Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2024

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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 30 October 2024 [1].

Smash Hit

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about a 2014 smash hit mobile game, Smash Hit. You shoot balls and break glass and crystals. There's also a virtual reality version of the game. This is my second FAC nomination overall. This article was promoted to GA last month and was then reviewed by three editors in a peer review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+

[edit]

Support I was a reviewer at the PR and can say that I have no comments left. 750h+ 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

This looks interesting! Putting myself down for a review later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69:. Do you still plan on reviewing this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay; I am indeed! I have started a source review but haven't gotten an opportunity to wrap it up yet. I'm hoping to do that and post my comments later today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

Citation numbers from this revision. Let's do this!

  • What make citations 25 and 43 reliable and high-quality? Both seem to be blogs.
    • Ref 25 App Annie (now Data.ai) was a data analytics platform that also covered the statistics of apps in App Store and Play Store. In this case, it is used to reference the position of Smash Hit on the Play Store. The App Store claim is cited by VentureBeat which also cites the data from App Annie. Ref 43 is indeed a developer blog, it was copied from the FA Teardown (video game).
  • What makes citation 8 reliable and high-quality? Their about page from around the time of the article's publication doesn't mention an editorial review process or similar.
    • From what I was able to find, AppleNApps is used by Metacritic to aggregate reviews while the author covered iOS apps and games for about 10 years and now works at Apple.
    I'm not sure if that's a satisfactory explanation to use the source for critical opinions on a video game — Metacritic lists plenty of publications that we would consider unreliable here on Wikipedia, and the author of the publication being hired at Apple years later does not give them preumptive reliability in this topic area. —TS
    Fair enough. I've removed the two AppleNApps refs. This, however, created an issue with "After completion, the player enters the endless mode, a stage which is infinitely repeated until the player is out of balls." We only have several references calling it an endless runner, so I've had to change it to that. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points for pulling reviews from multiple languages; nice work!
  • There are a handful of citations that need archive links for consistency. I used theLink Dispenser tool to pick them out. (Hi Sohom!)
    • I've used IABot to archive refs but for some reason it refused to archive a couple of them several times. I've added missing archive URLs.
  • "travels forward at a constant speed" fails verification, though Starr does mention that the player moves on a "pre-set path".
    • I've added another ref that should confirm this 100%. I've removed the "constant speed" part though because I've played the game yesterday and the player's speed is not always the same.
  • Citations 5 and 29: Don't use the {{ill}} template in citation templates as it corrupts the metadata they generate.
    • Done.
  • "The game's music initially had 33 tracks" Source verifies the claim but also mentions that the tracks were "stitched together in different combinations", so they weren't really 33 distinct songs. I think this could be rephrased a little to include that detail.
    • Done.
  • Which part of the source supports the claim "He was satisfied with the end result"?
    • I've interpreted the "it works well in practice" part about the shattering algorithm as him being satisfied.
  • Citation 25: The site is down and redirects to something else, switch |status=unfit.
    • Done.
  • Citation 33: Switch |status=dead.
    • Done.
  • I conducted a dozen or so source–text integrity spot-checks, most of which came back clean except for a few which I've mentioned above.
General comments
[edit]
  • The first sentence of § Gameplay appends the background music tidbit somewhat awkwardly. I would split that into another sentence or merge into a later sentence.
    • Done.
  • "... a 3D video game, and has been categorised as an action and puzzle game" reads like you're pulling genre tags from the app store page. The action one seems especially redundant considering that the game is already identified as a rail shooter. Can we convey this style information in a way that's more engaging?
    • I've removed that sentence altogether and added "puzzle game" in the first sentence. I hope it's better now.
  • This is a bit of a nitpick, and rather optional: in the sentence "Michelle Starr of CNET described the glass-shattering effect as impressive, while Pugliese viewed them as detailed and comprehensive." I typically prefer to see the corresponding citation at the end of the clause rather than both being pushed to the end of the sentence. This occurs a few times in the prose. Also, what's a "comprehensive" sound effect?
    • Visual effect, not sound effect! I've replaced the word with one that more closely resembles the one from the original article.

