40,000 would be better.
  • Clarified a bit, these are distinct figures for the population: one set of sources puts it at 20,000–25,000, the other as high as 40,000. Fine.
  • "people could no longer access their fields, which were furthermore destroyed by the Turks". A picky point, how does one "destroy" a field?
  • Changed to "devastated" for clarity. Fine.
  • "the Venetian mercenaries that were in contact with the Turks outside the walls". 'who were...'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "but increasing dissatisfaction of the Greek population with Venetian rule was evident." Either ' the increasing dissatisfaction' or 'increasing dissatisfaction by the Greek population'.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "Finally, at the fourth hour, the Ottoman troops broke through multiple points along the wall". ' at multiple points'.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • Suggestion only. "Others, however, were less fortunate: the Venetians lost over 270 men from the galley crews alone." The "however" seems unnecessary.
  • Indeed. Fixed. Fine.

In the notes:

  • "Equally contentious has been the question of dating the event in 1391 or 1394". Should that be 'to' rather than "in".
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "To these must be added Suriano's claim that the Republic had spent on average more than 60,000 ducats each year pursuing the war." Does this mean that the Venetians spent 60,000 a year, ie 420,000, plus the amounts mentioned earlier?
  • Clarified. Fine.

Hi Ian Rose and Constantine. First run through completed; comments above. I will reread once Constantine has responded. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks a lot for the usual thorough review Gog the Mild. Ian Rose, I am currently travelling abroad, and will not be able to address these issues until Sunday evening at the earliest. Gog, if anything more should come to your attention in the meantime, please feel free to add it. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine, are you back? This has been open a very long time and it'd be a shame to have to archive it because these last comments remain unaddressed when no-one has had any serious objections to promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I'm back and was just about to deal with the rest of Gog's points :). Constantine ✍ 10:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, if you can, please have a look and check off on the issues resolved, and reply whether you are OK or not with outstanding points. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine, a couple of additional bits I noticed while checking your responses:

  • " when the news spread that the Ottomans had offered a peaceful settlement, provided that the Despot Andronikos left the city"; "as well as the tribute of 100,000 aspers that the Despot Andronikos had paid". See above re capitalisation.
  • Fixed, as well as a few other such instances.

Outstanding issues:

  • "Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur". I take your point. If it were me I would leave the wording but delink "conquerer". But it is ok as it is.
  • Background. Hmm. Maybe something like: "In the mid-fourteenth century the nascent Ottoman Empire were a rising force in the near east, coming to overshadow the long standing regional power the Byzantines. Having subdued much of Anatolia, with the capture of Gallipoli in 1354 the Ottomans also acquired a foothold in the Balkans. The Christian powers of the region, notably the declining Byzantine Empire, were weak and divided, allowing a rapid Turkish expansion..."?
  • Sounds good, and is probably uncontroversial in terms of referencing. Have adapted it somewhat.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:, done. Thanks as usual for your very helpful suggestions. Constantine ✍ 13:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A fine article, even by your high standards. Happy to support. Feel free to have a look at another of mine if you have the time Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Cites and bibliography properly formatted.
  • Fine, Nicol, Inalcik, Faroqhi, Setton are known to me as highly reliable scholars.
  • Spot-checked Heywood, Faroqhi, Fine, Nicol, Setton citations. They match the info in the sources with one exception.
  • Nothing in fn #1 supports Adrianople as the third-largest city in the Byzantine Empire. Fine only calls it a major city.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sturmvogel, the article says "third-most important", not "third-largest". In Fine's text, when the Ottoman conquest of Thrace is mentioned, Adrianople is qualified as "the major city". Adrianople was traditionally the chief city of Thrace, and given the geographic extent of the empire at that time, it was de facto its third city. You can see that in the role the city played in the Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, for instance, or the fact that the Ottomans made it the capital of their European domains. Constantine ✍ 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, and it's a fairly trivial point so I'm not fussed about it, but there's a lot of inferencing in your explanation. So I'd be careful in the future to spell things out a little more thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I did not infer it from Fine; this is rather a case of common knowledge (for those familiar with the subject) so I didn't think twice about it, but it is sort-of-there in Fine as well. I can dig up a more concrete reference, if anyone is really uncomfortable with it. Constantine ✍ 17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am somewhat familiar with the history of the Byzantines and the Ottomans, and I didn't catch it, so I don't think that the average reader would either. I don't think that it's particularly important, per se, but it illustrates one of the dangers of a specialist writing for a general audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2018 [21].

Bulgaria[edit]

Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article underwent significant improvement since the last nomination:

  • Many of the old sources have been updated or replaced with more reliable ones;
  • Prose and flow have been improved;
  • Fresh details have been added without noticeably expanding the article or changing its structure;
  • Outdated images have been removed;
  • The lead section has been rewritten for better flow, but all the major points have been preserved.

In its present condition it is (arguably) better than some country articles that already have Featured status, so I'll be happy to get any feedback that might improve this one further and bring it the star. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the revolts map and both diagrams
Done; changed the map, even at 300px the revolts map wasn't clear enough.
New map needs a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's posted in the description: Map based on Lalkov, Milčo (1997). Rulers of Bulgaria. Kibea. ISBN 954-474-098-8..
  • File:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg: no reason why uploader would have a copyright on this image, it's too simple to warrant protection
Only administrators can edit the license, I've posted an edit request on the talk page.
Replaced with PD-ineligible.
  • File%3AMila_Rodino.ogg needs a US PD tag and a separate tag for the performance
Removed it. The performance was downloaded from the website of the National Assembly, which has no licensing information for any of the content it has published, so it is presumed copyrighted. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Bulgaria does not have freedom of panorama, all 3D works will need explicit tags for the original works
Removed the National Bank image as its architect died in 1957. The Rectorate and National Assembly building should be free (their architects died in the 1920s and 1930s).
When specifically did the architect of File:Sofia_University_"St._Kliment_Ohridski"_(37849719131).jpg die? The following images also need tags: File:National_Palace_of_Culture_(23997858848).jpg, File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg, File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg
According to the University's website, the Rectorate was designed by Yordan Milanov, who died in 1932. Removed the National Palace image, the chief architect died 19 years ago.
  • File:The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.JPG needs a US PD tag. Same with File:BASA-3K-7-342-28-Boris_III_of_Bulgaria.jpeg
Will PD-1923 do? I don't believe they've been published in the US prior to 1923, especially the latter.
When and where were they first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find any information on that. The author of the painting died 101 years ago so it should be PD everywhere. The Archives Agency released a number of materials under PD a few years ago, so I'm not sure which US PD applies to them. Same concern about File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg (Medieval building) and File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg (ancient item).
If we can't find information to support an appropriate PD tag, the images will need to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the relevant information can be found, what I don't understand is how the PD tags should be implemented in File:Sofia - Odrysian Wreath from Golyamata Mogila.jpg and File:20140621 Veliko Tarnovo 002.jpg. The former can use a PD tag under the FoP rules as the building is Medieval so there is no copyright on it. The latter is not a painting, has no author, is not a building and may or may not be considered a work of art. Either way, the images are released under CC2.0 and CC-SA 4.0 respectively, so a PD tag would contradict these licenses. My question is therefore, is the PD tag necessary for the item depicted, or Featured Articles are limited to using public domain images only? I'm sorry for the question, I'm just at a loss. The Commons pages aren't really helpful in that regard. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a contradiction to have both a CC and a PD tag - it's a recognition that there is more than one copyright at play. For example, if you are in a place without freedom of panorama and take a photo of a copyrighted sculpture, even if you release your photo under a CC license we still wouldn't be able to use it here. You should be sure to indicate which tag applies to which copyright, but we do need to reflect both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, in that case I'll see what the most relevant PD tags are for the images and will place them. Unfortunately a user insists on placing a city population template with four images that are definitely outside FoP but I'm attempting to resolve that conflict in the direction of removing the template, so no action will be taken on those.
To add to Tourbillon's comment, i will ask the same question i asked him, are you sure that freedom of panorama applies when in the law it is stated that "Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes". " (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Bulgaria). As far as I'm aware, wikipedia is a non-commercial informational website, and uploading images to wikipedia is a non-commercial activity. What do you think? - Bowler92 11:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of Wikipedia, any license with a non-commercial requirement is considered non-free. See WP:NFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok, understood. -Bowler92 07:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done on the above mentioned images. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tourbillon Why isn't File:Bulgaria-demography.png up-to-date? I could not get the source to load. Is that the most recent data available? Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also strongly suggest working on citation formatting before someone comes to review that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more specific on the formatting issues? Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar sources should be formatted similarly. For example, some books include publisher locations while others do not, newspaper names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tourbillon (inserted here) UGH! This is so, so true. I have a FAC article here too, undergoing review right now, and an advisor made me go through my references--and my article had 179 references to begin with--five separate times to be sure every reference had all the correct information: chapter headings for collections with different authors, names of the locations of all publishers, and accurate isbn numbers all written in the same formatting style--for me that was 13 digits. Source disparity was not an acceptable excuse in his view. I spent hours and then more hours using the isbn converter, checking for accuracy, looking up publisher locations on the web--as I said, 179 references--5 times--eventually eliminating nine references I couldn't find info on--so, NOT an easy requirement, but absolutely necessary for an encyclopedia. I want to encourage you to go the extra mile on this one. I'll help if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Book references here are not that many - about 50 when I last counted them, and journal references are only a handful. I'll go through them again and find whatever additional information I can. What worries me more is that in some past country FACs, Encyclopedia Britannica was not considered a good enough source for some reason. It's practically the only good, up to date and easily accessible general source on Bulgaria. Any help is appreciated, and thanks for the review! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, noticed that earlier, working on it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite book}} and {{cite web}} have been standardized, a few {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} remain, working on them now. Also replaced or removed a few redundant sources. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated those too, will make another pass if I've missed something (likely). - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, standardised journal, book, news and web citations. Some parametres (volume, ISSN) are not available for all sources and I've left those blank, so there may still be a discrepancy but it's because of source disparity. A few poor-quality or outdated sources have been scrubbed or replaced with better ones. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Minor suggestions

  • I would suggest a clarification in the following sentence: "Flora includes more than 3,800 vascular plant species of which...", because that number includes only the vascular plants; mosses, lichens and algae are not included.
Corrected.
  • In the "Religion" section it should be noted that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church gained autocephalous status in 870, and became a patriarchate in 927. --Gligan (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All sources I read point to 927 as the year of autocephaly, and 870 (circa) as the year of autonomy. The former seems to be the correct year. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the correct year is 879. I am citing in Bulgarian the text from "История на България. Том I. Божилов, Гюзелев", стр. 191: "На заседанието на събора от 24 декември 879 г. обаче било взето решение, което имало голямо значение за придобиването на автокефалност на Българската архиепископия; то било формулирано така: "Отсега нататък константинополския патриарх да не ръкополага в България, нито пък да изпраща омофор. Дори като те [българите] се откажат от това и дойдат при негово светейшество [константинополския патриарх], да не получат благоволение." Чрез това Константинопол се оттеглил от върховенството си над Българската архиепископия и й предоставеил автокефалия." --Gligan (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the passage states that a decision was taken in 879, however it seems like the recognition by the Byzantines and therefore actual autocephaly was not attained until 927. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777 prose review -- Support[edit]

This is a genuinely interesting and well done article. I support this FAC. I believe it deserves to be a Featured article.

extended review completed with all issues addressed
The second sentence in the lead that begins with "organised" in the British spelling: that's certainly okay, and consistency is the only real requirement concerning that choice, but you might want to consider changing it to "-ized" even though it is not actually wrong. In the body of work coming out of Britain since 2002, about 60% use -ise but 40% use -ize, and it looks more correct to anyone who learned American spelling and not French, so -ize can please everyone while -ise can only please some. This has a good discussion of it: [[22]]. I don't count it against you whichever way you go--it's entirely a style thing--and would, of course, mean changing it throughout the whole article.
Changed, although I fear that it might serve as a hook for someone else to perceive this as inconsistent use of British and American spelling.
Yikes--consistency is the most important thing. Well, if someone else comes along and complains, you can revert the changes. And be doing this back and forth till it's accepted! Hah!
  • Organised prehistoric cultures appeared in Bulgarian lands during the Neolithic period should more accurately read: "In the Neolithic period, organized prehistoric cultures appeared in the lands that would one day become Bulgaria." They can't appear in something that isn't there yet even though you know it's coming.
Corrected.
  • In Antiquity, the region was a battleground... give dates in parenthesis for when "Antiquity" was. Yes, we all know--but the sophomore doing a paper probably won't.
Added, however I've only added the centuries when most of this warfare occurred, generally the time span discussed further down in the History section.
I don't see why that won't be perfectly okay.
  • The Eastern Roman Empire lost some of these territories to an invading Bulgar horde, which founded the first unified Bulgarian state in 681 AD. which one founded the state? The ERE or the Bulgar horde?
  • Be careful of pronouns: It dominated... when they refer to a whole sentence in front of them. Better to be specific with nouns.
  • For the sake of clarity, you might consider dividing these two sentences somewhat differently. Taking the first part of the previous sentence, and putting a period where the comma is now, then beginning the next sentence with the second half of that first sentence "The Bulgars then founded..." and connecting the next sentence with the "which" so it reads "The Bulgars founded...in...which dominated...etc" would be clearer, less ambiguous, and yet no longer.
All corrected, I also clarified Eastern Roman and Byzantine as the latter is mentioned in the next sentence.
  • After numerous exhausting wars and feudal strife, the Second Bulgarian Empire disintegrated in 1396 but...but...when did a second Empire appear? Remember your two guiding principles of writing are clarity and specificity--the research provides the accuracy--but it's the writing itself that has to communicate clearly. Assume your reader doesn't know what you know.
Added a new sentence about the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent sentence! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the rest of the lead is good and will pass my inspection with these few adjustments.

I will move on and do more if these are responded to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Excellent. More later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like everything you did in the lead, except we created a new problem doing it: now that "In the Neolithic period" begins the first sentence, there are two sentences in a row beginning with "In..." Making one change often leads to another. In this case, I like altering the beginning of the second sentence--maybe--"By the 6th-3rd centuries BCE, the region had become a battleground..." You decide. You can go back and put the "in the Neolithic period" in the middle of the first sentence, with commas, if you prefer--it was the "Bulgarian lands" that was the issue with that one, and you have fixed that. But one of them needs adapting to the other one now. Try not to be too frustrated--I have one sentence that has been rewritten about 14 times I think. :-)
Been there already, the previous (failed) FACs were harsh, but the article has improved this much largely owing to that. I just changed it to During the Neolithic period... which should be fine!
Saw it--it's better than fine. That paragraph is a really good short synopsis of the history section. It reads well.
This is a very interesting and informative sentence: The meaning may be further extended to "rebel", "to incite", or "to produce a state of disorder", i.e. the "disturbers". In my view it might read a little better if it said "...to rebel, incite or produce a state of disorder, i.e. "the disturbers." That's entirely personal preference though. I placed the period inside the quotation marks because it ends the whole sentence, not just the fragment.
Corrected, was a bit choppy anyway.
It does read better without the extra "to"s. I personally don't like all the quotation marks either. Those are single common words so I don't think they are necessary--but don't change them if you think they are needed. That's entirely personal preference on my part.
In the last sentence beginning "Alternate etymologies..." There are three groups mentioned between this sentence and the last mention of the Bulgars--perhaps clarify that last sentence about which you are referring to without depending on the reader to make the right assumption.
Clarified that.
"Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to the Paleolithic." Excellent sentence.
What does gold exploitation mean?
Linked to goldsmith, which is where "gold working" redirects. It's metallurgy specifically focused on gold and jewels.
I think that needs explaining. Maybe something along the lines of "... with inventing goldworking and the metallurgy necessary to work it." Something like that--feel free to put that in your own words--but for the ordinary reader, it's generally better not to use jargon (words specific to a field). Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to gold metallurgy, that should be clear enough - otherwise a lengthy explanation will have to be added, and that will look out of place.
Except the term "exploitation" is still there with no explanation. People won't know what it means, and it's a cardinal rule of good writing not to use specialized words you don't explain. It's confusing to the reader. If they have to stop and get out a dictionary and look a word up, what are the chances they will bother to finish reading? Either remove the word "exploitation" or explain it. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Is the treasure not monetarily valuable as well?
In current gold value, comparatively not so much - it's less than seven kilograms in weight.
Hmmm-I'm not striking this one yet either. I want to know that--"While it is not valuable for its gold, which is less than seven kilograms in weight, it has been highly valuable for..." or some such thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that the monetary value is of marginal importance in a historical subsection, which is why I decided to leave it out.
I follow your reasoning, however--your reader doesn't know that and will wonder. This isn't about what you know and think as much as it is about what your reader will not know and wonder. It's an interesting piece of information too. So I don't agree this is a good decision. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The Iron age--which was when?
Difficult to say. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. I've added an early before Iron Age because the late Iron Age in Europe goes as far as 800 AD.
Then you can't say it. Even adding 'early' makes a claim you can't back up. If it's difficult to say, then say that. Actually, the two sentences you have right here would be perfect. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Early Iron Age" is the most accurate approximation of when they appeared; the alternative would be to remove the era of origin entirely, which wouldn't be exactly informative.
No, the alternative is not to remove it, the alternative is to say it accurately. You really must do this one. It effects the accuracy of the article. You must explain "early iron age" (with years) is the best approximation--you can't just claim it is when it happened if no one really knows. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Prehistory and antiquity: I know nothing of Bulgaria and I followed this whole section easily. Well done.
Thank you! I added one more sentence about the Thracians that clarifies the link between their kingdom and the Persian invasion.
First Bulgarian Empire: I got a little confused here. I had to go back and think through The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains as referring to what you've been talking about--I hope--but is that modern Bulgaria? That first Bulgarian empire? The territory the tribes fought over? All of the above? Or what exactly? And this is the first I've heard of "Old Great Bulgaria"--where did that come from? I think this first sentence needs to be reworked with some additional explanation. The other two sentences are clear and informative.
The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes fought; the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is part of that region. That's where the First Bulgarian Empire was established. Old Great Bulgaria is a previous majority Bulgar polity in what is now Ukraine. It is politically unrelated to the First Bulgarian Empire, where the Bulgars were a minority. I think the confusion also stems from the fact that Bulgar and Bulgarian are not quite the same thing; the former refers to the Asian tribe, whereas the latter refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. I changed it to something slightly more detailed, hopefully it's clearer now - but let me know if otherwise! Also, spotted three ISBN-less cites at the end of the first subsection, looking for additional data. Added one to the FBE subsection. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are going to have to add some of this in. You have three sentences here that are pertinent, provide a broader foundation for understanding what you are talking about, and seem necessary for clarity. I understand wanting to leave out everything unnecessary due to length, but when that absence creates confusion, length is just unavoidable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
What about something like you have here: "The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes had fought. The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is the section of that region that became the First Bulgarian Empire. It was that area, between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains, that was again invaded in 680, this time by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects. Bulgar refers to the Asian tribe, whereas Bulgarian refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. " Or flip things around, as you wish--but it needs fixing because it is not clear enough the way it is.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slightly more subtle change: Added a new sentence in the second paragraph specifying the locale of Moesia, and then changed the first paragraph of FBE to refer specifically to Moesia as the region that the Bulgars invaded. The reason I abstained from adding the Bulgars as a leading ethnos and generally avoid delving into the "ethnic" topic is that it often becomes an edit battleground. Let me know if it is clear enough as it is now.
Following the arrival of the Slavs, Moesia was invaded by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh.[39][40] The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire.[23] The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects.[34] This is worse, not better I'm afraid. First, a reader will wonder "Who the Hell is Moesia and why are we talking about them now?" You completely removed the geographic connection which was a good inclusion--it just did not explain what it referred to--that's all you needed to add for that one. The rest of it is choppy and disconnected now. It jumps from "Old Great Bulgaria" to "Byzantine" for no apparent reason. This is not a good revision.
I do understand it is difficult to write for someone who doesn't know what you know, because you can't "un-know" stuff, and it's hard to imagine and put yourself in their shoes. That's why reviews from people who don't know your topic are important in a different way than reviews from those who do know it are. Some high school kid will use this to do a report for school, and that kid will not be able to make sense of this paragraph--and will move on over to Encyclopedia Britannica instead. The rest of this is too good to lose over a couple of rough paragraphs.
Please, try this instead: "The entire region of the south-eastern European continent had been settled by the Slavs, including the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan mountains, that was the cause of so much tribal war. This geographic area, which would become the First Bulgarian Empire, was once again invaded in 680, by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh fighting for the Byzantines. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity, situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects."
I said European continent instead of just Europe because there is no Europe at this time, but there is a continent. It adds back in the valuable geographic information--with explanation and connection--that did not need removing. Is "fighting for the Byzantines" correct? Without that, there is no explanation as to why a treaty with the Byzantine empire would stop a war with OGB. And it avoids the ethnic discussion and isn't too long. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I followed all the rest with no trouble. It was clear--and really interesting!
More after this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on with next section.
  • payment in kind best to say what that means
Linked to tax in kind, which explains it in a simple way.
OkayJenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And the next
  • Ottoman rule really good! I personally would like a very short--maybe one sentence--explanation of why the Battle of Shipka Pass is important. Providing the link is good, so I can go read more if I want--after I know why it matters. But if it isn't possible to explain in a sentence, just leave it.
Expanded the sentence, should be clear now!
Perfect! Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And the next
  • the executions of thousands of war criminals and dissidents Adding another sentence as explanation might be good--Stalin killed millions in Russia --how many "dissidents" and "war criminals" died in Bulgaria?
Specified and also rephrased the first two sentences.
It reads well and is clear and specific now. Well done. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
These are such picky little points, I almost hesitate to mention them because overall this whole section is brilliant. It's easy to follow and interesting--really, really good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the section that opens: The Treaty of San Stefano was signed on 3 March 1878 by Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and included a provision to set up an autonomous Bulgarian principality roughly on the territories of the Second Bulgarian Empire This is a good clear sentence--but notice it assumes we know what the territories of the empire are--showing yet again the importance of explaining that "Danube and the mountains" phrase up in the First B.E.
Addressed that - the territories in question are Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia; the Berlin Treaty state only included the first one.
No, you didn't address it--you just changed the name as though any reader will know where Moesia is, and what it means, without explanation from you. This change made things worse not better. Jenhawk777 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me rephrase--it did add clarity here in this section--it is the previous section--the FBE--where the addition of Moesia made things muddier and less clear Jenhawk777 18:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and moving on to the next section because of time. I did some minor copy-edits--things like commas and prepositions--but I don't want to rewrite your material without your agreement. This paragraph in politics needs a slight reworking.
  • Political parties gather in the National Assembly, a body of 240 deputies elected to four-year terms by direct popular vote. The National Assembly has the power to enact laws, approve the budget, schedule presidential elections, select and dismiss the prime minister and other ministers, declare war, deploy troops abroad, and ratify international treaties and agreements. The president serves as the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the authority to return a bill for further debate, although the parliament can override the presidential veto by a simple majority vote of all members of parliament.[100] Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments.
  • It would solve its problems if the third sentence became the opening sentence: "In addition to a Prime-minister, Bulgaria has a President who serves as the head...etc." Then go with the sentence you have as the opening: "The National assembly is a body of 240..." The reason for this is that you refer to the President before you say there is one. Add a sentence either in this or the previous paragraph that explains the difference--(if there is one, or say so if they're the same)--between the Parliament which you refer to here, and the National Assembly, as Parliament has not been defined. Don't make references to things that aren't defined. Is the Prime minister the head of Parliament? Is the President the head of the National Assembly? I do not have a good idea of Bulgarian government from this yet.
  • I would move the last sentence--Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments--from the end of the second paragraph to begin the next paragraph as it opens a new idea which is discussed in the next two paragraphs. The rest of this section is good.
Good points - reordered those sentences. Now it flows better. Also clarified that the prime minister is head of government.
That is a definite improvement. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm down to 'economy' but I have to quit for awhile--real life interferes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you made to these sections are excellent. Jenhawk777 07:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