That's a full source review, but I might be back for further review of the prose. Feel free to reply to my comments in line and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @TechnoSquirrel69:! I've addressed your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: I have one reply above; everything else looks good! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; source review passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium

[edit]

I'm putting myself down to take a look at this later this week. Sohom (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Sohom Datta:. It's been 13 days so are you still interested in reviewing this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sohom Datta, just following this up. Is it still your intention to review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't pick this up by this weekend, feel free to ignore my comment above and proceed as if I did not comment at all, sorry for this, I got into a spate of IRL work and have fallen behind onwiki on a few things :( Sohom (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is alright. Good luck with your admin election! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TWOrantula

[edit]

Ooh, shiny! Gonna review this later. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @TrademarkedTWOrantula:. Are you still interested in reviewing this article again? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait! I'll plan to review this article's prose sometime this week (if time is on my side). TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Take your time. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
Gameplay
[edit]
  • "Smash Hit is a first-person and 3D rail shooter and endless runner" -> "Smash Hit is a first-person 3D rail shooter and endless runner"
  • "Any collision with an obstacle results in the loss of ten balls." - ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (my generation finds this funny, so don't judge me)
  • "The player can also choose to shoot at crystals"
  • "depending on the crystal's shape" - Hang on... I distinctly remember crystals only being in the shape of a pyramid. Perhaps this means something like different sizes?
    • The crystals can be shaped as pyramids, octahedrons, and stars.
  • "time, but" - Remove comma
  • "an endless supply of balls" - would "unlimited" work instead of "endless"?
  • "or slowing down the player's mobility" -> "or slowing the game's speed"
  • Not sure why the word "levels" is linked to "saved game"
  • "each with a unique appearance" - Sounds promotional to me?
Development and release
[edit]
  • "indie game studio" - Shorten to "indie studio"?
  • "and produced its sound effects"?
  • "soundtrack, and" - Remove comma
  • "he opted on" -> "he opted for"?
  • "surrounding effects" - as in, surround sound?
  • "He implemented the game's reverberation and echoing systems." - Wait, Gustafsson or Holmquist?
  • "'"fully procedural and also 100% reliable'" - Could cut this quote down to: "fully procedural" and reliable
  • "Gustafsson referred to Smash Hit as Mediocre's "most ambitious project to date" in December 2013." - Relevant?
Reception
[edit]
  • "Smash Hit has received 'generally favourable' reviews, according to review aggregator Metacritic." -> "On Metacritic, Smash Hit received 'generally favourable' reviews based on nine critics." (that's how I usually phrase it; up to you if you want to change it)
  • "flawless, and" - Remove comma
  • Shouldn't "minimalistic" be "minimalist"?
  • "looks, as" - Remove comma
  • "...Mediocre's previous games, such as Sprinkle and Granny Smith." - Should be mentioned in the development section
  • Overall I think the critics' opinions could be better organized, but I'm not really sure how sooooooooo
Legacy
[edit]
  • Nothing wrong here!

BP!

[edit]

Hi. I will point this out early so you can work this out immediately before the actual source reviewer comes.

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

Looks neat. Just a few ideas below:

  • An earlier tweak removed "3D video game". My understanding is that a rail shooter could also be in 2D. If so, we need to re-add this information, preferably at the beginning of the "Gameplay"-section.
    • Reinstated.
  • The description of bullet-gameplay mechanics is a bit unclear, and these are always hard to write without ambiguity. I'm assuming here that "at once" refers to the maximum number of balls allowed to travel through the air at a time. I think it would make sense to restructure this entire section to begin by stating that the count starts at one ball at a time, and then explain how combo mechanics come into play.
    • I've restructured the sentences according to your recommendation. "By default, the player's rate of fire is one ball and it can be increased to five by smashing a consecutive sequence of crystals. Despite the increase, the player would still only lose one ball from their ammunition from each shot" Does it look better now?
      • I think so, though I don't think "how many balls are in" is necessary. We've already established the concept of "rate of fire". /DB
        • Removed that part (I did not add this).
  • beginning of each game - prefer "level"
    • Why though? The player always starts at the beginning of the game, while the in-game purchase allows the ability to start at the beginning of any level. If this sentence was confusing, I do not think it should be anymore.
      • If that's the case I'd prefer for it to say: "beginning of the first level" /DB
        • Done.
  • Holmquist stated that Smash Hit was the toughest of all games on which he worked with Mediocre. - Do we know how or in what respect? Without that extra info I don't find the sentence very compelling.
    • Removed.
  • considering that the glass shatters at the point where it is hit - I'm a bit confused here. I thought that's where you'd expect glass to break?
    • In the game, yes. He, however, wrote: "This is not true in the real world, where tension builds up in the material, and objects tend to break at their weakest spot". I've added this mention.
  • Since its initial release, the game has received several updates. - This is another sentence where I'd like either a little more info or removal.
    • Removed.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While scouring for Swedish sources I realized we should probably mention when Mediocre was founded. Only, Dagens Nyheter states that the company was founded "in the fall of 2012", but the company blog says "fall of 2010", although the aktiebolag wasn't registered until 2011 (which was also the year Sprinkle released). Not sure what to do about that. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a 2011 PG interview in which Johansson said that Mediocre was founded in fall of 2010. Escapist and Holmquist's blog also say 2010. Based on this, should I include this in the article? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few more: Dagens Nyheter and LiU.se. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't me sliding into these DMs, but is "rate of fire" the correct word here? You shoot five balls at the same time, not individual balls at a faster rate. IceWelder [✉] 20:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I did not know what terminology to use without making it sound worse. I've changed this now but it can be improved if it does not sound good enough. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should simply call it a "limit"? Draken Bowser (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly? The sentences are currently worded as: "By default, the player shoots one ball at a time, but can shoot up to five at once by smashing a consecutive sequence of crystals. Regardless of the amount, the player will only lose ball of ammunition per shot." Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the year of their foundation in the article, considering that multiple sources indicate that it was founded in 2010. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image review passed. The article features two fair use images, properly licensed, one of the game's logo and the other of gameplay. Both have relevant captions and WP:ALT text. 750h+ 08:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2024 [2].