New Section, Jenhawk777, prose review continuing[edit]

all issues resolved
This has gotten too long, so I created a new section. It does not mean the things left undone in the previous section no longer matter.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Economy

but the social consequences of these measures have been "catastrophic" please explain. A single sentence will do.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a bit of info on that one, should be clear now.
  • Infrastructure

Biomass has become the primary source of renewable power after more than a decade of growth in the sector.[285] I know it's linked, but include an explanatory phrase anyway. Biomass, fuel produced through biological processes, has become the primary source ... Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Demographics

Clarified this one as well.
  • The PISA study of 2015 found 41.5% of pupils in the 9th grade to be functionally illiterate in reading, maths and science.[315] Average literacy stands at 98.4% with no significant difference between sexes I don't see how these two statistics can fit together--perhaps think about what percentage of the population 9th graders are--and/or--make sure and say "However, the literacy rate of the overall population stands at..." Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
They're related. The 98% have basic literacy (which is reading), but a large percentage lack functional literacy (reading with understanding). I rephrased it in a way that relates the two,
  • Culture

with millennium-old folk traditions. one millennium? If so, it should say "a" millennium-old folk tradition. If it's older than one thousand years, it should say millennia-old folk traditions.

Millenia* corrected!

Many of these are personified as witches, I would have changed this one myself, but I had to assume you mean the spirits referred to in the previous sentence, and I am unsure if that assumption is correct. Once again, pronouns ...

These actually refers to both spirits and diseases. Both are personified as witches or other kinds of creatures/phenomena. I'm not sure what the correct word to emphasise that would be, though.

The Middle Ages were marked by the literary schools of Preslav and Ohrid does this refer to their founding? Some accomplishment of some kind? How many people went there? What?

It referred to their body of work, which consisted of both Bulgarian-language translations of Byzantine religious texts and original works. Those were the first scriptures in a Slavic language so they served to bring most Slavs under Eastern Christianity.

extended rhythmical time is it possible to explain this without going into too much detail?

Unfortunately no, and I've long considered this one problematic. It's a very specific detail of Bulgarian folk music, but it can't be explained without delving deep into musical terminology. A fair use audio file would be great as an illustration, but it's beyond risky.
  • Sports

when it was represented by Charles Champaud who played what? Did he win anything? Whether he did or not--he went--an achievement by itself. Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

He was a gymnast (linked to the 1896 gymnastics events), but did not medal. Which isn't such a big issue, those were the first modern games after all. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now finished the article. It is truly good with only a couple rough spots. It made me admire much about your country and want to visit! Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: We have one support so far, but I think we need to see something happening in the next week or so as this has been open for a month now. I will add it to the urgent list, but if nothing happens this FAC will be archived. Sarastro (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "During the Neolithic period, organized prehistoric cultures appeared in the lands that would one day become Bulgaria." I do not think you need the word "organized". What is an unorganized culture? Also the statement is too vague to be useful. I would suggest something like "The Neolithic Vinča culture in Bulgaria dates to around 5000 BC." (assuming you can find a cite for this.)
Changed it, hopefully it makes more sense now. I replaced Vinca here and further down the text with Karanovo, which is centered on Bulgaria, unlike Vinca, which is largely on Serbian territory.
  • "a tribe of Turkic origin that established the country" I think founded would be better than established.
It is.
  • "Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to the Paleolithic." This is again too vague to be useful. See [23] for paleolithic Bulgaria.
  • "Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to 100,000 BC, or the Middle Paleolithic." I see that the link I gave you was not very helpful. This clarifies that early occupation goes back over 100,000 years and was by Neanderthals, not modern humans, which should be stated. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did read the link though I didn't notice it mentioning Neanderthals. Cited the paper you provided and changed that sentence somewhat, hopefully it's less ambiguous now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Organized agricultural societies, like the Vinča culture, arose in the Neolithic." I suggest deleting organized and adding an approximate date.
Both clarified.
  • eneolithic - few readers will understand this term. It is usually called the Chalcolithic or Copper Age.
  • "appeared on the peninsula" This is the first time you have mentioned the peninsula - presumably you mean the Balkans but this should be explained.
  • "Even though they excelled in metallurgy and gave the Greeks the Orphean and Dionysian cults, Thracians remained tribal and stateless." I would not say "Even though".
  • "The Achaemenid Empire" The Persian Achaemenid Empire would be clearer.
Corrected all of the above.
  • "The first Christian monastery in Europe was founded in 344 by Saint Athanasius near modern-day Chirpan," The source looks like the website for the monastery. This is not a reliable source for such a claim.
Used a Bulgarian National Radio source, which should be more reliable.
  • Bulgarian National Radio is not a more reliable source. The Oxford Dictionary of Saints says that he was patriarch of Alexandria and was in exile in Rome in 344. It does not mention any connection with the Balkans. This should be deleted unless you can find an impartial and reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find a more heavyweight source confirming it, at least not online. Athanasius was in the area at the time, he took part in the council of Sardica. The monastery claims the statement is based on documents from the Vatican, but I'll remove it until I find a more reliable source to back it up. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moesia should be linked.
Done.
  • Ref 37 needs a page number.
Could not obtain it - the book is available in Google Books but no page numbers are displayed. Furthermore, the other sources support the same statement so I removed this one.
  • "The Asen dynasty's downfall in 1257" You refer to the downfall here as if you have previously described it.
Changed, also broke up the sentence.
  • "Domestic defence is the responsibility of the all-volunteer Bulgarian army, branched into land forces, navy and an air force." I would say "composed of" instead of "branched into".
Changed it.
Looking forward. Thanks for the review. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Bulgaria also has the third-lowest public debt in the Union at 28.7 per cent of GDP in 2016.[211] Strong economic performance in the early 2000s reduced government debt from 79.6 per cent in 1998 to 14.1 per cent in 2008." This is confusingly arranged. Maybe something like "Strong economic performance in the early 2000s reduced government debt from 79.6 per cent of GDP in 1998 to 14.1 per cent in 2008. It then increased to 28.7 per cent in 2016, but this is still the third lowest in the EU.[211] "
Should be fine now.
  • "It includes the capital city and the surrounding Sofia Province, which alone generate 42 per cent of national gross domestic product." This is not much help without stating the proportion of the national population.
Pointed that out - it's 22% of the total population.
  • "a per capita gross domestic product (PPP) of $26,580". This is PPP but the salary figures above are apparently not. Citing figures which are not comparable is confusing, although I realise this may reflect the sources.
Wages and GDP per capita are different indicators altogether. The latter shows the value of goods or services produced per person, not how much they get paid.
  • "Although cereal and vegetable yields dropped by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2008,[248] output has since increased, and the 2016-2017 season registered the biggest grain yields in a decade." I assume you mean production rather than yield per hectare. I think it is better to avoid the word yield if you mean output.
Corrected, it was referring to total output and not yield per hectare.
  • "death rates are among the highest." The figures in the international death rate table look strange and may reflect the age structure of countries more than the health of the population. Life expectancy is a more reliable measure and Bulgaria comes in the middle.
  • "Mortality rates may be amenable with timely, adequate health care" Presumably this means may be improved, but this is true of every country. I would delete.
Mortality rates in Bulgaria are three times the EU average and among the highest globally precisely because of an uneven, dysfunctional healthcare system. I've rewritten that part to better reflect the impact of poor health services on death rates.
  • I am not questioning that there is a dysfunctional healthcare system, but you would need a much better source to prove that the death rate is one of the highest in the world taking into account the population structure. The source has a death rate for Germany three times higher than Gaza, West Bank, Syria and Libya - and only 24% lower than Bulgaria. The figures appear to reflect the proportion of young people more than the quality of the health provision. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figures on religions do not look right. 75% orthodox, 10% Sunni, 3% other religions, 12% no religion and 12% do not say. This is well over 100%.
The 21% who refused to answer are not part of the final mix, so I've removed them. Interestingly enough the sum is now 99.9% - there's a 0.1% lost someplace in the official statistic.
  • "Ivan Vazov - it would be helpful to give his dates.
Added.
  • "Bulgaria's first Olympic appearance was at the 1896 games" This sounds odd as 1896 was the first Olympic games.
  • " Grigor Dimitrov is the first Bulgarian in the Top 10 ATP Rankings" You should say tennis.
Both corrected.
  • This needs some more work but it seems to me not far off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the time taken to review. If you have any other recommendations to improve the article, I'll work on them. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Dudley Miles, was there anything further here? I'm minded to archive this, but if you were happy it was close to FA standard, I would keep it open a few days more to see if we can find another reviewer. Sarastro (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is close to FA but there is still one issue which seems to me crucial. The article says that Bulgaria has one of the highest death rates in the world - which is extremely unlikely - and cites a nonsensical table which says that Germany has a death rate three times higher than Gaza. The nominator has not replied on this. I would however keep the FAC open for a few days both for a reply on this point and to see whether other reviewers can be found. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think if we give this until after the weekend then. But after that, I think we would have to archive if nothing is happening. Sarastro (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, had some research and travel to do and didn't really have much time to check in meaningfully. I wouldn't refer to the CIA table as nonsensical; arguably their methodology may not always be the most accurate, but it is true that Bulgaria is close to the top in terms of death rates. According to OECD stats, Monaco ranks higher (9th) than Bulgaria (10th). However, many of the developed countries with high death rates also have high median ages and exceptionally high life expectancy rates; Monaco's median age, for example, is nearly 54 years, and life expectancy is a staggering 89.4 years, while in Germany median age stands at 43.7 and life expectancy 80.8. This isn't the case in Bulgaria, where life expectancy is among the lowest in the EU, even though median age is actually lower than the EU average. A relatively younger population that lives less is a direct result of uneven healthcare provision; according to the European Commission health report, cutting down avoidable cardiovascular deaths (which are three times the EU average) alone would drop general mortality rates to sub-EU average levels. This is a great indicator of just how dysfunctional the healthcare system is, hence the liaison between the healthcare paragraph to the previous one describing the demographic crisis. The sources on that section are universally reliable (European Commission, World Bank, FT, CIA), so I'm not sure if there's anything better they can be replaced with. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 22:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments compare Bulgaria with other EU countries and it is no doubt true that it has one of the lowest life expecancies in the EU. That is different from saying it has one of the highest death rates in the world and citing a source which says that Germany has a death rate three times higher than Gaza. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out life expectancy figures only to explain the (seemingly) unusual death rate figures provided by the CIA source, specifically your example with Germany and Gaza. My point is, the CIA source isn't unreliable. You will find similar death rate results in all other reliable sources. The World Bank has one of the most in-depth statistical databases out there, and its crude death rate table also ranks Germany higher than Gaza in terms of crude death rates. In fact, Germany's death rate here is almost four times higher, and Bulgaria is ranked first. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the table is nonsensical, not unreliable. Saying that the death rate is one of the highest in the world without providing the context - Bulgaria 14.5 per thousand per annum compared with Gaza 3.1 - wrongly implies that the crude death rate is an accurate measure of the health of the population. List of countries by life expectancy#List by the CIA (2016) provides a reasonable measure with a life expectancy of 74.5 compared with an EU average of 80.2 - low by European standards but well above the world average of 69. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a direct indicator of the health of the population, but it is related to both demographic decline and quality of healthcare. Do you have a proposal on how it could be stated otherwise? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using the CIA figures on life expectancy as in my previous comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem here: high death rates often occur when the population is aged; it is, for example, also quite high in Germany. The article mentions it together with the low birth rates, which makes sense in this context. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK so long as the high death rate in Germany is mentioned as well. Otherwise, someone who is not an expert on demographics will be given the impression that Bulgaria is comparable with third world countries which do not have a functioning health system. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Bulgaria has one of the highest death rates in the world due to combination of many elderly people and a weak health system. Average life expectancy is 74.5 years compared with an EU average of 80.2 years and a world average of 69 years." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping in for a minute, that's a good proposal. I'll take it into account, and will address the rest of the comments below tomorrow morning. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added comparative life expectancy figures and reworded the section somewhat. It should be less biased as it is now.

Thank you!- ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Reading through now, prose is good, queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bulgaria has a dynamic climate - what does this mean?
One that is not steady or firmly cyclical, but often shifts because of terrain features and geographic position. Maybe "diverse" would work better? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word I would then use is "changeable" - it sounds like Melbourne, they say, "if you don't like the weather then wait five minutes..." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Changed it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed this. no other prose clangers seen Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!- ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • There is no proper map in the article, making it difficult to get an overview over the geographical features of the country. The featured article Germany, for example, includes a nice physical map. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a topographic map and removed one of the images to avoid clutter. Labels on the map aren't very visible at this size, but increasing it sufficiently for that purpose would take a lot space.
Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To mix" or "of mixed stock" is a disputed interpretation of the word referring to the supposed mixing of the Oghurs and the Huns that initiated the Bulgars' ethnogenesis. – Reading flow would be slightly better if it would be clear from the beginning that this is a different, alternative interpretation. One possibility would be to start the sentence with "Alternatively".
  • Scholar Sanping Chen – Regarding the overview character of the article, I would mention his name only when the person is very notable regarding the topic; at the very least I would link him.
Reworded those two and removed the scholar's name - he has no Wiki page and it seems like he's narrowly specialised in the history of Inner Asia, so it would be better to leave the name out of that section.
  • a proposed division within the Utigurs or Onogurs ("ten tribes").[13] – I can't follow this part, can this be made clearer? I would also add a brief explanation who those tribes are.
I tried explaining that without elaborating too much - let me know if it's understandable now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understandable now, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fauna is primarily represented by owls, rock partridges, wallcreepers,[125] red deer, pheasants and jackals.[128] – This sentence has to be replaced. This is more of a random list of some species which occur there, but they are for sure not the primary components of the fauna. Wallcreepers, for example, only occur in some regions in the mountains. Instead, a sentence stating the total number of species of some major groups (maybe mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish) along with numbers of endemic species would be much better, and the same was done for plants and fungi.
IUCN figures unfortunately don't cover fungi, but they give a good idea about biodiversity. Formatted the fungi source.
  • Normally, the prime minister–elect is the leader of the party receiving the most votes in parliamentary elections, although this is not always the case.[106] – Question: Is the president elected directly, or do Bulgarians only vote for a party?
Directly, which I pointed out.
  • Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments – As you write "governments", you seem to be referring not only to the current one. Maybe give the approximate time frame?
That's a good question. With the exception of Boris III and Zhivkov, few governments in Bulgaria's modern history have been stable. Borisov is the only one since 1990 to win a consecutive mandate and that says a lot. Most other cabinets either resigned before their mandate ended or never got reelected. Maybe add "unstable governments since 1990"?
  • However, his first government resigned on 20 February 2013 after nationwide protests caused by high costs of utilities, low living standards, corruption[147] and the failure of the democratic system. – I would be more prudent here: A resigning president is not characteristic for an democracy that literally "failed". It obviously did not fail yet.
That was the premier resigning. Then-president Plevneliev (previously part of the Borisov cabinet) assembled caretaker governments which prepared the elections Borisov won, and some of the interim ministers went on to serve in subsequent Borisov cabinets. Of course, it's not just him abusing authority, the amount of political fraud and violations is large enough to make a separate article of this size and more. But since all of this would weigh too much relative to the rest of the section, I've just added "perceived" before "failure of the democratic system" to add a nuance that can be elaborated on elsewhere.
  • The legal system is one of Europe's most inefficient, and the lack of transparency and corruption are pervasive. – Puh, here again, I would be more careful. Disregarding if true or not, I would always say that this is the opinion of somebody, e.g. "is regarded … by both national and international media". I doubt that the government itself is of the same opinion, or that there are official EU sources stating this? This should not stand as fact, as this information is subjective since there is no objective measure for inefficiency, or is there?
The government doesn't really have a position on corruption. The current premier has consistently downplayed corruption allegations. Some government ministers go further by saying that corruption is merely a "newspaper item" in the country. Some former ministers in the Borisov cabinet admitted there is corruption and set up bodies to counter it, but Bulgaria has already set up an arsenal of such bodies that either don't investigate fully or ensure that judicial procedures don't go through, resulting in a disproportionately high number of acquittals. Either way, in a country where a tenth to a third of the population have, in some form, been associated with corrupt transactions (as consumers, benefactors, initiators or others), I think foreign media sources and analyses are far more reliable than anything the government would come up with as a statement or policy. But I've changed the statement to clarify that we're talking about opinions.
  • EU institutions refrain from taking measures against Bulgaria because it is not seen by Brussels as a "problem country" like Poland or Hungary.[229] – Here I would not repeat the polemical language of the media ("problem country") and formulate it more objectively.
" EU institutions refrain from taking measures against Bulgaria because it supports Brussels on a number of issues, unlike Poland or Hungary." - kind of softer.
  • of whom 6.8 per cent are employed in agriculture, 26.6 per cent are employed in industry and 66.6 per cent are employed in the services sector. – No need to repeat the "employed" here.
Fixed.
  • Mortality rates can be significantly reduced with timely and adequate access to medical services, which the current healthcare system fails to provide.[310] – Again, I would take a step back and reformulate with a bit more distance. This wording ("fail") is not used by the EU source. The wording is quite absolute, and thus can't be precisely true (it might by substandard and not as good as it should be, but it surely does not fail completely in providing access to medical services).
As per above, I've changed wording in the paragraph to follow the source more closely. It does state that mortality rates can be slashed to sub-EU averages, which would be quite something if the system provided them adequately - but it does not.
  • while death rates are among the highest.[308] – can you link "death rate"?
Done.
  • Education in primary and secondary public schools is free – But it is mandatory?
Yep, added "compulsory".
  • I think population density would be good to add; also how population compares to other European countries.
Quite low for Europe, it's mostly Nordic countries that have lower densities. Added.
  • All in all, a well-written article, and one of the better reads I saw lately here on FAC. I learned a lot and feel well-informed. I do not think this norm was premature, as the remaining issues are of a sort that is difficult to detect without input from more extensive reviews. There are some issues with neutrality and subjectivity in some sentences as specified above. I however think that these are relatively easy to fix, and would therefore suggest to leave this nomination open for a little longer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully open to any further recommendations and remarks! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the quick and throughout addressing of the points! Looks very good now, and I'm happy to support. Only one more thing: The partridges are a larger genus containing many species. Could you specify which species is meant? Is it the Grey partridge which is common throughout Europe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The source doesn't say. This article lists several types of gamebirds of which Grey partridges (яребица) are the most numerous. I did a search but no reliable sources come up other than the Statistics brochure. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

1a, lead:

  • "Since the adoption of a democratic constitution in 1991, Bulgaria has functioned as a unitary parliamentary republic"—how can it be simplified? "Since adopting a democratic constitution in 1991, Bulgaria has been a unitary parliamentary republic"?
Sounds better.
  • The lead tells us twice that Sofia is the capital and largest city. Why not just "Sofia" the second time?
Indeed.
  • "The predominantly urbanized population of seven million people mainly inhabits the primary cities of the 28 provinces."—What are "primary cities"? If it's a technical thing (like state capitals), can you use a simipler wording? What about "mainly" instead of "predominantly": English is more elegant when it's plain and simple. Do we need "people" in this context? We're not referring to pet dogs, right? "inhabit" -> "live".
Those are provincial capital cities. Removed those words,
  • "is largely based on services, agriculture, and a sizeable industrial sector focused on mining and machine building"—I'm going to be fussy here. Convince me that "largely" is needed; "based on" doesn't mean it's totally the list. Why is the industrial sector "sizeable"? Is that compared with what you'd expect as a proprotion of GDP/employment/whatever for a similar economy? By "industrial" I guess you mean "non-service", which is a good epithet nowadays.
Considering that services, agriculture and industry are the only three GDP composition markers, "larger" wouldn't be needed so I removed it. Same goes for "sizable", it arguably makes up a good chunk of GDP, but nothing unusual for an industrialised country. I reformulated the entire sentence, but kept industry and agriculture separate to keep in line with the rest of the article.
  • "It is also notable for its biodiversity, its achievements in sports and science,"—we could dump "also", right? The claims on biodiversity, sports, and science are relative to other, similar countries, are they? "Notable" is a strong claim. Convince me its biodiversity is strong compared with Turkey's or Macedonia's.
Sorry for jumping in: According to this article, the biodiversity seems to be higher than average but not outstandingly high, I would therefore also suggest a slightly more prudent wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN source points out that 26% of European species and 2% of world species can be found in Bulgaria, which is a decent percentage. But it's still a bit peacocky. While Bulgaria did punch way above its weight in space exploration and the Olympics, that's relative to other countries and not an absolute value, so I've removed those from the intro. Cyrillic script is undoubtedly a significant contribution so I kept that but moved it in the historical paragraph.
  • "However, it continues to struggle with crippling corruption and severe demographic decline." Is this proposition unexpected coming after the "notable" claims? Let's be precise about logical flow here.
Broke down that sentence and put the statements elsewhere.

How good is the rest of the prose?

It's been here for six weeks, with 123 edits by 23 unique users. Methinks it was a premature nomination. But that's water under the bridge now.

Just a meta-comment: I looked at articles on a few of the neighbouring countries and found evidence of templated, standardised structure, sequences of propositions, etc. ,,, at least in the leads. It would be nice if WP worked toward making country-articles less stratified. But that's not a formal part of my review. Tony (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style. It's not the first time I'm nominating this article for FA so I've decided to follow the template and make it similar to other prefabricated FA country articles. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire with the minority Bulgars forming a ruling elite." Comma required before "with", unless there was more than one such empire. More seriously, though, is the claim that the Bulgars formed a ruling elite. Not all of them, surely. Every ethnic group has the usual human inequalities. Do you mean that the ruling elite comprised (?exclusively) members of the minority Bulgars?
Not all Bulgars were equal or at the helm, of course. But considering that they went as far as building their own settlements separate from those of the Slavs is telling. Bulgars were essentially a superior caste that governed a much larger, but poorly organised, ethnic Slav majority. Replaced it with "The minority Bulgars formed a close-knit ruling caste".
  • "pushed the country into political turmoil as the war turned against Germany and the communist guerrilla movement"—to avoid our need to read on to get the right meaning, perhaps a comma before "and"?
Yup.
  • "Bulgaria suffered little war damage and the Soviet Union demanded no reparations; however, all wartime gains, with the notable exception of Southern Dobrudzha, were lost." It's not a crime to use "but", even at the start of a sentence (not too much, though). You know you're itching to. The one after "royal elite" would be plainer and nicer for readers.
A bit too much? Maybe the first one should go.
  • "political repressions were lessened"—bit clunky. they "eased"?
Done.
  • "Both national and per capita GDPs quadrupled by the 1980s,[96] although severe debt spikes took place in 1960, 1977 and 1980." Quadrupled from what year-baseline? And both just happened to be quadrupled? Was there no population growth? Does this account for inflation? Suggest scrutinising the source(s) critically.
Compared to WWII levels. GDP per capita quadrupled, but upon reviewing the source more closely, national GDP increased five-fold. The figures are in 1990 international dollars, and over a population increase of some 20-25%. The source is based on Madison's work (the Historical Statistics segment), where similar growth rates are shown.
  • "The Communist Party gave up its political monopoly on 10 November 1989 under the influence of the Revolutions of 1989." No one in history has ever given up power just because something influenced them. Rulers either die or are forced to give up power.
"Forced to give up"? Will address the other two in a bit.
  • Ref 109: is "Voice of America" a reliable source? Whose concerns about corruption: I suppose Brussels' concerns?
  • "The Constitution of Bulgaria also ..."—you could pipe it to "Constition" to avoid yet another iteration of the country-name.
Replaced it with another source and clarified that - the European Commission has been grilling all governments on that issue, to no result. Done. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I do believe this should have been withdrawn and resubmitted ages ago. But now it's this far, power ahead (quick as you can, please). There are good things about the article. Tony (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining text whenever possible, but any additional feedback is more than welcome.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

  • It looks like some work has been done by reviewers re. source reliability and formatting (e.g. by Dudley Miles) but is anyone prepared to sign their life away on that?
  • I have checked when I had a query on the text, but not a general source check. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also -- and I should've picked this up sooner -- I gather that this would be the nominator's first FA if successful, so I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Again, if any reviewer has done this to their satisfaction already, pls let me know.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can add a quote to each citation if that would help with a source check. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Toubillon, I'll leave it to the spotchecker, when they come on board, to respond to that.
@Nikkimaria and Tim riley: could one of you pls undertake a source review and spotcheck? Or perhaps split the two reviews between you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do a spotcheck, but it will have to wait till Wednesday, which is the next day I can fit in a visit to the British Library. Tim riley talk 12:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through the source formatting again because some content was added by other users during the FAC and I noticed some of it isn't formatted. Should be done by Sunday evening. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when that's done and I can take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Tim and Nikki (and Tourbillon for your update). We've left this open quite a while but I felt it's been making steady progress to promotion, provided these last hurdles are overcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thankful that it has been allowed some more time. A lot of the issues aren't difficult to address - I've just been short on time since two weeks or so, hence my slower response rate. I've gone through the book cites and purged a few sketchy sources while keeping the rest in line. Taking care of the other citations now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 05:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber and Nikkimaria: can I just check if you wanted to add anything here? I think we might finally be about done otherwise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still a few outstanding points on the source review - mostly formatting but some missing authors that need to be tracked down. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just added all available authors. Some pages from a single source have an author while others don't (Britannica), so that's as far as consistency goes there, I'm afraid. All original titles have also been added, removed a few redundant sources and restored a link that had gone dead in the meantime. I'm on a limited time budget and don't use any tools to speed up editing or comb through the volume of text, hence the few lapses. Went through all sources and they should be alright now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08[edit]

I do not intend to provide a full review and give a support or oppose. Just a couple comments as I read through it:

  • Per cent and percent are both used, probably best to choose one.
  • Rewrite this "information and communication technologies sector" to this "information and communication technologies (ICT) sector" since you use the acronym later
  • I am a space nerd, and I did not recognize B1029 at a first glance. You could remove it from the caption since it is a bit of excessive detail for this article. If you want to leave it you can, personal preference. "using a B1029 reusable booster, 2017"
  • Did I miss something? Any reason this has five citations? "Bulgaria is also the largest producer globally of lavender and rose oil, both widely used in fragrances."

Let me know when (and if) you have addressed the issues. None are major, just some nits as I read through the article. Kees08 (Talk) 05:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of these, looking into the demographic chart now. It seems to be going up until 2013-2014, which is fairly recent for reliable data, but I'll try updating the chart if newer data is available. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the chart with World Bank data. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks great, I was not able to find any other issues with it. Kees08 (Talk) 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at it!- ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check[edit]

I have not, I probably needn't say, checked the few sources in Bulgarian. Of those in English, I have checked the following for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrase and found no problems: 2, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 41, 44, 48, 88, 90, 163, 225, 272, 349 , 357 and 360.

A few queries:

  • Ref 200: lacks a link to the source, so can't easily be checked.
  • Ref 271: the link doesn't take me to "The Golden Decades of Bulgarian Electronics" but to something in Bulgarian.
  • Ref 328: wrong page number given. It should be p. 258.

Straying slightly from my present task of spot-checking, I cannot work out the rationale for when to quote the source verbatim in the citation (e.g. 18, 20, 26, 39, 337 etc) and when not to (most citations).

I may add that some of the piping has made checking quite difficult. I suggest that in an English Wikipedia article it is unhelpful to pipe a familiar name like Boris Christoff as "Boris Hristov" at ref 349 (And incidentally, while we're on opera singers, what happened to Ljuba Welitsch?) I can't say I'm wild about such links as those for Chen (8 and 12) which take you to a page mostly in Bulgarian when a perfectly good English alternative is available.

All that said, I found no serious cause for concern in the accuracy with which the sources are represented, nor did I find any over-close paraphrasing. – Tim riley talk 11:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source on ref 200. The titles of Bulgarian-language books/sources have been translated in English as per the previous FAC, hence the title on ref 271. Quotes are normally used for text that is not easily accessible, though in this case they've (probably) been added to strengthen a bolder statement. I could remove them if they're taking too much space. I've addressed the rest of your points - thanks for the spot check. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - deferring to Tim on spotchecks.

  • FN353 is dead and FN30 doesn't link anywhere
  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced, such as the % water
  • For the See also section, if you're going to comment out some entries you should also comment out the bullet points
  • Providing translated titles for Bulgarian works is great, but if you're going to do that you should do so consistently, and use |trans-title= rather than overriding the original
  • Looks like this isn't yet being done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few of those, went through them.
  • {{sfn}} cites to multiple pages should use |pp= rather than |p=
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links, and such links should be trimmed back to page
  • FN16 is a section of a larger article
I've linked to the specific subsection whenever a URL tag/anchor is available.
  • Publications like Britannica or New York Times should be consistently italicized, check throughout
Italicized the several sources that were inconsistent. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still some not yet done, eg. The Sofia Echo and The Telegraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both are italicized?
They should be, but see for example FN237 and 343, among other examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes aren't needed
Removed them - it wasn't using a quote= parameter so I hadn't spotted it in my previous search.
  • Why so many citations to Britannica?
It's arguably the most neutral source on a number of historical topics and its easily accessible. It's also a much better alternative to far less reliable sources on sports and culture. There are 24 Britannica pages cited, which isn't much in a body of 350+ sources. Still, replaced some of them with Crampton's 1987 source. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you deciding what ends up in Bibliography and what does not?
Books that are only used to source a single statement don't need to end up there, IMO. Bibliography is suitable for different chapters of a single work (LoC Country Study) or books with detailed information that can be further extracted to support a statement if need be. Alternatively, all books can be sent to Bibliography but it would then fill up with narrow sources, like those on space.
  • FN58: author format doesn't match other refs
There was one "website=" that didn't match, but it was on a previous ref.
The 1911 edition had an author, removed it.
And it's there again, to keep in line with all the authors added to other web sources.
  • Brill or BRILL?
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated, and ranges should use ndashes throughout
  • Be consistent in whether book titles use title or sentence case
Fixed.
  • FN95 is missing publisher
It's there - Siela.
Siela is 96, I'm looking at 95. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edited it.
  • FN100 is missing author, same with FN107, check for others
The LoC authors are listed in Bibliography; 107 is a web cite with no known author.
100 is not an LOC source, and opening the link provided for 107 shows an author listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added author on all Reuters articles (whenever available).
Still some missing authors, eg. 143 (which appears to be the same as 144?) and 140. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all available authors for all web citations. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still some missing, eg. FN342 and 353. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes MeteorologyClimate a high-quality reliable source? 8 Magazine? Internetworldstats? Ertl? Lob and Smash? Karatay?
Ertl kind of seems okay, his book was published by Universal Publishers which seems fairly notable. Not so sure about Karatay. Removed 8 Magazine and the entire sentence, was redundant anyway. Replaced the other two sources with National Statistical Institute and ATP World Tour, which are far more reliable.
Notable doesn't necessarily mean reliable. What's their fact-checking process? What is Ertl's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed statements sourced by Karatay - a quick digging doesn't show any other authors agreeing with his hypotheses. Replaced Ertl with a book by Florin Curta.
  • FN124-125: why is language here given outside the template?
  • FN207 has odd italicization
  • University of Chicago Press or University of Chicago press or The University of Chicago Press? Westview Press or Westview? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Working on these. Replaced all Google Books links with tag and page number using the {{Google Books}} template. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these remarks, with some comments above. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should be alright now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired a few links along the way. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2018 [24].

Petropavlovsk-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Petropavlovsk class was a group of three Russian battleships that participated in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, all based at the leased Russian base at Port Arthur in China. One was sunk early in the war and the other two were sunk during the Siege of Port Arthur. One of them was salvaged and put into service by the Japanese as a training ship. She participated in the Battle of Tientsin in 1914 where the Allies occupied that German base in China and was sold back to Russia in 1916. Aside from a minor role in intimidating the neutral Greek Government, she did nothing else of note during World War I. The ship was captured by the British when they intervened in North Russia during the Russian Civil War and was ultimately scrapped by the Soviets. The article passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this year and I've recently cleaned it up and believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of BritEng and unexplained jargon as well as identifying any prose issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Not much to say. All looks in order.

  • "as her original name was in use by another battleship." nothing in the body supports this.
  • You seem inconsistent to me with "the navy" vs. "the Navy" (Russian)
  • "and were good seagoing ships. Their crew consisted of 26–27 officers and 605–25 enlisted men;" first part sounds a bit opiniony.
  • <snicker> It is, but it's not my opinion, but McLaughlin's. Happy to rephrase if you think it necessary.
  • "the ships reached maximum speeds of 16.29 and 16.38 knots (30.17 and 30.34 km/h; 18.75 and 18.85 mph) from 11,213 and 11,255 ihp (8,362 and 8,393 kW), respectively, during their sea trials." I might move "during their sea trials" to the front of the sentence so it doesn't get lost.
  • Good idea.
  • "The ships also carried 50 mines to be laid to protect their anchorage in remote areas.[8]" I might make this "Each ship ...its anchorage ..."
  • You say "armor" but also say "armoured".
  • Never fails, I always miss a couple of the wrong variant of English.
  • "a fire broke out aboard the ship and killed 2 crewmen and injured an additional 28." to avoid the and ... and, suggest "... the ship, killing two crewmen and injuring ..."
  • Good idea.
  • "Vitgeft made another attempt to break through the Japanese blockade on 10 August in accordance to a direct order from Tsar Nicholas II." I might say "obedience" rather than "accordance"
  • Much better idea.
  • "eventually gained control of the squadron and led most of them back to Port Arthur." I might say "the ships" rather than "them".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for taking so long to respond, but see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturm, have you actioned these? As an aside, this hasn't been as well patronised as I'd generally expect -- I've listed in FAC Urgents but if it doesn't get more commentary soon we'll have to look at archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fate worse than death! Lemme see if I can round up some extra reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to the prose criticism below being worked out. Otherwise seems in order. From my perspective, prose seemed stiff and technical, but no different from other of his FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Brassey's should be italicized
  • File:Sevastopol_NH_81875.jpg: which of the Russian rationales is believed to apply?
    • Umm, all of them? Deleted.
  • File:Russian_battleship_Poltava_destroyed_at_Port_Arthur.jpg: per the given tag, this needs a publication date
    • Unknown, but almost certainly before 1910.
  • File:Tango1908-1909.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2005 for sure, probably in 1961 as well. Thanks for looking these over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kges1901[edit]

  • Link Baltic Fleet in background and description
    • Good catch.
  • Second half of fourth paragraph in background and description needs more variety, alternating between 'the', 'they', 'the', 'they', 'their' is somewhat repetitive.
    • I changed it a little; there's not much I can do as there isn't much action in this paragraph and I pretty much have to use collective pronouns.
  • If possible, you may want to vary the phrasing in the fifth paragraph, as it currently has sentences mostly beginning with 'the'
    • See how it reads now.
  • First paragraph of armament also has a profusion of sentences beginning with 'the'
    • See how it reads now.
  • The guns had a maximum elevation of 15° and could traverse 270°. Each one was provided with 58 rounds. could be combined
  • 2nd para of armament has three consecutive 'the...' sentences
  • They fired shells that weighed 91.4-pound (41.46 kg) with a muzzle velocity of 2,600 ft/s (792.5 m/s). They had a maximum range of 12,602 yards (11,523 m). could be combined if possible
  • 3rd para of armament description of fire rates and shell sizes appear almost identically phrased, and are almost vertical from each other
  • Verticality is strictly dependent on your monitor's size. I don't have range figures for either gun so I can't really mix up their data in a more pleasing way by leading with the muzzle velocity
  • 1st para of protection has four sentences that begin with 'the belt'
    • Good catch, see how it reads now.
  • Last para of protection has three consecutive 'the' sentences
    • In a description I don't actually think that that's a problem.
  • Under 'ships' for Poltava, 'scrapped' should be consistently capitalized unless there is a reason not to
    • Good catch.
  • In service, if you don't include patronymics for other officers you don't need to do that for Stark
  • Good point.
  • Relink Port Arthur, Battle of Port Arthur, Pacific Squadron, Battle of the Yellow Sea, Russo-Japanese War
    • Once suffices, IMO, in an article of this length.
  • Casualties included Admiral Makarov and his guest, the war artist Vasily Vereshchagin, 26 officers and 652 enlisted men - Clarify to include whether Makarov is double counted.
  • Done.
  • The squadron was spotted relatively quickly and the Japanese main fleet intercepted the Russians in the early afternoon. During the Battle of the Yellow Sea Rephrase to connect these events so that it is clear that the interception began the Battle of the Yellow Sea.
  • How is it now?
  • Forczyk does describe the hit that killed Vitgeft as a "lucky break", but is that the same as "lucky hit" as he states that Asahi fired a salvo, which presumably was aimed at Tsesarevich.
    • I don't understand what you're trying to say.
  • took on a lot of water unencyclopedic language, suggest rephrase
    • See how it reads now.
  • Poltava was sunk in shallow water that same day by a shell that started a fire in a magazine that eventually exploded A technicality, but did the shell sink the ship or did the magazine fire sink the ship?
    • <Strother Martin voice>What we got here is a failure to contain the fire that was caused by a shell detonating inside the ship that led to a magazine explosion that so disrupted the ship's fabric that it allowed external water to quench the fire once the ship settled on the bottom of the harbor.</voice> I'm sorry, what was the question again, Senator?
  • Add rank for Essen
    • I'm not sure what it was. His entry in The Historical Dictionary of the Russo-Japanese War says that he was a commander when he was appointed to command Sevastopol, but I'm not sure what that was in Russian terms of that time. Captain 2nd Rank? I dunno. If you've got it, feel free to add it.
  • Link Siege of Tsingtao
  • You may want to mention that Russia and Japan were now on the same side of World War I when Poltava was sold back
    • Good idea.
  • Link Greek Government and link to Macedonian Front for military operations in Macedonia
  • in bad shape Perhaps rephrase to be less idomatic