1860s replacement of the British copper coinage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another aspect of numismatic history. I never had to use the pre-decimal British bronze coins, since my first UK visit wasn't until 1986, and they were gone 15 years by then. They were considered large and inconvenient, but once they were even larger, and made of easily-worn pure copper. This is how that changedWehwalt (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

You had me at "pedantic quibblings" -- will pop in. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The copper metal wore or oxidised, or had advertising punched into it: it sounds, particularly in the second clause, as if this was a feature of the coins when made, rather than a defect that emerged over long-term use. I think it would also help to clarify that copper is a soft metal, whereas bronze isn't. We mention durability a bit later, but that's not strictly relevant for punching, and the point would be useful up here.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later on, the question of size seems to come up as a major motive, which isn't mentioned in the lead (only weight, which isn't the same thing)
The first paragraph says, "in a variety of sizes".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but it doesn't say that a major motive of the reform was to make the coins physically smaller (as opposed to simply lighter). However, the first sentence of the body names this as the major problem with the copper coinage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, made it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage: could we back up a step and explain the who/when/why of the decision to look into decimalisation at all?
Do you mean that the Lsd system was inconvenient or the political motivation that led to the appointment of the Royal Commission?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage come from? Who decided to set it up, when, and why? We've buried the lead at the moment, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as much as you'd think as investigations into decimal currency happened repeatedly in the 19th century. But I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the debate over the inscription get into the lead?
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rarely-seen twopence: MOS:HYPHEN advises rarely seen.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Vector 22, I get a MOS:SANDWICH between the second and third image, and (slightly) between Victoria and her penny.
I've moved Victoria, which hopefully will take care of that. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix the other issue?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit radical, but how about putting Boulton's penny where the overstruck one is now, and putting the two "defective" coins together in a double-image template where the worn farthing currently is? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the sets of images shows both sides of a coin. Do you mean a four-image set or something else?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't appreciated that each was two images - but it looks like the |perrow= parameter of the multiple image template can create a two-by-two grid. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking at this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though not all did as many had the soft copper metal heavily worn: I think this needs a look for clarity. Likewise, slightly, Confusion was increased by coins struck to two other standards also remaining in trade. Happy to suggest alternatives if it would help.
I've taken a swing at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • what a bruised, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence: worth footnoting how many coins he's talking about here?
I guess. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bronze was chosen as harder than pure copper: I'm not sure this is quite grammatical: as it was, I think.
Perhaps it's ENGVAR as the phrasing simply sounds economical of words to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Downing Street?
I am reluctant because I'm not certain where these fireside chats took place. One might assume 11 Downing Street, the Chancellor's residence, but that's only a guess. And not all 19th century Prime Ministers lived at Number Ten, having more comfortable London residences, some had the Chancellor live at #10. I suppose I could research where Gladstone lived in 1860, but we're getting into original research territory if the idea is to pipe to 10 Downing Street or 11. And I'm not sure how useful a link to the street itself would be. I am inclined to say that most people who get this far in this article are going to understand the significance and why Graham felt complimented and let it go at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a link to Downing Street would be good -- the lead sets out that it's historically been the centre of power for the PM/CX (indeed, that's the vast majority of what the lead is), and has The term "Downing Street" is also used as a metonym for the Prime Minister or the British Government more generally. Agreed that we don't need to get into the weeds of which black door was in front of the fireplace in question. Incidentally, if I read the eponymous article right, it seems like Gladstone used 10, 11 and 12, so it's a moot point anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the only place it would add something is in the sums referred to by Gladstone. the other sums are simply the total value of coins and a present value has little relevance. It's the same number of coins regardless of inflation. I'm also dubious of glibly saying that sums over 160 years are equivalent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but I think it's also relevant that the £1,367,963 (as you say, 136,796,300 pennies) produced over the first three years was worth somewhere in the region of £17,389,310,308 in today's money -- in other words, a pretty huge sum. Point taken that inflation isn't a perfect guide to value-in-practice: you could also contextualise by saying that this was about one and a half times the government's annual spending. In either case, when we're throwing around large numbers, it's helpful if readers can have something to peg them to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added inflation templates but kept them off the description of the Malta coin exchange since the face value is only what is relevant, not the present value.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it definitely Britanniarum (of the Britains -- as in Great Britain and Brittany?) rather than Britannorum (of the Britons) in the full inscription? If so, why the plural?