Kges1901 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for addressing my comments, changed to support. Kges1901 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceranthor[edit]

  • "and were based at Port Arthur" - "based at" seems like an odd construction; is this one commonly used for military battleship articles?
    • Military ship articles in general. The other accepted term, homeported, is far more jargony.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All three ships participated in the Battle of Port Arthur on the second day of the war." - might be worth giving that specific date?
  • ". Petropavlovsk sank two months after the war began after striking one or more mines laid by the Japanese. Her two sister ships" - might be worth mentioning all three names before making references to them individually?
  • "but with her main armament of four 12-inch (305 mm) guns mounted in barbettes." - does "her" refer to the model ship? how is that different from the original? the lay reader wouldn't know, and so this sentence is confusing. Might add "but unlike the Imperator Nikolai I's armanent where..., the battleships had four ... mounted in barbettes"? The very next few sentences do this quite effectively I think.
    • Thanks. The armament of both ships was the same, the difference was how they were mounted. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The class was designed with a displacement of 10,960 long tons (11,136 t), a full-length waterline armor belt, and was approved in January 1891.[2] - this is a run-on sentence as is; should be rephrased as "with a displacement... AND a full-length... belt" and the last bit should perhaps be converted to a gerund like "receiving approval in...". Also, which authority approved them?
  • "This saved enough weight that four additional six-inch guns could be added.[3]" - You start with "this" but the previous sentence mentions two changes
  • "The Petropavlovsk-class ships were 376 feet (114.6 m) long overall, had a beam of 70 feet (21 m) and a draught of 28 feet 3 inches (8.6 m)." - similar run-on issue to aforementioned one; the issue arises after "overall"; easy fix, just add "and" before "had a beam"
    • I was taught to generally avoid using more than one "and" in a sentence. The only possible issue that I see is that there's no verb for the last clause, though it's implied. So I could add another "had", although I think that the sentence really doesn't need it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that it's not grammatically correct as is. It's a comma splice, since you don't have a conjunction. There is no subject for the second clause. ceranthor 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had a designed metacentric height of 5.43 feet (1.7 m) " - they is vague given all the features you've mentioned in the paragraph; would suggest replacing with "the petropavlosk class" or something similar
    • Done
  • "The guns had a maximum elevation of 15° and could traverse 270°." - what does traverse mean here? is this a jargon term I should know, or am I just being obtuse?
    • Linked
  • "seven and a half feet high" - conversion to meters?
    • All measurements are converted on first use only.
  • "The armor of the main-gun turrets and their supporting tubes was 10 inches thick (Krupp armor in Poltava, nickel steel in the other two) with roofs 2 inches (51 mm) thick. The turrets of the secondary armament had 5-inch sides with 1 inch (25 mm) roofs. The six-inch guns in the hull embrasures were unprotected. The sides of the conning tower were 9 inches thick while the armor deck in the central citadel was 2 inches thick. Outside the area covered by the belt armor, the flat portion of the deck was 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick, while the sloped portion was 3 inches (76 mm) thick.[13]" - number of conversions missing here
    • See above.
  • "Between them, the sisters lost two men killed and seven wounded" - lost killed or lost wounded don't seem grammatically correct; maybe "had two men killed and seven wounded"? Not sure about this one, but the current way doesn't seem grammatical either
    • Substituted "had" for "lost"
    • Any update on this point? ceranthor 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the proper names throughout the article need NBSPs.
      • I've never used non-breaking spaces for names, only measurements.
    • Any progress on these? ceranthor 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The prose needs some tightening before it meets criterion 1a. Not far from the standard, though. ceranthor 00:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you added commas in sentences with conjoined independent clauses like: The squadron was spotted relatively quickly, and the Japanese main fleet intercepted the Russians in the early afternoon.? They are not grammatical and strike me as redundant to the conjunction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not grammatical, exactly? Two independent clauses with a conjunction between them should have a comma before the conjunction. The ones I corrected were fused sentences without punctuation between independent clauses. ceranthor 12:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a source? Because that's not any grammar that I was taught.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Here's the GrammarBook guide (see rule 3b) by Jane Straus. Likewise, HyperGrammar at the University of Ottawa, under rule 1 for commas, states: Use a comma before a co-ordinating conjunction that joins independent clauses (unless the independent clauses are very short): I wrapped the fresh fish in three layers of newspaper, but my van still smelled like trout for the next week. (commas with two independent clauses) She invited him to her party and he accepted. (comma unnecessary with short clauses) FWIW, it looks like grammar.com also agrees: see [25]. I've always been taught this method. ceranthor 17:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not claiming to be a total expert when it comes to punctuation, but I have always been taught this method. @Tony1: Sorry to bother you, but do you think you could weigh in here? I could very well be in the wrong, and I don't intend to stir up any trouble over comma usage. ceranthor 17:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These so-called grammar guides often paint the picture simplistically. You need to weigh up several issues when deciding on whether to insert a comma into the grey area (i.e. positions in the text that are neither mandatory nor ruled out for commas). Among these issues are how long the sentence is, how many existing commas there are, whether meaning is affected by the presence/absence of a comma, whether the rhythm is improved. Sometimes the decision could go either way. But here, I'd definitely add a comma. The second sentence of the lead is one that could go either way: "They were transferred to the Pacific Squadron shortly after their completion in 1899–1900 and were based at Port Arthur before the start of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905."I'd be inclined to leave it as Stormvogel has it, without. Flows better, and the year range offers a natural break. Tony (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, Sturm asked about this on my talk page, and I handed it off at WT:Main_Page/Errors#Comma before "and". - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the conversation about commas and compound sentences, I responded to three concerns I think are still lingering. Otherwise, I'm happy with the changes, and I struck my weak oppose. ceranthor 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing about the commas is going to be hard for me to wrap my head around as I was taught a simpler grammar many, many moons ago and it's never come up before in any of my reviews. I'll take a hard look at most of Ceranthor's additional commas and see which ones should be restored in a few minutes. I've responded to all the rest of his comments though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Satisfied that my comments have now been addressed for the most part. ceranthor 15:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Support for 1a: this is the best-written milhist FAC I've looked at over the past weeks. I looked only down to "Armament", and may get a chance to read further.

  • "participated" twice in two sentences. Perhaps second one "took part in"? And there's another one 10 seconds later. "was involved in", but just changing the middle one might be enough.
    • Good idea.
  • "she ... her ... she". Why not use the name, Tango, for the last instance—by that time readers need to be reminded ... lots of names intercede since your only naming of the ship.
    • Done.
  • "Tsar Alexander III's ambitious building programme of 1882 called for the construction of 16 battleships in 20 years for the Baltic Fleet." My editor would take out the first "the". He's taught me to ration it in such circumstances; I balked initially, but he's won me over from my previous hard-line formula.
    • Dropped.
  • I tripped over this list: "The Petropavlovsk-class ships were designed as first-class battleships to meet his requirement for a heavily armored ship that displaced 10,500 long tons (10,700 t), had a speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph), a maximum draught of 26 feet (7.9 m) and a range of 3,750 nautical miles (6,940 km; 4,320 mi) with good seakeeping qualities." Problem is that on the higher grammatical rank, you have two verbs (i.e. two propositions): "displaced" and "had". Try: "(10,700 t) and had a speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph), a maximum draught of ...".
    • OK
  • I think a comma before "in which" would be better: "Based on experience with Imperator Aleksandr II in which the casemate-mounted secondary armament could ...".
    • Done.
  • "The design was intended to have a maximum speed of 17 knots using forced draft"—Designs don't have a speed, do they? "Though designed for a maximum speed of 17 knots using forced draft, model testing ..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's one of those murky questions as ship designs often have a speed specified as that's a key parameter when designing a ship. I hope you get a chance to look over the rest of the article, but I've addressed these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Greetings Sturm I'm happy to see a new page, which you are working on. Personaly I did not saw that many issues in the page but there are some let's start.

  • Can you explain me why there are two kinda "Petropavlovsk class" one called Petropavlovsk class and other called Petropavlovsk-class?
    • The hyphenated form is a compound adjective and always precedes a noun like ship or battleship. Without the hyphen, "class" is the noun, so it just has a single adjective before it.
  • I see and what about the Petropavlovsk class? Shouldn't it be Petropavlovsk-class at the start? 'Cause I just realised there are dozens and dozens articles who use the dash between the name of the class and the word class itself I'll give you some examples like the "Kearsarge-class battleship" who use "Kearsarge-class battleship" at the start, the "Braunschweig-class battleship" which use "Braunschweig-class battleship", same goes with the "Lexington-class battlecruiser" who use "Lexington-class battlecruiser". However in my analyse there are some other articles who do not use the dash between the name of the class and the word class itself like "Illinois-class battleship" who use "Illinois class" or the page "Bismarck-class battleship" who use "Bismarck class". Is there a good reason why we don't use the dash between the name of the class and the word class itself? I mean there should be one, because they're the names of the ships right? or is this a multiple articles issue? If the article's title is the right name and correct, then we've to use it right? CPA-5 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a grammar thing and both usages can be correct, depending on the structure of the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I see Britch millimetre and centimetre like in.
  • "All of the 47- and 37-millimetre guns"
  • "four 47- and twenty-six 37-millimetre guns"
  • "lost one 47- and twenty-six 37-millimetre guns."
  • "by 28-centimetre (11 in) shells"
  • Note 1 say "Sevastopol carried only ten 47-millimetre guns."
    • Good catch! I don't know how I didn't catch them earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know this are not many but I hope this would help you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Hi Sturm, if you can address CPA's comments and get a source review I think we'd be about done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The sources used are all reliable and of high quality, mostly by authors commonly used on FAs regarding naval subjects such as Friedman and Preston. The article leans heavily on McLaughlin, who is published by Naval Institute Press, a highly reputable publisher on naval matters. Partial spotcheck of fns 13 and 23, rest AGF due to inaccessibility online. Formatting also good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2018 [26].

Territorial Force[edit]

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Territorial Force was a British part-time military auxiliary, formed in 1908 by the consolidation of the existing Volunteer Force and yeomanry auxiliaries. Political compromise meant that it was confined to a home defence role rather than reinforcing the regular army in operations overseas as originally intended. It was ridiculed in peacetime, and on the outbreak of the First World War Kitchener ignored it in favour of his New Army as a means of reinforcing the regular army. Despite these indignities, the territorials volunteered for service overseas, filled the gap between the effective destruction of the regular army in France in 1914 and the arrival of the New Army in 1915, and carried the majority of the British effort in the Middle Eastern theatre. The article has been peer reviewed and successfully completed a MILHIST A-Class review in which it received both a source and image review. Factotem (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
Fixed silly error in bibliography order and added county. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Prose in the lead:

  • "but political opposition resulted in it being assigned to home defence"—not the most elegant wording. "its" would be grammatical, but maybe: "but because of political opposition it was assigned to home defence".
  • "Members could be deployed anywhere in the UK but could not be compelled to serve overseas." could be, could not be. Why not simpler? "Members were deployed anywhere in the UK, but were not compelled to serve overseas."
The statement refers to the legal constraint on the force's use, not how it was actually used. I think it would be misleading to express that in the way you suggest because members were not actually deployed anywhere until the First World War.
I don't understand your argument. What is not legal about "but were not compelled to serve overseas"? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of that sentence is the legislation governing how the territorials could be deployed, not how they were actually deployed. In addition to my point above about not being deployed anywhere until WWI, they did in fact become liable for service overseas when new legislation was introduced in 1916. The sentence has already been re-written as "Members were liable for service anywhere in the UK but could not be compelled to serve overseas." Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transferred into the force"—here's an instance where you could cap the F (throughout). But I don't mind if you don't.
A similar issue came up in the ACR regarding the capitalisation of "territorials". I'm not sure it's approrpiate, in the same way that we write "army" when referring to the British Army.
  • "It was not well regarded by the regular army, which did not consider it an effective military body, and was denigrated by the proponents of conscription."—very messy logic, unless the regular army really was denigrated. If it was, the wording needs to be clarified.
Not sure I see the problem here. It seems clear to me that "it" refers throughout the sentence to the Territorial Force, and "which..." introduces a parenthetical clause, so I'm not sure how it could be construed that it was the regular army that was denigrated. I could write "...and it was denigrated...", but I thought this was discouraged as a word that should be removed in favour of ellipsis.
No, don't allow such an ambiguity to creep into your writing. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already re-written as " It was not considered to be an effective military force by the regular army and was denigrated by the proponents of conscription." Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by deploying some territorial units to imperial garrisons"—only use "some" if you want to mark the point that it wasn't a lot. Otherwise, just the plural is enough.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other? Four of the fourteen territorial divisions were deployed to imperial garrisons, so I'm not sure that "some" is all that much of an issue.
Why don't you specify "four", then? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not the whole story, which, for reasons of summary style, is not in included in the main body of the article. "Some" is now history. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Intended to release regulars from line of communication duties, the losses sustained during the initial German offensive resulted in territorial battalions being attached to regular army brigades and pressed into action."—This sentence is a train-wreck. Same grammatical awkwardness I pointed to in the first bullet ("battalions being attached"—use explicit causal items like "because" or "since"?). So it was the losses that were intended to release? And don't we need two hyphens in the first phrase? Chicago MOS says we do; New Harts says we do; so does our MOS.
Ha ha, yes. Sloppy writing from me there.
  • "They were credited with playing a key role in stopping the offensive and praised "—Who is they? I see three people-type plural items in the previous sentence, and it could even refer to "losses". Try to avoid keeping the reader hanging on the meaning until later in a sentence; and "were praised" would stop us momentarily wondering whether "they" did the praising.
More sloppiness from me.
  • "and as more arrived they began to be committed to offensive operations"—maybe. Consider "they were committed", unless you really need to mark its beginningness. And "committed" is ambiguous; "assigned"?
The professional army harboured a significant and long-standing prejudice and was very reluctant to rely on the amateur territorials, so the beginningness is intentional. "Assigned" conveys to me the sense that the territorials were allocated a role in plans. Doesn't "committed" better convey the sense that they actually did go into action?
Yes it does convey that better, but as a reader my first understanding was that they were "committed" by someone further up the chain. It's ambiguous. It would clarify matters if "their personal commitment grew", or some such, were possible. It's no good as it is. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely confused by this. Replaced "began to be committed to offensive operations" with "began to participate in offensive operations". Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's much clearer, though you've changed your intended meaning a little. If you're ok, I'm ok. Tony (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of which were later released for service overseas when a third line was raised"—you've lost me. I tried to identify in previous text where the first two "lines" were—whatever a line is.
First, second and third lines are standard terms for the subject, but perhaps stray into military jargon and could be better explained. It probably doesn't help that I refer to the Territorial Force as a "...second-line reinforcement..." in the first paragraph.
It doesn't. Please write for non-expert intelligent adults. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already completely re-worked. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward ellipsis of "to": "such as the rights not to be compelled to serve overseas and not be transferred to another unit".
?? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also already re-worked and, just now, re-worked even further. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gripping topic, with lots of tension, politics, drama. But is the rest of the article worded better than this? If spot-checks show there are problems more generally, I'm inclined to suggest Withdraw, rework, and resubmit. Tony (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. It's much appreciated. I've commented above on most of your points. I fully understand that you're providing an opinion on the suitability of the candidate based on the quality of the prose in general, not suggesting a few fixes which, if addressed, will earn a support. This candidacy appears to be doomed, which is disappointing of course, but so be it. You've kinda left it a bit open, though, with the "If spot-checks show there are problems more generally..." statement. Would you mind doing a very quick scan of another section and letting me know what you think? I don't need any further examples of sub-par prose, just a simple yay or nay. The lead is, for me, one of the more difficult sections to perfect and I'm just looking for confirmation that in your opinion the main body of the article demonstrates the same need for improvement. Factotem (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Factotem, I will, tomorrow. Got a headache right now. It would be nice to have this as an FA. Let's also see what the other reviewers have to say. Tony (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although not the main point of the comments made, I have, I hope, fixed the most serious of the specific issues listed above. Factotem (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Tony1, I'm reading this that you are NOT currently suggesting that this is withdrawn? I'm not entirely clear if you are opposing, but I'm happy to wait for input from other reviewers. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro and Factotem, sorry to lag in getting back. I shouldn't have bolded my "withdraw" comment, given that I was wavering ... and wavering isn't enough. But it does need work. Sigh, here's the next tranche—but I try not to get into the role of complete copy-editor. Up to the nominator (and collaborators?) to apply the lessons in this spot-check:

  • Caption for Haldane: no dot at end, I think. Fussy, isn't it.
  • "Militia representatives, however, refused to agree to be absorbed into either the regular army or the Territorial Force, and after three attempts to persuade them, Haldane decided to abolish the militia altogether in favour of the new Special Reserve." It's longish with lots of bumps. This is only a suggestion. Disregard if you don't like it: "But militia representatives refused to be absorbed into either the regular army or the Territorial Force; after three attempts to persuade them, Haldane abolished the militia altogether in favour of the new Special Reserve." Bit of fluff removed, nothing wrong with a but or two at sentence openings; semicolon maybe, just to break it up for the reader ... but you decide.
  • This one is a stronger case for a semicolon: "The County Territorial Associations were chaired by Lord Lieutenants and run by traditional county military elites; but Haldane's plan to give civic, business and trade union leaders a major role in running them was significantly reduced in the face of opposition to civilian encroachment in military affairs."
  • "Most crucially"—Crucially is already very strong.
  • "To ensure their support, Haldane was obliged to drop all mention of an overseas role and emphasise instead its purpose in home defence." – Maybe gain. Is the subsequent streamlining ok? To gain their support, Haldane dropped all mention of an overseas role, instead emphasising its purpose in home defence." Look for ways of simplifying, trimming, straightening, making plainer ... everywhere.
  • Just checking that this proposition is in the right place: "The divergence between intended and stated role caused significant difficulties for the Territorial Force throughout its existence." If it's a summary statement, why not push it earlier? Or if it spins directly off the previous sentence, can that be made clearer in the wording?
  • There are 20 instances of "also". Do you need them all? Tony (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need at all for apologies, and I certainly don't expect you to get drawn into copy-editing the article.
  • "Look for ways of simplifying, trimming, straightening, making plainer ... everywhere."
  • I did. The article history and its litany of "ce" edits will demonstrate that. The result, I'm afraid, is what you are kindly giving some time out of your day to review.
  • I must confess I find it difficult to know how to respond. Notwithstanding the howlers I perpetrated in the lead, many of your observations seem to me to be different ways of making the point, rather than flaws in the prose that are significant enough to cast doubt on promotion.
  • Is "gain" really such an improvement over "ensure"?
  • I can accept that I might overuse the word "however", but if there's nothing wrong with a "but" or two at the beginning of sentences, couldn't the same be said about the occasional use of however within them?
When you say "overuse", do you mean you insert too many "corners" into your text (yet ...; but ...; however, ...; instead, ...; by contrast, ... etc), or do you mean you overuse one particular wording to indicate a corner to the readers? Tony (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that one particular word, but I'm sensing a hint here. I took the opportunity yesterday to review the number of corners I put into my writing, and trimmed out a few buts and howevers. I still need to review my use of "and" to see if I'm not over-complicating sentences or committing(!) acts of inappropriate conjunction, but I've been busy over at the FQSR workshop today and need to get on with other things now. Hopefully tomorrow. Factotem (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Little later than planned, but I've run through another copyedit. As well as simplifying awkward/removing redundant prose, I've looked into cutting corners, so to speak. There are still 13 instances of "also", but five are WP's "See also" links, and not embedded into the prose. I've kept a single "however". There's still quite a lot of "but", but I think these are ligitimate contrasting statements. Whether I've done enough to allay any concerns about the prose is obviously not my call, but the article is now, for better or worse, the best I can achieve. Factotem (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I will never, in a million years, see how changing one comma to a semi-colon improves that admittedly difficult sentence. What's more, to me, the semi-colon now makes that "but" stick out like a sore thumb.
  • Some other obervations you make seek to eliminate wording that I still think is important. Haldane, for example, was indeed obliged to drop all mention of an overseas role. It was such an essential part of his plans that he did not do so until eight days before he introduced the legislation he'd been working on for the past year. This compromise, more than any other, wrecked his designs and condemned the force to ridicule (which, incidently, is why I felt it necessary to reinforce the already strong and now unreinforced "crucially").
  • Please don't think I'm trying to be dismissive of your input; I'll fix those issues that are obvious to me, but I'm not sure how to move forward from here. It doesn't help that two of your comments seem to me optional, PR type suggestions rather than fixes for poor prose. I'm happy to put in some effort to address obvious problems, but if, in your opinion, the issues you have identified so far provide sufficient grounds to oppose and are endemic throughout (and I'm not asking for a complete list of problems; I fully understand the principle of sampling), then a) I'm not sure I have the eye to identify those issues, and b) I don't believe it's appropriate to undertake such extensive rework within the FAC process.
  • Note to co-ords I realise that an oppose from Tony1 at this stage of the candidacy would probably trigger archival, but if that is his conclusion, I hope that this candidate would have at least the opportunity to still garner further review. The subject is complex and involved a fair amount of effort to compile and present in summary style. I've already exhausted both PR and ACR for feedback. I'm hoping that fresh eyes will provide one final validation of the content, even if the style is found wanting. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Any further thoughts? Factotem (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1909, some 37 per cent of the rank and file were under 20 years old, a proportion that, in the opinion of the Inspector-General of the Home Forces, rendered the force too immature to be effective." Simplify the structure? "In 1909, some 37 per cent of the rank and file were under 20 years old; in the opinion of the Inspector-General of the Home Forces, this proportion rendered the force too immature to be effective." Why then, is it now easy for our readers? Please analyse it yourself.
Breaks the sentence up into more easily digested chunks?
  • "Given the Territorial Force's perceived weakness and lack of liability for foreign service, the military authorities prioritised expenditure on the regular army, leaving the force armed with obsolete weapons." This is the last sentence in its paragraph. I may be wrong, but check it shouldn't go earlier as a summary introduction to the details.
I've amended that sentence to read "Because of the Territorial Force's perceived weakness and lack of liability for foreign service, the military authorities prioritised expenditure on the regular army, leaving the force armed with obsolete weapons." The poor funding was a consequence, so isn't it logical to place that sentence at the end?
Sorry to be a bore, but on reviewing this review, I notice it's unclear who was doing the perceiving. Do you mean "reputation for"? Presumably it was the opinion of the military authorities—but this is crucial to the story, so can it be clarified? "Because the military authorities regarded the Territorial Force as weak and resented that it was not liable for foreign service, they prioritised ...". Would that work? But only you know the info. Tony (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Because the military authorities regarded the Territorial Force as weak and saw no value in an auxiliary that was not liable for foreign service, they prioritised..." read better? Factotem (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Tony (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War section. I'd bin the first also, and retain the second.
Really? Of all the incidences of "also", I would have said that first one is the most necessary; it's part of a "not only...but also" construction. I've googled "not only...but also", and everything I've read seems to support that use of "also".
I'm sure you'll find millions of hits for "in order to", as well. Doesn't stop it being bad English in all but a tiny minority of instances. What is not clear in "not only X ... but Y"? Tony (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's gone. Factotem (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For commas, size up a whole sentence. I think the first one can go for better flow: "He also believed that, because so few territorials had thus far volunteered for foreign service, the Territorial Force was better suited for home defence than as a means of expanding the field army."
  • Another clunky one: "This division was, along with the 52nd (Lowland) Division, transferred to France in 1918." Change order and remove comma. This is an easy way to improve the writing more generally.
  • "By the end of the campaign, in which the EEF had advanced across the Sinai, through Palestine and into Syria, territorial casualties numbered over 32,000, more than those suffered by British regular, Australian, New Zealand and Indian forces combined, which totalled just over 29,000." You have the field knowledge to do this; I can only guess at something more under control:

    "By the end of a campaign in which the EEF had advanced across the Sinai, through Palestine, and into Syria, territorial casualties numbered over 32,000 – more than the 29,000 suffered by British regular, Australian, New Zealand and Indian forces combined."

It's just so long for one reviewer to sift through. Slightly unwillingly, I'm not objecting to promotion on the basis of 1a; but I think you need more eyes on a nomination before submission to FAC. Many things are good, so I hope the writing can improve. Tony (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've queried a couple of the points above, the rest have been addressed in the article as suggested. Will take your general points on board for future noms. Factotem (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem that this has been on the list for so long. Excellent and copious reviews by my colleagues, I must say, and good responses by Factotem. But this shows how under-prepared the article was. I think we're persisting because it's a ripping yarn, and we'll be proud when it's an FA. But please don't use FAC as a fix-it service. The prose is looking better, but I still see glitches here and there:

  • "By December, twenty-two infantry battalions, seven yeomanry regiments, one medical and three engineer units had been sent." Listing glitch: battalions, regiments, and then medical gets nothing. I think you meant to put "and" before "one".
Another issue where I still don't see the problem even after you point it out to me, but I've added "and" as suggested.
  • "As the territorials' completed their training and the threat of invasion receded, complete divisions began to be deployed to combat theatres."—apostrophe? And unless you really need to mark the inchoateness (my word) of the process, why not "were deployed". It starts with an "As" already.
Had to look up inchoate, and yes, it was a conscious decision on my part to emphasise the start of a process. I can see the difficulty here though by the way the sentence starts, and fixed as suggested.
  • What's your boundary for numerals vs spelt-out numbers? I see "fourteen" but "28".
I try to follow MOS:NUMERAL; not sure how this one snuck through.
  • Weird: "The Territorial Force had, however, filled the gap torn into the regular army by the German offensive of 1914"— h, h. Why not "But the Terriorial Force had filled ..."? Let's move on from pronouncements from a century ago that we're not allowed to start sentences with "But". How do you tear a gap into an army?
Is "But the Territorial Force had filled the gaps created in the regular army by the German offensive of 1914..." any better?
  • "They succeeded in reaching the German second line of defences, but were forced to retire with heavy losses when the regular forces on their right did not." Did not do what? Retire? Reach? Please hunt down these things in your writing, in future. Test how items match across stretches of text.
Re-structured the sentence to read "They succeeded in reaching the German second line of defences, but when the regular forces on their right did not the territorials were forced to retire with heavy losses." which I think fixes this. Not sure if there should be a comma before "the territorials were forced..." though. Correct comma usage confounds me at the best of times.
  • "re-shuffle"—nowadays, like to-day, not hyphenated.
Fixed.
  • Hunt down "meant that" ... second one I've seen today. Simpler grammar: "and a lull in operations meant that many of the 52 territorial units still attached to regular army formations could be returned to their own parent commands." -> "and a lull in operations allowed many of the 52 territorial units still attached to regular army formations to be returned to their own parent commands."
All incidences of "meant that" hunted down and shot on sight.

That's just a few paragraphs, right? Eek, there's so much more. Tony (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a frustrating exercise for me too, but I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

I meant to review this at ACR, but unfortunately didn't get up to it. I'm pleased to do so now. I have the following comments:

  • I'd suggest that the first sentence make it clear that this was an element of the British Army
Done.
  • The lead is probably a bit too detailed: I found it somewhat heavy going. Rejigging it so that the first para summarises the topic (per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH), with the second and third paras providing key details would be preferable.
Really not sure how to respond to this, much less fix it. Can you bear with me? Need to look into what MoS says, and try and see the problems you see.
The first para should provide a stand alone summary of the article, with the other paras in the lead covering other key details. At present the first para covers about the first third of the article instead, which is a bit daunting for readers - this doesn't ease them into the article. I've tried to do this in the FAs I've taken the lead on if some examples would be helpful (not saying that they're perfect!). As an example, in the Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom article's lead I tried to cover all of the Australian forces sent to the UK in the first para and then expanded on this in the other two paras by explaining the main deployments. I tried to do roughly the same thing in the much more complex Air raids on Japan article - the first para is a very high level summary, and the others describe what the campaign involved and its consequences. This means that the structure of the lead is a bit different to the structure of the article as the first para cuts across the entire article, while the others summarise the key issues in a more linear way. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-jigged the lead completely along these lines in my sandbox. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if it's any better? Factotem (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better - nice work. I think that there's scope for some further streamlining though. In regards to the first para, I'd suggest cutting the second sentence, expanding a bit on the TF's wartime role, and noting its post-war fate (so that it fully stands alone). The other paras look good, but are a bit complex still. I'd suggest deleting the sentence "Territorial units were among the best in the British Army by the war's end, though by that time there was little to distinguish between regular, territorial and new-army formations." given that it's confusing: as there was no longer any difference between the make-up of the units, they can't be meaningfully compared against each other (I presume that most of the pre-war TF soldiers were casualties by this time as well). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Very few battalions had even a handful of originals left. How does that sandbox look to you now? Factotem (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - I'd suggest dropping it into the article Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Factotem (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the auxiliaries disbanded when the TF was established? If not, what was their role?
Yes. Both Volunteer Force and the yeomanry ceased to exist as separate organisations. I understand that one VF battalion remained on the Isle of Man, and there are still a couple of militia units existing to this day, but these are tiny details that don't, I believe, warrant a mention.
I might have missed something, but I got confused about the status of the various reserve forces. A clearer statement of how the TF replaced them would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states "The Territorial Force was established on 1 April 1908 by the amalgamation of the Volunteer Force and the yeomanry." I'm not sure how that does not make it clear that the VF and yeomanry ceased to exist in their own right. That's fairly standard for military units, isn't it? I could add "..., which both ceased to exist.", but it seems to me that's just being unnecessarily wordy. Factotem (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article discusses the various problems with the TF (real and perceived) before WW1, including its problems attracting volunteers, but doesn't explain what motivated substantial numbers of people to volunteer for the force and actively participate in it. Could this be discussed? The "Erosion of the territorial identity" covers this kind of issue during the war, and corresponding material on the period before the war would be very interesting.
I've re-read the chapter on recruitment in Mitchinson's England's Last Hope, which is the most detailed source, but he does not go into detail on what motivated men to join. The closest he comes is the boost to recruitment that occurred as a result of invasion scares in 1909, and I've edited the article to make this clear.
I've also found a few lines in another of his works which discusses how the associations attempted to recruit new members. It addresses the issue of what motivated men to join only obliquely, by emphasising how the associations focused on pride in a territorial (i.e. one's home area, not the force) identity, but does tie in with the later discussion of the erosion of territorial (i.e. the TF) identity. Factotem (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Social military history can be thin on the ground, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " because so few territorials had thus far accepted the Imperial Service Obligation" - could this be explained? Was the obligation something TF personnel needed to opt into before the war?
Members could accept the Imperial Service Obligation at any time. I'm not sure if there's much more that can be said about this. I've amended this to read "..because so few territorials had thus far volunteered for foreign service...". Does that make it any clearer?
What the obligation was and how it worked isn't clear at present Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Struggling to see how this is not adequately explained in the "Formation" section by the sentences, "Members were not required to serve overseas unless they volunteered to do so. Haldane, who still regarded the force's primary function to be the expansion of the Expeditionary Force, hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the force would volunteer. The option to do so was formalised by the introduction of the Imperial Service Obligation in 1910." Territorials simply signed a form to say they would be willing to serve overseas. That's all there was to it. There was no other mechanism in place. It wasn't until war actually broke out that they started thinking about how it would work, which is where the second line comes in. Factotem (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe quoting the sources would help explain. Beckett: "But, after six months training upon mobilisation, the territorials would be ready for overseas service and Haldane hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the territorials would volunteer for such overseas service in advance by taking what in 1910 became known as the imperial service obligation." Dennis: "Political presures from the Volunteer and Yeomanry representatives and from [Haldane's] his own Liberal colleagues, forced him to abandon his plan to make the Territorials liable to service overseas, an obligation that was fundamental to his concept of their proper role. Instead [Haldane] had to rely upon the hope that [the territorials] would voluntarily accept the imperial service obligation, and that if the occasion arose they would not shrink from the call." That's it. That's pretty much all the sources say about it. Maybe the capitalisation is making it appear more of a thing than it actually is? Someone else did that, and I just went with it. Not sure if it's correct or not, and I notice that neither Beckett nor Dennis capitalise it. Factotem (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the ISO was is never explained - the para which introduces it states "Members were not required to serve overseas unless they volunteered to do so. Haldane, who still regarded the force's primary function to be the expansion of the Expeditionary Force, hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the force would volunteer. The option to do so was formalised by the introduction of the Imperial Service Obligation in 1910" - what did the ISO involve? (were people who signed up to it compelled to serve overseas if called up? Was this anywhere in the world, or only the British Empire? Did they receive any extra pay, etc, for signing up, etc?) Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the text in the hope that it will clarify. It now reads, "Haldane, who still regarded the force's primary function to be the expansion of the Expeditionary Force, hoped that up to a quarter of all territorials would volunteer on mobilisation. The Imperial Service Obligation, introduced in 1910, allowed territorials to volunteer in advance." The sources don't go into any more detail, and there really is nothing more to say about this. Members who accepted the ISO volunteered, so there's no question of compulsion. There's no indication in the sources that they received any extra remuneration for accepting the ISO. That they served in France shows that the obligation was not restricted to the empire. Factotem (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deployment of second-line units overseas was officially endorsed in mid 1915, but until the third line was ready, the conflicting demands to supply drafts, defend the homeland and prepare for deployment caused problems for the second line." - this sentence is a bit over-complex. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences.
Done.
  • "Despite the preference of General Ian Hamilton, Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces, for the Territorial Force to be deployed to the Western Front in complete brigades and divisions, individual battalions were detached to regular brigades" - why did this occur? Was it because not complete brigades or divisions were combat ready, while some battalions where, or was it something more ad-hoc?
The TF was supposed to be defending home shores. Individual units were sent because there was a desperate need for reinforcements in France, and the TF was all that was available. There wasn't much logic in the selection of units sent, other than they needed to have had enough men volunteer for foreign service. I think this is all explained in the article, albeit not in one place, isn't it?
Concentrating the material a bit more would help. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the last clause to read "..., it was deployed piecemeal. The pressing need for troops meant that individual battalions were sent as soon as they reached a degree of efficiency and attached to regular brigades." The sentence explaining that there was little logic to the choice of which units were sent has been moved up to follow it, and the footnote expanded with a detailed explanation of how little we know about why certain units were chosen above others. Does that look OK now? Factotem (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Filling the gap' section, full TF brigades and divisions appear on the Western Front. Could the process through which they were sent be explained?
Sorry. Don't understand the question. I'm assuming it's not about how they were shipped, ports of embarkation and disembarkation etc. The deployment of full divisions was a continuation of the process begun when individual battalions were sent. It was driven by the severe losses suffered by the regular army and the fact that the New Army was not yet ready, which I think is covered already in the article.
I've moved a few sentences up from the following section, so that the appearance of the Northumbrian Division on the Western Front in the "Filling the gap" section is not so sudden. I've also added some preamble to explain that divisions began to be deployed once they completed their training and the threat of invasion had receded. Is this what you were looking for? Factotem (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did the three TF divisions deployed to India do? Where they used for colonial garrison-type roles? (the Australian historian Peter Stanley has a forthcoming book on the subject)
Garrison duties. Is that not clear from the article?
Not really. Were they being used for policing-type tasks, or in a conventional role? As this was a significant deployment, a bit more material would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources I have go into any detail about the specific tasks undertaken by the TF in India, or any of the other garrison posts TF units took over. Factotem (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Peter Stanley's book should cover this when its released. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did so many men volunteer for the TF rather than the New Army?
    No information in the sources.
    Simpkins (1988), p. 100: "Of course, not everyone joined the Pals battalions in the autumn of 1914. The Territorial Force too had its attractions for men wishing to enlist with their friends in a local unit, and the creation of the second-line Territorial units from the latter half of August onwards gave them further opportunities to do so. 235,195 men volunteered for the Territorial Force in the first quarter of the war, and an additional 129,224 between 11 November 1914 and 3 February 1915. In October, 1914, thirty-six out of eighty-three recruiting districts in the United Kingdom recorded a higher number of enlistments for the Territorial Force than for Kitchener units and the Special reserve, and ten of those districts, mainly in Ireland, had no Territotial Formations." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question of why men volunteered for the TF in preference to the NA. Beckett touches on the issue. He mentions that the TF had wider age limits and lower height requirements, but does not link this explicitly to recruits' motivation for choosing the TF over the NA. He also makes contradictory statements about the attractiveness of the territorials' ability to volunteer for home service only. On the one hand, he states, "How far this [ability] was an important factor in territorial recruiting is unknown...", and on the other he states, "There is some evidence to suggest that home service had been an attractive option, incomplete returns for Caernarvon between September and December 1914 suggesting that the ratio of home to foreign service enlistments ran four to one...". Not sure any of these statements offer anything that could be used to definitively support assertions about men's motivations for joining the TF in preference to the NA. Factotem (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might sources on the New Army discuss this? I suspect that there isn't a clear answer though: presumably people joined the TF because it was familiar, their friends were already in it, they didn't know there was a difference, the line out the front of the recruiting office was shorter, etc. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book Hawkeye7 quoted from above, but can find nothing in it that gives any insight on why men chose the TF over the NA. Factotem (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)–[reply]
OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article comes across as rather sympathetic to the TF. Have historians commented on problems with the UK having, in effect, two or three armies during WW1, or whether the Government should have attempted to introduce conscription before the war rather than raise what was seen as a half-baked reserve? Has there also been any commentary on the negative side of regional recruitment? - while the article presents the views of those who opposed the dilation of TF units' regional characteristics, a key problem with this was that if such a unit had a bad day in battle (and in WW1 many units were almost completely destroyed in major battles) it resulted in utter disaster for the community from which it was drawn. As I understand it, the "Pals' Battalions" are regarded as having been a major mistake on these grounds, and the British Army rapidly mixed up their personnel after many of them were wiped out in the Battle of the Somme. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: sympathetic treatment. Not sure about this. I have only reflected what the sources say. I haven't held back on the ridicule or the poor reputation of the force before the war, nor have I glossed over any of it's failures.
  • Re: three distinct armies. I believe I have covered this adequately throughout the article. I'll have another look though.
Mallinson's The Making of the British Army does not appear to touch on the subject of the British having three (or four) different types of army during WWI. Simkins' chapter "The Four Armies 1914–1918" in Chandlers' The Oxford History of the British Army focusses on the issue, but it relates entirely to difficulties of recruitment. The sources I have used go into more detail about the issues encountered as a result of the territorials' distinct identity, and I'm fairly sure I touched upon all the key aspects throughout the article (though I have added a sentence on how the TF competed with the NA for recruits and how the NA was prioritised over the TA for regular training staff and equipment). Factotem (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conscription debate as it affected the TF is covered in the article. Are there any specific issues I need to address? There's a lot to be said about the subject in general, as well as the various issues relating to recruitment leading up to conscription, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this article.
  • I'm aware of the issues with the Pals battalions, but this is not a feature that appears in the sources about the TF. I think, and this is only speculation, it may be because TF units' first experience of battle was spread over a longer time period. Some fought first in the initial German offensive of 1914, others at Ypres in early 1915, others still at Gallipoli and Loos later that year, etc. Even the 48th (South Midland) Division, whose first major action was at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, had spent over a year taking not insignificant numbers of casualties while serving tours of duty in the trenches.
Thanks for the review. Where I can, I've addressed the issues you raise in the article. Others I've responded to above – I will have another look at them to see if there's anything I can do to clarify, but I'm less sure about them. I'm really not sure what to do about the lead. Obviously I don't see the problems you do, otherwise I wouldn't have written it that way, so it's going to take some time for me to understand and address. Factotem (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Any further thoughts? Factotem (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response - please see my extra comments above. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed: great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7[edit]

I looked at this article back at PR, and I endorse it as FAC-worthy. It is a superb article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FTR, I'm treating this comment as supporting promotion to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

This nom has had a lot of attention but from a relatively small and dedicated group of reviewers -- we really need at least one more comprehensive set of comments before considering promotion, as well as an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request at MILHIST for help, and asked Nikkimaria, who completed a full IR during the article's ACR, to have another look at the images. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

  • in the lead, "the German offensive" presumably in 1914? Perhaps add a link and the year?
You're referring there to the second mention of "German offensive" in the third para. "German offensive" is introduced in the first para, where the year is also given. I have linked that first mention to Race to the Sea - that's a bit of an easter egg, but I don't see how to handle it better. I think the words "German offensive of 1914" are necessary because of that second mention later, but there's no article for German offensive of 1914 to link to.
  • suggest that, as New Army is a proper noun, "Regular and New Armies" or "regular army and New Army"?, this also occurs in the final sentence of the lead
Done.
Background
  • the division between the forces sent to South Africa isn't clear. There is use of the term "army" and then "army reserve" regarding the Second Boer War, do these have their plain meaning, or should it be "regular army" and "Army Reserve". I don't have a view, just sounding out what the story was.
Re-written to state regular army, and remove mention of army reserve. The source just used "army reserve" for the initial tranche of volunteers, but when it gives the c.20,000 figure, it states only that the VF volunteers saw active service.
  • suggest "separate Imperial Yeomanry for which"
Done.
  • "UK" is used without introduction, perhaps "British coast"?
Done.
  • "exposed the difficulty" what difficulty? The restrictions on their overseas service?
Yes, but need to re-research this sentence - it may have to go.
Re-checked the source, and amended that sentence to read "The war also exposed the difficulty in relying on auxiliary forces which were not liable for service overseas as a source of reinforcements for the regular army in times of crisis. Factotem (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "six months of training following mobilisation"
Done.
Formation
  • I think note c would be better in the body, as it begs the question what happened to the militia
Not sure about this. I think it's important to state what happened to the militia, but it's not really relevant at that precise point in the narrative. That the militia was replaced by the Special Reserve is already mentioned at the end of the 2nd para of the "Reform efforts" section. The real purpose of note c is to explain the regular army's regimental structure, i.e. 2 regular battalions and a 3rd (reserve) battalion, so that it does not appear so odd that the first TF battalion in the Gloucestershire Regiment was numbered the 4th battalion.
  • it would be useful to explain that the 1st-3rd Battalions of the Gloucestershire Regiment were regular army, if that is correct
Done.
  • drop the commas from "another, obligatory, year in times of crisis"
Dropping both would alter the meaning to say that there was already one obligatory year. Simplified to "They enlisted for a four-year term which could be extended by an obligatory year in times of crisis".
  • "had the options"
Struggled repeatedly with this myself. I've simplified the narrative just to say that they could terminate their enlistment. I don't think that the options to re-enlist or join the regular army are all that important.
  • "Members were not required to serve overseas unless they volunteered to do so." a requirement isn't created by volunteering. Suggest "Members had to volunteer to serve overseas."
Re-written as "Members were not required to serve overseas but could volunteer to do so" ("had" would imply some sort of compulsion).
  • Expeditionary Force isn't linked or explained earlier
The Expeditionary Force is previously introduced in the last para of the section "Reform efforts". There is an article on the BEF, but that is not relevant to the pre-war Expeditionary Force, so there's nothing to link.
  • suggest "The diversion of the militia into the Special Reserve rendered Haldane's target of just over 314,000 officers and men for the Territorial Force unattainable."
Not sure diversion is the right word here. Will think on it some.
Really don't like "diversion". Would "The failure to secure the support of the militia rendered Haldane's target of just over 314,000 officers and men for the Territorial Force unattainable." fix this for you? Factotem (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it really that the exclusion of the militia from the TF that actually made the target unattainable, rather than the failure to secure the militia's support? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed, as you say and I originally wrote, the exclusion of the militia that rendered the target unobtainable. I think this is largely a semantic detail, but I don't like using "diversion". The militia wasn't diverted anywhere, it was abolished completely. Factotem (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was the original wording in the article "exclusion"? If so, I am mortified. Either way, I suggest it is a far better wording than diversion, and also better than describing it as a lack of "support". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was, and is again now. Factotem (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'class corps' is unexplained, and is then compared to the 'officer corps' Do you mean 'other ranks'?
'class corps' is explained immediately ("The 'class corps', which recruited from the more affluent urban centres..."). Good point about mixing 'class corps' and 'officer corps' terms though. I've re-written the sentence following 'class corps' as "Territorial officers were predominantly middle class...".
This still doesn't work for me, as it isn't clear what this 'class corps' was, was it a specific part of the TF, or is it a general term to refer to the rank-and-file of the TF who were other than unskilled labourers? Or is it the middle class rank-and-file, or they and the middle class officers combined? I don't think you need to use the term 'class corps' at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The term 'class corps' comes up a few times in the sources, but not in this article, so I've amended the sentence to read "Units which recruited from the more affluent urban centres contained a significant proportion of well-educated white-collar workers." Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the regular army's more privileged officer corps"
Done.
  • suggest "The regular army had no more faith"

Done. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Much appreciated. I've addressed nearly all the above as suggested. There's a few I'm not sure about - comments above if you want to press/discuss further.Factotem (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Just wondering if you intend to revisit/offer more feedback? Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got distracted. Will finish this review in the next couple of days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conscription debate and pre-war problems
  • suggest "unit esprit de corps" and link to morale
Done.
  • suggest "6,000 did not attend any training at all" if that is what is meant. At present it reads like 6,000 didn't attend the annual camp.
It was indeed only the annual camp that was missed.
Sorry, I may be being thick here, but if the TF was 246,000 in 1913, it must have been about that in 1912, and if only 155,000 of them turned up to their annual camp in 1912, then more like 90,000 didn't turn up to annual camp, not 6,000? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The devil is in the detail. Territorials were required to attend between eight and fifteen days of annual camp, and only 155,000 "completed the full 15-day annual camp". Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First World War
  • "expanding the field army" perhaps "regular army"? If that is what is meant?
Field army is what is meant here.
Which field army then? I didn't think the BEF had any armies this early on? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was using, perhaps incorrectly, the term 'field army' to refer to the divisions deployed to fight overseas which, at this stage of the war, was the BEF. Amended now to read "expanding the army overseas". I don't believe it's necessary to qualify that as "regular army overseas" – at this stage there was no other army, and later there would be the New Army. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Special Service Sections" I think it necessary to state here that these were drawn from the Territorial Force, if that is right.
Done.
  • drop the hyphen from "regular-army"
  • Becasue
Both the above re-worded to eliminate the issues identified.

down to Gallipoli. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • General Hamilton should just be Hamilton at this point
Done.
  • is there any explanation of why the proportion of territorial casualties was so high in Egypt, Sinai and Palestine? Were they badly used, was it lack of quality or what?
No info in the source.
Bibliography
  • link Charles Bean and James Edward Edmonds via authorlink field
Done.
I can apply arbitrary hyphenation if this is important, but I do not know the proper placement for all publications, and as I understand it, ISBN hyphenation is preferred rather than required.
It is not required (so far as I know), and shouldn't be done arbitrarily, as the placing of the hyphens has meaning. If you ever want to find out where they go, this tool does it for you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I started to change the ISBNs based on this tool, but it generated errors when I previewed. I also note that it can only be used for ISBNs issued in the US or Australia. Given that this is not a requirement for FAC, I'll leave the ISBNs unhyphenated. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • suggest adding campaigns Territorials were involved in under |battles=, eg Western Front, Gallipoli, etc
Done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think I have addressed all issues. In some cases, I've addressed them by pushing back - happy to discuss if you want to challenge those. Factotem (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there. Just a few remaining queries/doubtful points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One minor quibble, but no reason not to support. Well done on the article (and with getting through quite a torrid time with this review). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the time and effort you've given to help out with this. Factotem (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2018 [27].

Parliament of 1327[edit]

Nominator(s): —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Parliament of 1327—almost a revolutionary body, for the first time in English history, a reigning monarch was juridically removed and replaced. King Edward II—did he resign, or was he deposed?! Find out here today. Actually, of course, you won't because—naturally—historians do not agree, as usual, so for me to draw any conclusions would be an indulgence in bubblegum. The article's in (possibly) fine shape; it's been through an almost adequate GA review and a better peer review (now archived, many thanks to all who helped). Looking forward here, as usual, to all meticulous commentary and metaphorical canings. Thanks in advance all, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

There are good things about the writing, but here are a few queries about the prose in the opening para:

  • "Edward II had become increasingly unpopular with the English nobility through the course of his reign, ..." – Unless I've got it wrong, he was only Edward II during his reign. So why are the last six words necessary?
  • "By 1325, even his wife, Isabella, despised him." – A bit clunky with such densely sprinked commas. Could the two either side of "Isabella" be removed?
  • "probably entering into a relationship with him, and ultimately, the following year, invading England with him to depose her husband." – Does the "probably" also apply to the invading? Do we need "ultimately" when there's already a time phrase? Do we need to know that Mortimer wasn't just a good-looking servant? I'm unsure, but think about this: "Toward the end of that year she took their son the Earl of Chester to France, and joined and probably entered into a relationship with the powerful and wealthy nobleman Roger Mortimer, whom her husband had exiled. The following year, they invaded England to depose Edward II."

Tony (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tony1: Thank you very much, Tony, this is an unexpected pleasure. To summarise, I've taken on board your remarks, up to and including lifting your suggested sentence—cheers! If you notice anything else you think I ought to know about, feel free to make any suggestions you want. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First three paras of "Background":

  • "Edward was unpopular with the people due to his repeated demands for unpaid military service in Scotland"—sounds like he was demanding he be allowed to do unpaid in Scotland. I'm unsure who the "recipients" were.
    • "Edward was also unpopular with the common people due to his repeated demands from them for unpaid military service in Scotland"? And then split into a second sentence.
  • I suppose there's no avoiding that × 2 here: "Historian Chris Given-Wilson wrote that by 1325 the nobility believed that "no landholder could feel safe" under the regime." I often face this problem in my own writing.
    • "has written how", perhaps, instead?
  • Very bumpy with six commas:

    "France had recently invaded the Duchy of Aquitaine,[12] then an English royal possession,[10] and, supposedly to prevent the Queen's estates getting into French hands, King Edward repossessed them,[11] probably at the urging of Despenser,[12] and forcibly disbanded her retinue.[13]"

    "France had recently invaded the Duchy of Aquitaine,[12] then an English royal possession.[10] Supposedly to prevent the Queen's estates falling into French hands, King Edward repossessed them,[11] probably at the urging of Despenser,[12] and forcibly disbanded her retinue.[13]" Maybe?

    But there are more issues: supposedly and probably? Not fond of "supposedly", which could be ambiguous. You could get away with one uncertainty tag, maybe at the start (even though there are several sources ... doesn't seem to matter if you show it's all hypothetical).

    • Thanks Tony1, there's a couple of things here. i) I've removed the ambiguators, as the sources are firm on the humiliation etc., and ii) I realised it read as if the invasion and confiscation were related; they were not, so I've separated them, with the invasion opening the next para (which discusses it) and kept Isabella vs Despenser in the preceding para. Thoughts?
  • Modern historians ... so you've been citing historians from long ago? "while suggesting"—can the first word be dropped?
    • Done, and agree.
  • Too many thats: "Contemporaries believed that she had sworn" ... Perhaps audit for those that aren't necessary?
    • Interesting; OK, I have brought occurrences of that down from 96 to 47?
  • "Soon after her arrival, correspondence between her and her husband, as well as with the French King, Charles IV, and the Pope, effectively disclosed the royal couple's increasing estrangement to the world.[10] They were both increasingly scathing of each other,[16] worsening relations.[10]" Ambiguous. Was it the fact or the contents of the correspondence that disclosed this? More ambiguity: is the disclosure through modern scholastic analysis, or was it obvious at the time?
    • Yeees; this is a tricky one. How about "A contemporary chronicler reports how Isabella and Edward became increasingly scathing of each other"—does that clarify that it was contemporarily knowledge?
  • "she had entered into a—possibly sexual—relationship in Paris with"—perhaps remove the dashes?
    • Done.
  • "This was known of in England by March 1326"—remove "of".
    • Done; further, how about "This was public knowledge in England by March 1326"?
  • "ordered that both the Prince and his mother were to be arrested on landing in England"—remove "were to".
    • Done.
  • "her and her"—I've read that twice in the Background. Can't immediately see how to fix either.
    • Mmmm: ctrl+F said I used it three times throughout, so I've adjusted them all to variations of "Isabella and Edward", "her and the Prince", etc. Better?

Tony (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Tony, appreciate these points. There's a couple of things you may wish to confirm though? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All well, Tony1? —54129 05:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding a legend to the map caption explaining the different colours
  • File:Edward_II_of_England.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thank you, Nikkimaria, for that. It's a good idea about the legend, and I would really like to use green/pink arrow symbols rather than text—but I think that kind of visual is a bit beyond me, so I had to go with text...also I replaced the link with a university website rather than the news one; any better? Thanks again! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the red dots meant simply to represent the locations associated with the text? It seems there are more dots than the text would suggest... Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, a careful count shows (I think) an extra one on the "Welsh leg" of Edward's final tour; I wonder, would Hchc2009 be able to clarify, or even adjust their map, I wonder? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraid I've retired from the Wiki, SerialNumber. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If "deposition" has a specific meaning, I'd link it.
  • and Despenser, a contemporary chronicler said, was "deeply hated by the nobles of the kingdom".[ - the active tense makes it scan oddly, why not "and Despenser was reported/said to be "deeply hated by the nobles of the kingdom".
  • Edward too was disliked by his nobility, not only because of his favouritism but because they felt abused by him. For example, the King had made repeated demands for unpaid military service from them - strikes me as unnecessarily wordy, why not just, "Edward was also unpopular for making repeated demands for unpaid military service from them"
  • In September 1324 she "had been subjected to the extreme humiliation of being declared an enemy alien", - this can be rewritten without directly quoting.
  • Modern historians agree that hostility towards Edward was general - I'd not use "general" in this way here - you mean "universal"?
  • They were both increasingly scathing in their remarks and eager to score political points off each other, - what do you mean "political points"? I'd be tempted to remove...
  • King Edward certainly alienated his son by putting the prince's estates under royal administration in January 1326. "certainly" redundant here
  • The following month, in a "startling" act of brinkmanship, the King ordered that not only the Queen but the Prince too were to be arrested the moment they landed in England - can we think of another word for "startling" that doesn't need quote marks?

Actually, looking over the Background section, I think it could be trimmed slightly with some of the speculation removed. Context is good but I think it might be a tad on the inclusive side. I can find examples later.

  • They failed in this mission: Edward did not just refuse to come but refused robustly - why can't we just say "he flatly refused"?

OK, I find that it is quite an engaging and entertaining article, so I think with a bit of prose-tweaking we'll get there. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, Casliber—I appreciate (and have utilised) all your suggestions. Just to clarify that "startling" was a quote (although should have been directly cited of course), as I wouldn't consider it encyclopaedic otherwise. In any case, I've replaced it with "unexpected"—although, on re-reading, I'm not sure it needs an adjective at all... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right then...

  • They were uncertain, even, as to whether Edward II had abdicated or was being deposed. - isn't clear who "They" are here....
  • If Edward did denounce parliament in such terms, then he had severely underestimated his wife and Mortimer. - I don't get the point of this sentence really...
  • It may have actually enabled them to do so: - I'd argue this is redundant as it is repeated (in the opposite way) in the next sentence
  • Seymour Phillips suggests that if Edward had attended he may have found enough support to seriously disrupt their plans - "seriously" redundant here. If you want a stronger word than "disrupt", how about "stymie"
  • Following its recall, parliament returned to the more usual business of medieval parliaments - why not just, "Following its recall, parliament returned to usual business"
  • had led to widespread disturbances and illegality - err, this could be rephrased I think..
  • When parliament finally dissolved on 9 March 1327, it had been the second longest, at seventy-one days, of the period - what period?
    • Many thanks again Casliber, I agree with all your suggestions, although I reckon I can tighten the prose a little more,* so some of them may end up being moot? Remembering to strike this time...Incidentally, about the last point, Maddivott doesn't actually specify: so I changed it to "of the reign", which although not as extreme, is at least accurate (since it was). Personally, I think he probably means since c.1277 when parliaments started taking place on a semi-regular basis. But that's just my opinion and also, I think, OR  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Now tightened. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Seems pretty complete to me and is an engaging read. I do think some other folks might find some more to tighten as I tend to tune out stuff on repeated reads. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: You were right the first time, it is the reviewer that strikes out their points if/when they feel they've been addressed...but no biggie. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