It's Britanniarum, more as Great Britain and Ireland and to some extent the colonies. See this coin. They sometimes spelled it out if there was room.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's everything, with some clarification requests/comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That commission had been appointed following the advocacy of the Master of the Mint, the scientist Sir John Herschel, who had served on two previous inquiries into decimal coinage, but who resigned as master in 1856, the year of the commission's appointment, due to ill-health: is the bit about his previous service and his resignation strictly relevant here, rather than in his biography?
This is being added in response to your previous comments, regarding who is the force behind having a decimal currency commission. If we mention Herschel and shortly thereafter mention another person as master of the mint, it's useful to explain why that was.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a vote of £10000: for consistency with other large numbers in this article, use comma separators. See also, later, some £32000.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He reminded members that there was a bill pending before parliament to extend those provisions of law that applied to copper coins: can we outline what (at least the most important of) these were? Is this (for example) making them legal tender, protecting from clipping/forgery etc?
The source mentions forging. I looked at the Hansard for that date and that's what he says.
  • Gladstone expressed his satisfaction with pattern coins that Graham had sent him: with the pattern coins?
I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she had appeared on the copper coinage since the reign of Charles II.: suggest adding "in the seventeenth century" to save readers a click if they're not up on their English history.
OK.
  • would be to acknowledge that Britain no longer ruled the waves: I think this needs at least a wikilink to Rule Britannia: it will be completely opaque to readers who don't know the song.
Linecar, other than the one phrase, gives no indication that he's referring to the song.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is the most famous phrase from that song, and one only found in the song. It's a bit like someone saying "Let there be light!" or "Blessed are the cheesemakers" -- they don't need to then tell us they're quoting the Bible. Honestly, I'm surprised that "Britannia rules the waves" isn't a redirect to the song anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One small point: to me, you only acknowledge something that is true ("he acknowledged that he had drunk the tea, but denied eating the biscuits"). Since the late C19th was the high point of British imperial power, I don't think we can really assert "Britannia no longer ruled the waves" as a true statement: either she never did, in which case it's untrue by its conceptions, or she still did, in which case it's untrue. Suggest "would imply that Britain..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "signify".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stood in the quote should be in an em template, rather than simply italics, for the benefit of screen readers.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest clarifying that Osborne House was Victoria and Albert's summer retreat.
I've mentioned it in passing.
  • On 20 February 1860, a question was asked in the House of Commons: any idea who asked it?
It was William Ewart (British politician). I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it, though if you feel it necessary, I'll add a link to the Hansard.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I'd prefer the active voice to the passive, and giving information rather than keeping it back: I think adding the name would be an improvement with few costs, but it's hardly make-or-break for the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've recast it as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon went to the Royal Mint to show Graham two pattern coins for the penny: the second link on this term within this section: is that intentional?
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One was likely given to the Queen: more august heads than mine would say this is an Americanism, and push for probably. I'll save them the bother.
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon went to Buckingham Palace, where both the Queen and Prince Albert criticised the work. He returned on 30 March; Albert was not there but Victoria had slight criticisms: presumably he returned with another go at the job?
Yes, I think this goes without saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it does: it's a sensible inference, but it's not the only possible reading of what's written. For instance, he could have gone on Monday with a coin, received a lot of criticism, then turned up again on Wednesday for another meeting/a social call, and received more criticism of the same work, or found that Victoria had changed her mind, and now only hated it a little bit. Even then, why make the reader work harder than they need to? The oft-repeated dictum that good writing should be like water in a fishbowl springs to mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have made clear I had already modified the text to meet your objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the numismatic scholar, Howard Linecar, it was felt: the way we handle Linecar makes it seem as if he was there at the time: see particularly later According to some accounts, the example that the Queen approved was stolen when posted to the Royal Mint, though Linecar was sceptical of this story. I was surprised to mouse over and find that the source was from the 1970s rather than the 1870s.
I've cut his opinion.
  • Your train set, but I can't see that that was the best solution here: simply rephrasing for tense would have seemed an "easy" fix. Even something like "Linecar has written that this story is probably false" would have solved the second one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got that, but the passage is vaguer than I'd remember so better I think to leave it out.
  • Wyon had been instructed to have the inscription on the coins, to be found on the obverse, to read,: we need to lose the second to ("he was instructed to have the inscription read..."). Might be worth reworking the sentence so that the main verb doesn't have to wait for the subordinate clause to finish.
Reworked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Victoria, by the grace of God, Queen of the Britains, defender of the faith": WP:' advises single quotes (or, better, the gloss template) for glosses. Why is Queen capitalised but nothing else, especially "Defender"? Suggest linking Defender of the Faith.
  • Very minor, but the Latin really ought to go into lang templates for the benefit of screen readers and the Wiki software (use |italic=no).
  • the new florin had omitted D.G. (Dei Gratia, by the grace of God) and F.D. (defender of the faith),: we've lost the rather natty small caps here.