I intend to support this article, but working through. As a general observation, I find 54129's subject matter very interesting, and his/her writing style highly engaging, they have a real feel for the political undertones and the impact of conflicting personalities on historical events. In part this is because of a highly attuned antenna, in part its because 54129 writing style is very down to earth, conversational almost, at times. While this exactly the kind of prose I most appreciate, in these articles it does lead to some redundancy, which my recents edits are attempting to weed out. I echo Tony's observation above that "There are good things about the writing", and am trying to put my finger on were there could be improvement, as I see this editor as one of our best. All in all, another fine piece of work, will post here again shortly, when done. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now to Support. Note the nominator pinged me since about watching and learning re Tony suggesting etc; can see evidence of this in this very well written page. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "was instrumental in the transfer of power from King Edward II to his son, Edward III". Neither then had power. I would say transfer of the crown.
    • Absolutely right.
  • "predominantly because of his promotion of court favourites". All kings have favourites. Maybe "excessive influence of unpopular court favourites".
    • I agree; I wonder if that results in a slightly overlong sentence—thoughts?
  • "Despenser was said to be hated by English nobility" Why the "said to be"? He was.
    • I think I meant, by contemporaries. But that's tighter.
  • "Edward was unpopular for his repeated demands for unpaid military service". DNB and the FA article on him do not say this. He would not have been expected to pay the nobility for military service. It was rather his repeated defeats in Scottish wars, which are not mentioned.
    • I'll add & source them, and "paid" is probably anachronistic, so also removed.
  • I should have made clear that I was querying the "repeated demands". This is cited to a 1956 article by Powicke. I do not have access to Phillips's biography, but DNB and the FA Edward II article do not say that this was an issue and do not cite Powicke. Such demands were normal in the period, and although Edward's opponents sometimes supplied only the minimum number they they were required to send for political reasons, the demands themselves do not seem to have been a major issue. I also think that the Scottish failures should be specifically mentioned. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Are you using the DNB or the ODNB? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ODNB. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just curious. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in September 1324 Isabella had been publicly humiliated when the government declared her an enemy alien." According to DNB in Sep 1324 she was deprived of her lands, which you have in 1325.
    • Well spotted, thanks, I've corrected the chronology with a couple of (extra, hopefully not too many) details.
  • "The King was incarcerated by the Earl of Lancaster". He only became Earl of Lancaster later. It would be better to use his correct title of Earl of Leicester, especially as it avoids confusion with his uncle who had been executed.
    • Point; so I've linked him as Leicester and pointed out his relationship with Dead Thomas, so when he becomes Lancaster later it won't be a surprise.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • "The main priority for the new regime was what to do with Edward II." This is not grammatical. I would say deciding what to do.
    • Done, thanks.
  • "Roger Mortimer considered holding a state trial" Why the first name when you have referred to him just as Mortimer above?
    • I think just trying to prevent monotony...changed though.
  • "anointed his position by God." This sounds odd. Maybe anointed king by God.
    • Of course.
  • "Only 26 of the 46 barons who had been summoned to the October 1326 parliament also received summons to that of January 1327, and six of those had never received summonses under Edward II at all" I do not understand this. You refer to the Oct 1326 parliament, but above you say that this was the date of the summons for the Dec parliament which was postponed. Maddicott says it was the first parliament for 13 months, a point worth making. Also I assume you mean that 6 received summonses in Oct and Jan who had never had them before, but it is unclear.
    • Of course, they were summoned in Oct 1326, not to, many thanks. I clarified the sentence: "Only 26 of the 46 barons who had been summoned in October 1326 for the December parliament were then also summoned to that of January 1327". I've added the point about 13 months; it's not that I don't agree with it, just that it doesn't really fit.
  • " It differed, in that the concerted influence of outsiders and commoners such as the City of London's Common Council and ordinary Londoners." This is ungrammatical.
    • "Where it differed was in the greater-than-usual influence that outsiders and commoners had, such as those from the London" perhaps?
  • I assume that Lords and Commons met together, not separately as today, but this should be clarified.
    • The precise divisions are unknown. They were certainly together at some points (the opening and conclusion of the parlt, for example, and may have reconvened at various points. Little is known about this for the period; at this stage, the commons did not necessarily even debate as a unit: the burgesses often deliberated separately from the knights for example. It's not until the 1341 parlt that we see two distinctly cohesive houses with separate meeting places. No parliamentary roll for 1327, of course.
  • "reflected an underlying constitutional crisis, of which contemporaries understood." This is ungrammatical.
    • Corrected.
  • " how power was transferred" As above, the crown, not power.
    • "How could a transfer of power between living kings be accomplished in medieval England without violating the underlying assumptions about kingship and government, the elusive 'constitution'?"
  • "The fundamental question was how power was transferred between two living Kings" I am not clear what your point is here. My point, which you agreed with in the lead, is that neither Edward had power at that stage. The question was how to transfer the crown. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A historian has described how" You should name him or her.
    • Done.
  • "having provided no stable rule in his absence (as would be usual)" What does this mean? I assume that it was usual for a king to appoint a regent when he was absent, but it is not clear.
    • Yes, he could leave the realm, but he would be expected to make provision for its rule in his absence. Added "regent".
  • "Mortimer, making clear that he speaking on behalf of the lords". This is ungrammatical.
    • Well: a word was omitted; bt have simplified to "...speaking on behalf of the lords", which is much easier.
  • There are a lot of grammatical errors. I have picked up some but no doubt I have missed others. The article needs a thorough copy edit.
    • There are very few. But thanks very much indeed for your edits!
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • "The bishops gave sermons—Hereford" I think it is better to stick to calling him Orleton as some readers (including me) will not remember his diocese.
    • Done
  • "All of which was claimed to be so well known to the common people that it was undeniable." This is ungrammatical.
    • Tweaked
  • "They accused Edward's favourites of tyranny" "They" presumably refers to the articles but it should be spelled out.
    • Yes...I think at first it referred to the rebels, but the articles, of course, did the same
  • "Edward's father had, says Mark Ormrod left him "an impossible task", having started the war without making sufficient success with which to finish it." "making sufficient success" sounds odd to me. Also it is cited to Phillips, not Ormrod.
    • Tweaked
  • "by evil counsel and evil ward" What does evil ward mean?
    • I think counsel is self-explanatory (the ame word is used in the same context today), but I've added a footnote explaining "ward"
  • "A delegation consisting of the Bishops of Ely, Hereford and London, and around 30 laymen[10][73] (including the Earl of Surrey to represent the lords and Trussell representing the knights)." This is ungrammatical.
    • Split and reworked the sentence
  • "acknowledgement of memoranda" What does this mean? memorandum of acknowledgement?
    • Quite
  • "The delegation set back for London on 22 January" set back sounds odd to me.
    • Meh. I think it's OK, but having said that, reworded slightly
  • "Isabella, on the other hand, granted herself an annual income of 20,000 marks" How did she have the power to do this?
    • Because she was the mother and husband of Kings and lover of the de facto ruler of the kingdom? However, tweaked slightly to show that strictly it was a grant, even if at her request.
  • " (those who evaluated them." Missing bracket.
    • Bracketed
  • "This not only included the political—and often lengthy—petitions" These not only?
    • Yeees...again, I think the singular referred to the "business", but tying it to the petitions makes sense
  • "Their problem they faced" "The problem they faced"?
    • Yes
  • "this effectively involved having to rewrite a piece of history in which many people were actively involved and had taken place only two weeks earlier." What history? He had agreed to resign.
    • Only after a convoluted process which was effectively being made up as it went along: [QUOTE]"Edward II's deposers set themselves a much harder task, one that involved recreating an event involving over a dozen people and backdating it by two weeks, while erasing, or at least devaluing, the importance of a memorable ceremony in which over a hundred had participated, including representatives of the community of the realm who were supposed to report these actions back to their communities"[/QUOTE] If you can think of an improved summary of that, please be my guest!
  • "Michael Prestwich as described the latter" has described?
    • Well spotted
  • "the significance of 1327 for the development of separate chambers, in how it "saw the presentation of the first full set of commons' petitions [and] the first comprehensive statute to derive from such petitions"." I am not clear how this is supposed to have contributed to the development of separate chambers. Also, what is meant by "commons' petitions"? Does commons mean commoners? Presumably it does not mean house of commons since this did not yet exist. The petitions described above are by persons and bodies outside parliament, not just individual commoners.
    • There in
  • "No advance of democracy—nor was it intended to be—its purpose was to "unite all classes of the realm against the monarch" of the time" This is ungrammatical.
    • UNgrammatical! Ungrammatical! Tweaked.
  • "Professor Gwyn A. Williams" Why distinguish him as Professor? Other historians you cite are also professors.
    • Just for variety I suppose, but removed now for consistency
  • "Adam uses words that strongly suggest that had this precedent in mind" I think a word is missing.
    • Yes, "he"—inserted
  • "Says Curtis Perry, "contemporaries applied the story [of Edward's deposition] to the political turmoil of the 1620s in conflicting ways:" This is ungrammatical.
    • Well; the wording is fine, but I don't mind tweaking it. Check it.
  • "the impression that Isabella's relationship with Edward was dysfunctional from the start" This quote should be attributed inline. The same applies to other quotes in the notes, which should be attributed in the text, not just the refs.
    • I do not know what this means. If a quote is in the text, it gets attributed. If it is in a footnote it gets attributed. What mean ye?
  • An example: "This is at variance with the impression received from chroniclers writing under Isabella and Mortimer between 1327 and 1330, who tend to give "the impression that Isabella's relationship with Edward was dysfunctional from the start"." This is cited to L. B. St John, but not attributed to him inline as e.g. "This is at variance with the impression received from chroniclers writing under Isabella and Mortimer between 1327 and 1330, who, according to L. B. St John, tend to give "the impression that Isabella's relationship with Edward was dysfunctional from the start". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article seems OK in content so far as I can judge with a limited knowledge of the period, but I am concerned at the high number of typos and ungrammatical statements (or in some cases excessively colloquial ones). Dudley Miles (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks again for your review Dudley Miles, we agree on much and disagree on less, although where we do, it is no doubt robustly...incidentally, feel free to be WP:BOLD if you find a great number of errors (I notice you found three earlier). Or just "Oppose" on principle, it's all good. Either way—thanks very much for for your edits as well as this review. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 20:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply above. See also my reply above on the crown being transferred not power - in the main text as well as the lead. I am going on holiday so it may be a week before I comment further. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serial Number 54129 I do not wish to oppose as I think the article is close to FA, but there are still a few issues. As I mention above you frequently quote in the notes without attribution to a named historian in the text (see example above). I think it is best to attribute inline in every case but it is not a deal breaker. An additional point which I have just noticed is that I do not think it is correct that he was deposed and his son proclaimed king on 13 January. Both ODNB and Prestwich in Plantagenet Engand pp 216-7 say that on 13 January it was agreed that Edward should be replaced by his son. He was then forced to abdicate on 20 January and the new king officially acceded on 25 January. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: Thanks! I hope you had a good holiday. Just FYI, I certainly wasn't insisting you oppose ;) just letting you know that it wouldn't ever be taken personally. So, if I can sum up, your sticking points are inline attribution (I'll certainly do that, as I'm fully persuaded as to the benefit) and the transfer of the crown/power (which is certainly a discussion worth having). As to your latter query regarding Prestwich etc: I can probably tweak that, I just haven't got the sources before me atm (I'm now, ironically, also, on holiday for the week). Is that a good summary of your position? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On transfer of power or crown, you accepted this in the lead and I was just suggesting that the main text be brought in line with the lead. I have made the change myself in the main text, but you can of course reopen the question. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I noticed that. I'm not particularly wedded for or against. My thoughts are basically that a) it's not just the physical crown itself that gets transferred, but the moral and political authority it symbolises, and I think we should be careful not to suggest to the reader that it was as simple a "just" handing over headwear, as it were; and b) that the source refers explicitly to the transfer of power rather than the crown. However: your change is acceptable, as it's still a viable interpretation, if I might think a slightly narrow one. Cheers! Incidentally, I've also provided inline attribution to contemporary scholars' quotes where necessary, as you suggested. Although not to contemporaneous commentary, except where specifically identifiable (e.g., a chronicle). —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood that you were going to deal with the succession query when you return from holiday and I was waiting for that. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: Well, not necessarily; it's mostly peeing down, yet there is BT extra-fast broadband. Although I note that it's only "extra fast" until c. 17:00. Do you know what I mean?
    Anyway, enough perambulating; wot mean ye, the succession query, specifically? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said "As to your latter query regarding Prestwich etc: I can probably tweak that, I just haven't got the sources before me atm (I'm now, ironically, also, on holiday for the week)." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seen, Dudley Miles; well, obviously I can't say that for a ~week there was no King at all (!!!) but how about a line (or footnote perhaps) noting that "Prestwich has identified gaps in the chronology that point to the uncertainty of the times...[his dates]", or something? Emphasising how the political movers and shakers were effectively forced to make up procedure as they go along. Whilst avoiding WP:OR. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear why you think there cannot be a period with no king, but looking at Prestwich again he says that the new reign formally started on 25 January, as you also say, so your statement that Edward III was proclaimed king on 13 January seems doubtful. Of course, this is subject to the wider range of sources which you have. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks again, Dudley Miles. But, what is this? My "claims" are "doubtful"? Are you suggesting that I have misused a source either deliberately or through incompetence? In any case, we have an entire section pinpointing the moment the crown changed hands as being 13 January, and all fully sourced. And Prestwich does not, for instance, say that "Edward III became King on the 25th"—that would be far too unambiguous for a medievalist. No: he says, "the new king's reign began formally" on the 25th. In other words he was already considered King, but his reign had not "formally" started. In other words, Edward II was de jure King until the 13th, but not de facto' (clearly, as he was eating venison in Wallingford), whereas Edward III was de facto King from the 13th, and de jure' from the 25th. But I really don't think it needs any more words expended on the thing.
    As for gaps in reigns...I think interregna were alien to the medieval English political culture and the concept of kingship, but that is, certainly, an argument for another day. Probably the day I bring this to FAC. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK you obviously have access to a wider range of sources than I do. I am happy to support now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

Just flagging up that this candidate has received a comprehensive source review at the FQSR workshop which, I believe, fulfils this candidate's FAC requirement for source reviewing. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing. Detailed review at the link above. Factotem (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Not sure what's going on with the FQSR workshop these days, but it occurs to me that this FAC page will be an incomplete record unless the source review linked to above is replicated here in full. Is there any way it can be transcluded, or do we just copy and paste? Factotem (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: Fair question of process. Can we maybe just post a diff like: "Source review has passed"? --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That link is in userspace. Can we guarantee it will never be deleted? Factotem (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I had a post here yesterday but I realise now I never saved it. Yes, like Andy, I think a link should suffice but I understand the concern about it being in userspace -- Mike, as a thought, would you want us to transfer completed reviews from the workshop to the FACs in question and then blow them away from your userspace, or would you want to preserve the workshop in full? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would work -- I was not thinking that the workshop subpage would ever get moved, so it can just stay there, but I see it's a good idea to have a copy of the actual source review here. So perhaps a cut and paste would be the best thing to do? I wouldn't want a FAC to refer to something in user space, even if there's currently no intention of moving it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Mike, I'll copy/paste the SR here (collapsed though, I think, to save space) and perhaps when the workshop is finished you just put some kind of archival banner over the whole thing to preserve (noting the individual reviews get that anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SR by Factotem
  • Refs list is properly formatted. There are a few without page numbers, but these are web pages which are not numbered, so all good.
Just noticed ref #48 cites Ormrod 2011 with no page number. A search for the quote in Gbooks preview reveals this to be p. 48. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now ref #50. Still missing page number. Factotem (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The location info for Goodman's 1971 edition of The Loyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant under Richard II looks wrong. Following the OCLC link to Worldcat indicates that it was published by "Routledge and K. Paul" of London.
Adjusted, many thanks.
Not sure I understand. Why do you need to take/upload a photo to address this? Factotem (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? Factotem (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I misunderstood your point, apologies.
  • St John's In the Bset Interest of the Queen: Isabella of France, Edward II and the Image of a Functional Assembly Typo.
    • Done.
  • Waugh's Edmund [Edmund of Woodstock], first earl of Kent Has no OCLC or ISBN, but the link shows that there is a doi reference that can be used.
    • As a webpage, I've never before used one.
The {{cite web}} template can take a doi= parameter. Factotem (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; but have no idea what you are talking about.
@Factotem: Many thanks indeed for this; how do you do that then. I know dois are prominent in article refs (even the v old ones?) but no idea how you create one for webpages. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, but I didn't create the doi ref. It's displayed on the web page that you linked to in the title of the work. It turns out that your title link and the doi ref lead to the same page anyway, so not sure this was such an issue after all. I guess if the ODNB ever change their website, though, and give the page a different URL, the doi should still remain valid. Factotem (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: I filled in the other odnb doi, but impossible to find for the PROME page. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you use the Barnes and Noble published edition of Chrimes & Brown's Select Documents of English Constitutional History, 1307-1485 as listed in the bibliography? I ask because there's another edition published in 1961 in London by A & C Black Publishers with different pagination (422, instead of B&N's 398) which could affect ref page numbering.
    • Not sure now; but in any case, Dunham / Wood source this whole sentence.
  • The Worldcat listing for the H.M.S.O. publication Calendar of the close rolls preserved in the Public Record Office indicates that this was originally published in 1898, not 1892 as shown in the article's bibliography.
    • Done
  • Where you list Woodbridge as the publisher location, I think adding Suffolk would be appropriate.
    • Well, I can't find anything on this (again) at Template:Cite book or WP:REF; although I thought it was only usual for US states.
Someone made a similar suggestion at one of my FACs, so I'm just repeating it here. Not sure if it's a major issue. Factotem (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • External link checker does not report any problems.
    • Glad I've done something right anyway!  ;)
Actually, I've just discovered that the ext. link checker checked only the archive. The website www-british-history.ac.uk, linked to in the bibliography for Given-Wilson et. al. (2005), is down, and the archive link requires a login. There are 33 refs to this work, so it maybe needs looking into. Unfortunately the Wayback Machine doesn't appear to have archived that page. Factotem (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely odd! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You provided one Gbook preview link, for Hartrich's Urban Identity and Political Rebellion: Henry of Lancaster's Revolt, 1328–29 in Ormrod's Fourteenth Century England. I check these because the Gbook previews often link to different editions of the publication to that listed in the article bibliography. This might introduce problems with page numbering in the article's refs if the pagination is different between those editions. This one, however, checks out fine. On a personal note, we're not required to provide Gbook preview links in the bibliography, and I don't, for this reason and the fact that availability varies according to your location.
    • That's very well spotted, cheers, it must have slipped through the net. I'll remove it: you might have noticed that I don't (intentionally) use Gbook links either (as you say, for the very good reasons you gave).
  • Powell & Wallis. Typo in publisher name Factotem (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Just noticed that there are some cases of date ranges in book titles that are separated by a hyphen. Fryde's The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321-1326 is just one example. I believe these should be unspaced endashes. Factotem (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking OCLC and ISBN links - I usually click through all OCLC/ISBN/etc. links and verify that Worldcat/Gbooks details these links lead to correspond with the details given in the article bibliography.

  • The OCLC link for Adams & Stephens's Select Documents of English Constitutional History leads directly to the Worldcat listing, but there is no publisher information in that listing. I have found this publication online, and the publisher information is listed there on the title page. Might be worth linking the title in the article's bibliography.
    • Moot now, since I've removed the work, but a good idea.
You've removed it from the bibliography, but there's still a ref (#91) to the work. Factotem (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course; I confused this with the similarly-titled one by Chrimes and Brown (which is removed). I've added a url link.
  • In the listing for Bradford's A Silent Presence: The English King in Parliament in the Fourteenth Century, you've provided an OCLC ref for the journal Historical Research, but this appears to be a generic reference for the journal as a whole. A search for that specific article gives us a doi reference and an issue number that are missing from the article's bibliography.
    • Yes, I only ever link to the volume rather than the article (and, indeed, assumed it to be accepted practice). This answer applies to a couple more comments, below, of a similar vintage.
Don't see how this is acceptable. Without a specific document reference, you're forcing readers who want to verify the source to search on the title. We are required to provide ISBN references for books so that readers can identify the specific book. Why aren't we required to do the same for journal articles? Factotem (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: well, either way, I've added dois to the article where possible: This seems the go-to place for that kind of thing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be two volumes of Bryant's Parliament: The Biography. You don't specify which. Following the ISBN link provided to Worldcat reveals that that reference relates to Volume 1. None of the five editions listed for that volume are published by Transworld, as indicated in the article's bibliography.
    • Ironically, this is the only source remaining in the article from its original incarnation, so strictly I can't say. But I've added the details regarding the volume number. Worldcat registers Transworld (an imprint of Penguin) here.
      • @Serial Number 54129 and Factotem: Hi there, just to let you know, this was definitely the first volume, and it was the 2015 Black Swan edition. My mistake was because the first edition's publisher is listed as Doubleday, an imprint of Transworld. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks GreyGreenWhy! You can see what a ball-ache content creation can be now, eh  ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the listing for Dunham & Wood's The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom's Authority, 1327-1485, you've provided an OCLC ref for the journal The American Historical Review, but this appears to be a generic reference for the journal as a whole. A search for that specific article gives us a jstor reference and the issue number 4 that are missing from the article's bibliography.
    • As above.
  • The ISBN reference provided for Forhan & Nederman's Medieval Political Theory: A Reader: The Quest for the Body Politic 1100–1400 appears to relate to the 273-page e-book edition published in 2013. The 1993 edition has a different ISBN number and is only 257 pages. That difference in pagination might impact the page numbering in your refs.
    • It was this one, so the pagination is OK, but I think the refbook generator ascribed a dodgy ISBN to it.
Then bibliography should be amended to show the correct ISBN as given by that Gbooks link. Factotem (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. (Update: see [28].)
  • Similarly, the ISBN number for Fryde's Handbook of British Chronology appears to relate, according to Worldcat, to the 2003 edition, not the 1996 edition you've specified in the bibliography. This is, however, a purely cosmetic issue. I don't consider it to be a problem because at 605 pages, the pagination in both editions is the same.
    • Right!
  • The bibliography entry for National Archives gives an NA reference of SC8, which is a collection. The link you provide appears to be to a specific document with NA ref SC 8/56/2773. I think this should be included in the bibliography. You appear to have used the {{cite web}} template to format this; I wonder if the {{cite archive}} template is more appropriate?
    • That's fantastic, many thanks—I didn't even know it existed! If you could have a look again, considering it's first time usage. And you'll see a slight anomaly with the date; the archives themselves only (cautiously) date it within a ~20 year period, but harv referencing didn't like a date range, so the sfn is forced to just have one year (all things being equal, I chose 1326).
Looks good to me. I didn't have any problem entering a date range and previewing it. Presumably it throws an error when you try and save it. Don't personally have a problem with your solution, and given that there is no need to disambiguate National Archives sources (you only use one), I wouldn't have considered it a problem if the ref was undated. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions to more experienced reviewers:

That's not relevant to this question, which relates to, for example, Prestwich's book Plantagenet England: 1225–1360, published by Oxford University Press. Given the name of the publisher, I wasn't sure it was necessary to state the location as well, but the template only says it's not necessary when the title shows the location, not the publisher, so it looks like it is expected. Factotem (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 14 entries in the bibliography that do not give publisher information. It looks to me like these are journals. I don't know if it is required to provide publisher info for these, but some info is, at least in the case of Historical Research (publisher of Bradford's A Silent Presence: The English King in Parliament in the Fourteenth Century) available (although which of "Institute of Historical Research", "University of London" and "Wiley-Blackwell" is the correct publisher to credit, I do not know).
    • Again, I don't think I've ever seen a journal referenced with a location. In the case you cite, it's an article within a journal. And, as you point out, a journal can indeed go through many publishers whilst remaining under the ownership of the same body. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a preference for ISBN numbers wherever possible, or is a mix of OCLC and ISBN acceptable? Obviously, there is no option where only an OCLC reference is available, but following the OCLC link for the H.M.S.O. publication Calendar of the close rolls preserved in the Public Record Office to Worldcat reveals that this publication has also been assigned an ISBN number.

I've only reviewed OCLC/ISBN/etc. links down to Fryde, about a quarter way down the bibliography. Don't really intend to do the rest (the above represents about two hours work). Taking a break now, but will come back later with a review of authors and publishers and any observations I may have on their reliability, which is, I think, the last element of the source review yet to be covered.

You're probably right, and a spot check is pretty much what I've done by halting. I try to do a full check because mismatched ISBNs/editions is a common error, and when the pagination is different, that has implications for WP:VERIFY, which is at the core of what we do here. Given that I've found a mismatch in the first quarter, I believe the correct thing for me to do now is suggest that you check the rest to confirm that there are no other errors. Factotem (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I do source reviews, I generally also do spot checks where I can find sources online, usually via Gbooks previews. I note that this is not really being asked for here, based on the fact that it is considered necessary only for first-time nominators (though I can find nothing in any of FAC documentation that formally states that). I'm tempted to do one here, more out of curiosity than anything else, though having skimmed through the nom's user page, it appears they have worked on only one FA, and the SR for that did not include spot checks. Factotem (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot one thing. The very first ref is "Doherty 2013, p. ch. IV.". Firstly, that's mis-formatted; it's either p. or ch., not both. Secondly, it appears that a whole chapter is being referenced. Any reason why this is not narrowed down to a specific page or page range? Finally, a bit of cross-over to image review, but it's still a sourcing issue. What's the source for the data contained in the image showing Mortimer and Isabella's invasion route in 1326? The source should be added to the image's description page over at commons. Factotem (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I re-jigged Doherty; it's a whole chapter is because it takes that long to describe the King's and the rebels' progresses across the country. As to Commons: what does one do if one prefers not editing Commons...? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ask someone else to do it. As I understand it, that information really needs to be sourced in the image description, not the caption. Factotem (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done that for you. Non need for the ref in the image caption now. Factotem (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second tranche[edit]

Checking sources for reliability.

  • My assumption is that university presses are reliable, so I conducted no research of these.
  • I checked all non-university publishers. For names I recognise, such as MacMillan and Routledge, this was very cursory. I spent a little longer on names I did not recognise. These checks were still somewhat brief, but generally did not reveal anything that raised any concerns.
  • Where I could not find anything to satisfy myself that the publisher was reliable, I researched either the author or the work. I found nothing of concern, but it might be useful to list those for which I found such more in-depth research to be necesary:
  • I've not come across Russell & Russell, publishers of Clarke's Medieval Representation and Consent: A Study of Early Parliaments in England and Ireland before, but a review of the work indicates that it is reliable. Incidentally, it would appear that it was originally published in 1936, which can be added to the bibliography listing with the parameter |orig-year=First published 1936.
    • Added, cheers.
  • Similar story with Psychology Press, publishers of Gransden's work, but later editions are published by Routledge, and the author's credentials seem acceptable. BTW, this is the second volume of two, and the book's full title appears to be Historical writing in England / 2. C.1307 to the early sixteenth century.
    • Added volume.
  • Again with Birlinn, publishers of McNamee's The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland 1306 - 1328, but the work was well received in a review by Ormrod
  • I checked all journals, and found that all but one are published by university presses. Referring to my question above, it would have made the review easier if this information had been included in the bibliography details.
    • Ah!
  • The one non-university published journal, Studies : an Irish quarterly review, is published by The Educational Company of Ireland. I was a bit concerned that this publisher of school textbooks lacked the necessary scholarship, but the source is used only once, to support a non-contentious quote, so see no reason to consider it a problem.
    • Excellent, will bear it in mind for the future though.
  • Of the two websites used as sources:
  • British History Online's about page gave me no cause for concern.
  • I don't normally consider news publishers to be reliable sources for anything other than news, but the BBC's history pages actually seem quite solid to me. You've used this as a source only once but, straying into spot checks here, ref #154 cites the BBC in support of the statement "although [Bryant] suggests Isabella and Roger Mortimer thought it necessary to have parliamentary support". The BBC page supports the assertion that Isabella & Mortimer sought Parliament's support, but makes no mention of Bryant. The statements are also sourced to Bryant, who supports the assertions being made in the article on his own (though I think you need to source it to pp. 66–67, not just 67), so I question the need for that BBC ref. BTW, checking Bryant confirms that you've specified the correct volume of Parliament: The Biography. Your response above to my question about which volume was used concerned me somewhat – it looked a little like a guess. Incidentally, "although" starts the sentence, and needs to be capitalised, or the preceding full stop needs to be a comma.
  • That source can probably be removed, it is not actually supporting anything, just a mistake I made when drafting the original stub. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks both—I've removed the BBC source.

In summary, I didn't find anything to suggest that the sources used are not reliable.

Notwithstanding the single spot check immediately above, I'm still not sure that I will be doing any more. The above represents another two hours of work. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third tranche[edit]

To verify comprehensiveness, I usually do a Gbooks search on the relevant topic. I did two searches for this article and checked the first three pages of results for each. The first was for "edward ii", which reveals one potentially authoritative source which does not appear to have been consulted for this article:

  • The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives by Dodd and Musson. You use Dodd's BBC History article once (unnecessarily, as identified above), and a different chapter in the book, but you don't use the 25-page chapter titled "Parliament and Political Legitimacy" which seems very relevant. Is there a reason why it's not used as a source? I note that in the first two pages Dodds discusses the historiography of the subject, and identifies a number of works that don't appear to have been used in the article, by H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, who appear not to have been consulted at all; three works by G. L. Harris (this author does appear to have been used, but not the three works Dodd mentions); a work by J. G. Edwards (editor of a different work which has been used in the article); what I assume to be a 1981 journal article (Historical Studies 14) by M. Prestwich, though a more recent work by this author has been used; and a biography(?) of Thomas of Lancaster by Maddicott (who does appear in the bibliography with a different and, going by the title, more relevant work).

The rest of the first three pages of results reveal works by Roy Martin Haines, who appears to have solid academic credentials; Susan Higginbotham, who appears to be more of a popular historian; and Stephen Spinks, whose Edward II the Man: A Doomed Inheritance was published 2017, but whose biography also indicates that he is more a popular rather than academic historian. The Gbooks previews for all three don't suggest that they have devoted a great deal of attention to this article's topic.

I've added some material from the Dodd/Musson; but using "Edward II" as a search parameter is a trifle broad, and, in general, such as it provides on this particular niche of his reign, is covered in much more detail by the search you performed subsequently. Stand by though.
I still think you need to respond with something about the other authors I mention above. They were not identified by the Google search, they are identified by Dodds as relevant in a chapter that specifically discusses the subject of this article. It may well be, for example, that the work by G. L. Harris that you have used is all that is necessary, and the other three works by him add nothing new, but I think I need some re-assurance of that, and about the other authors mentioned above, before I could be happy to support the article on sourcing criteria. Factotem (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{reply|Factotem}} I made a couple tweaks to enable me to incorporate relevant material, my general concern previously was to avoid the impression of giving all available sources equal weight when they may not deserve it (often a concern for older sources), and to avoid unnecessary detail (re: summary style). Having said that, context is always important, so there you have it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: previous ping failed. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. We're required to incorporate all significant aspects of a subject according to their weight in the sources. That does not require us to incorporate every single source. Not knowing the subject myself, all I can do to assure myself that the article is a comprehensive survey of all sources is search for sources and identify those that aren't used. It's perfectly valid to come back and say source X doesn't add anything new, source Y has been discredited, source Z is no longer relevant because of more recent research, etc. etc. Factotem (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second search was for "parliament 1327" which revealed the aforementioned The English Parliament in the Middle Ages by H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles and little else.

    • Which is odd, as a similar search of my own using the same string brings up reams of relevant material—much of which I've used.
My bad. I wasn't clear. The search brings up lots of relevant hits, which as you say you have used. When I wrote "and little else", I meant little else to make me concerned that the article was not comprehensive survey of relevant literature. You still need to address why Richardson and Sayles are not used as a source, though. Factotem (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(see above re. R'son)

Spotchecks (a little more cursory than the 10% I normally aim for, but I can't devote any more time to this).

  • #22 (Ormrod 2011 p. 35), #56 (Ormrod 2011 p. 47), #72 (Phillips 2006 p. 232), #152 (Harriss 1994 p. 14), # 55b (Mortimer 2010 p. 165) OK
  • #27 (Ormrod 2011 p. 41). I don't see any support in the source for the assertion that the commander of royal fleet joined the rebels, only that he permitted safe passage to Isabella.
    • Rephrased it to the more neutral "assisted the rebels".
  • # 46 (Ormrod 2011 p. 524) doesn't support the statement that "Isabella, Mortimer and the lords left Bristol on 31 December..." at all. This is the first page of the chapter "A Fragile Tenure, 1369–1376", so looks to be a complete error in citing.
    • Absolutely, and absolutely bizarre: that's been there since March. In any case, a search of other works doesn't reveal another source, so just merged it into "Isabella, Mortimer and the lords arrived in London on 4 January", which s reliably sourced.
  • # 55a (Mortimer 2010 p. 165). There's a few minor infidelities here. The source states that the question of what to do with Edward II was the last but not least in a list of several key issues discussed, not the main priority. Picky, but the source says only that Roger spent Christmas at Wallingford, not that the issues were discussed "just after Christmas". Finally, I'm not sure the source supports the statement "public trials always bring the danger of a wrong verdict"; it states only that "...if Edward was not found guilty of treason..." before going on to explain the doubt about whether a king could be charged with treason.
    • Three things there. I agree re. it being a priority but not being the main one. As to Christmas: I think my interpretation is acceptable: I drew it from the fact that Mortier was obviously discussing it (with someone) at Christmas (because Mortimer says "his stay was not all seasonal frivolity") and then that "by the end of December...", which suggests it had gone on over (after) Christmas itself. Which, of course, isn't a day—it's a season.

Overall

  • There are still a few issues in the first tranche of comments to be addressed, but there's nothing there to suggest to me any major problems.
  • I don't see any obvious problems with the reliability of sourcing.
  • The most serious issue, which might result in an oppose, is about the comprehensiveness of the sourcing. The lack of use of Dodd's chapter and the works he identifies needs to be addressed, either with a good explanation of why they are not necessary, or by incorporating them into the article.
  • With the exception of ref #46 (Ormrod 2011 p. 524), which looks to be a mistake in citing, I see no significant problems or misrepresentations. There are a few questionable statements, but these are not fundamental to the subject.

That's about as comprehensive a source review as I can manage. Other than responding to responses, I don't intend to devote any more time to this. Factotem (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Factotem: Many thanks for this again, that's a lot of man hours put in and I hope not wasted. I've addressed all (or at least most—let me know if I've missed anything fundamental) your points, generally positively. In any case, it's all useful to the article and it's possible progression. Cheers! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. There are still points I've raised that remain unaddressed, including the very first. Factotem (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've bolded issues above that still need to be addressed. Feel free to unbold them yourself when you've done so. I also think the issue of added doi/jstor refs for specific journal articles, rather than relying on OCLC refs for the journal, is a significant issue, but maybe that's something for wider discussion. Factotem (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah

All issues resolved. Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Nice article (from a quick skim), and I can only find minor points to pick at so far.

Lead
  • "to France, and joined and probably entered" the double "and" is rather jarring. Perhaps "to France, where she joined and probably entered..."
    • Stolen.
Background
  • Gaveston? I bet he was sick to his stomach...
  • "they led to a further decline in his popularity. This declined..." perhaps a different word for the second "decline"?
    • "Diminished"?
  • "with the exiled Roger Mortimer". As this is the first mention outside the lead, perhaps "with the wealthy exiled nobleman Roger Mortimer"?
    • Stole, again.
  • "Along with Roger Mortimer": drop the "Roger"
    • Have done so; but I call him Roger M. a few more times throughout the course of the thing; do you suggest removing Roger completely except the first usage? The thing is, just to confuse things, there's an Ian Mortimer mentioned later too :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhhhh... I didn't see the Ian... Best left with both names then - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. Done to the end of Background, more to follow. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers SchroCat! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done to the end of "Proceedings of Monday, 12 January" - one minor tweak made in the preceding text. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proceedings of Tuesday
  • ”The bishops, too, gave sermons”. I’m not a fan of the “too” - it looks like others also gave sermons
  • ”the power of the word of god”: lower case G in the original?
Articles
  • ”seen the death of his brother)”: I cant see an opening bracket —

More to come soonest – SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Ta! FYI, "god" was clearly subliminal atheist propaganda  ;) and the "brother" sentence would work equally well either in or without brackets; I went with the latter—and put an extra bracket in—on the principal, really, that I never actually use them... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Batch!
Scholarship
  • You have Claire Valente linked, even though this is the third time you have mentioned her without a link! You've also full named her on the previous two occasions – I think we can do the first time only and surname the last two.
  • The boxed Prestwich quote ("To try to determine precisely") needs a source
  • "its purpose was merely": "merely" should be dropped – it looks like editorialising

I've made a couple of minor tweaks while going through it too.

@SchroCat: You're very kiind, I appreciate your edits too. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

I just tweaked the lead and searched the main body to tweak/trim some words and phrases, as I do when an article looks about ready for promotion. Outstanding points:

  • There are several quotes in the article that I think require inline attribution. One example: Edward II was officially still King, although with his "most beloved consort Isabella queen of England" and his "firstborn son keeper of the kingdom"—in what has been described as a "nominal presidency" -- here I can't tell whether the first two quotes are by Edward himself, or a contemporary, or the author of the source, and I'd rather not have to guess who used the term "nominal presidency". Pls review throughout.
  • There are several duplinks in the article; some might be justified and I wouldn't be holding up promotion over them, but pls review also.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose; I think I caught all the quotes needing attribution (they were mostly to contemporaries in one form or another). Also addressed the duplinks, although, considering the length of the article, I've followed the tactic of a link in the lead and then on the first subsequent mention. And many thanks fo your earlier tweaks. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sup, Ian Rose?  :) —54129 05:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2018 [29].

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava river. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. This article had an abortive FAC back in 2015 where its structure was questioned, but since then it has been expanded and restructured, and its sister 7th Army, which is structured the same way, passed FAC in 2016. This article is part of a good topic that I hope to get to a featured topic eventually. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "subsequently": Search throughout, and make sure it's the word you want.
  • "The 8th Bomber Regiment at Rovine was even warned to receive orders": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Do the colours in the second location map mean the same thing as the ones in the first? If no, what do the colours represent in the second map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • This has been sitting around with few comments for a while now for some reason, will give it a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might look better if the images of the planes and the gun were right aligned so that they "face" the text. Would look more dynamic, and be in line with the guideline that states subjects should not face away.
  • Good idea, realigned a couple.
  • First footnote needs a source.
  • Done.
  • generalmajor is duplinked.
  • The image captions should also contain links to the subjects shown.
  • Done.
  • "defence of the Drava" Maybe add river, readers may not know what this is.
  • Done.
  • "on the Mura" Likewise, a bit esoteric, especially since you subsequently list towns, hard to know what is what.
  • Done
  • "with the Dravinja and Petrijanec" Likewise, the first appears to be a river, the second a town, you'd never know from reading the text.
  • clarified.
  • "According to a post-war U.S. Army study" I think it would be best to specify by who and when here.
  • Done.
  • "The Yugoslav historian Velimir Terzić describes" Why present tense?
  • "formation based on the headquarters" In? At?
  • no, it was based on the headquarters of the 1st Cavalry Brigade with units under command.
  • Does draught animal refer to anything but horses here?
  • I believe I read somewhere that heavy artillery was pulled by oxen.
  • Draught animal is linked long after its first mention.
  • Fixed.
  • Could be interesting to show some of these horses, if photos exist.
  • Sources for pictures of the Royal Yugoslav Army are scarce, unfortunately.
  • You mention "rebels" throughout, does this always refer to rebellious troops, or also to for example Ustaše? A bit unclear now.
  • Rebellious troops. Fifth columnists are referred to as fifth column or Ustase
  • "remnants of Yugoslav Army" The?
  • Fixed.
  • "Almost all of the Croat members of the 4th Army taken as prisoners of war were soon released by the Axis powers; 90 per cent of those held for the duration of the war were Serbs" Could this be elaborated? Was it because the Germans found the Croats more prone to cooperate?
  • The Germans used political promises to the Croats (in terms of independence) as propaganda during the lead-up and during the fighting. During the invasion they facilitated the proclamation of the puppet Croatian state which existed as an Axis quasi-protectorate throughout the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now, hope some more reviewers will drop by soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kaiser matias[edit]

  • "On 8 June 1940, the Yugoslav Supreme Command had issued orders..." Was there any specific reason for the orders being issued on this day?
  • Not that I'm aware of, I mean nothing in the source provides that info, but I suspect that defensive plans were updated following the commencement of the German invasion of the Low Countries and France. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The troops of the 4th Army included a high percentage of Croats." Is there any quantifiable number to go with this?
  • No, that is as specific as it gets. Given the cities from which the army was raised had very high proportions of Croats, it would have been a significant majority though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 18:00, Makanec proclaimed that Bjelovar was part of an independent Croatian state." The "About 18:00" sounds odd to me (I'd say "Around 18:00"); is that an Australian thing I'm aware of? I see a similar usage later on in the article ("About 09:45", and a few more), but also what I suggested ("around 08:00"; "around 14:00"), so would suggest staying consistent with one.
  • I was always taught to use "at" or "about" with times, so it might just be an Australianism, or maybe a Peacemakerism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these minor details, is overall good, and once addressed will support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Kaiser matias! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, mainly just wanted some clarification, which you got here. Happy with your explanations. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Hyphenate fifth column in fifth column elements
  • I think I got all these.
  • causing significant disruption to mobilisation and deployment "their"? mobilisation
  • Done.
  • Move the link for Armijski đeneral to first use. And the same for fifth column
  • Did the first, I think it already was for the second.
  • In your para on Detachment Ormozki, there seems to be very little that wasn't attached from other units. Other than the 1st Cavalry Brigade HQ and the 1st Bicycle Battalion, what belonged to the 1st Cavalry Brigade?
  • Well, based on their mobilisation centres, I suspect that the 6th and 8th Cavalry Regiments were subordinated to the 1st Cavalry Brigade in peacetime, but the source isn't that specific.
  • Čakovec but had no horses needs a comma after the town name (link?) and, similarly, Zagreb but had no animal transport
  • Done.
  • However, the effect of the rebellions and desertions within the 4th Army was significant within the flanking 2nd and 7th Armies What do you mean here?
  • I've reworded it, it caused a lack of confidence in the flanking formations, resulting in withdrawals
  • Cadet battalion?
  • Yep. Poor buggers.

Source Review[edit]

  • Made spot checks for Barefield, Krzak, US Army, and Shores et al. All cites confirmed, no close paraphrasing.
  • Both Niehorster 2018a and 2018b have been updated since the access date. Not sure if anything significant has changed, but they need to be checked.
  • Tomasevich and Trevor-Roper are known as highly reliable sources
  • No formatting errors in the References.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked it over, PM, I think we can go you one better and promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (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/Featured_log/October_2018&oldid=866371051"