On the above three, see if how I have it now is satisfactory.

  • noting that the abbreviation of a plural noun in Latin should have its final consonant doubled: maybe not should in the sense of a moral truth, but perhaps something like "was conventionally indicated by doubling its final letter, if a consonant"? Strictly, by what we've said here, the abbreviation for Bachelor of Arts should be BBA.
I don't personally understand why BRITANNIAR should not be BRITANNIARR by the logic but I looked at the source and it says "required" and apparently Gladstone had been lying in wait on this one for a year so I'm inclined to say that "should" is fair.
Fair enough. Nice catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon worked on the master coinage dies : suggest a wikilink for "dies": not a common word?
Fine.00Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result was the "Bun" penny: any reason not to roll this one-line paragraph into the one above?
OK.
  • they had not been made current by proclamation: I think we need a link or explanation on "proclamation" to clarify what this means.
OK.
  • The penny weighed 9.45 g and was 30.81 mm in diameter, with the halfpenny 5.66 g and 25.47 mm and the farthing 2.83 g and 20.16 mm: no conversions for the units? Might be best to put them all into a single footnote.
It's my thought that since we earlier mention the weight of the 1797 penny, it may be useful to mention the bronze pieces in main text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes -- I meant the imperial conversions (that is, don't put a bracket after every single metric one: just write a footnote like 'that is, [so many] ounces in weight and [so many] inches in diameter...')
UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on this Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers.com gives the title of the Essex paper as The Essex County Standard.
Fixed.
  • would lead to great public convenience.: suggest a rephrase, as "public convenience" is BrE for "toilet".
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint: this seems to contradict the statement, further up, that the Royal Mint had at least some experience with it, having recently struck bronze coins for Nova Scotia and for the Province of Canada.. Could perhaps be solved by clarifying the scale of the latter projects.
That is true. On reference to Peck, the issue seems to be that the Royal Mint was called upon with the British coinage to work faster, en masse, as Peck puts it. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,720 tonnes: suggest an imperial conversion too.
I need to look at the sources and see what is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template documentation advises not to state a publisher's location when it's in the name (so CUP books published in Cambridge shouldn't use |location=).
  • An extension was granted to the colonies as no steps had been taken in some of them to call in old coppers. Originally, the date of demonetisation was to be 30 June 1876, but it was extended to 31 December 1877: another short paragraph that seems to naturally belong with the one before it.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the dash in the title of Dyer 1982.
I think I've fixed that but I have trouble distinguishing such things by eye, so if it's the wrong dash, just show me what the proper one is and I'll change it.
There are a few not done, the images and the tonnes and the conversion template, I'll finish on Thursday. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for a first go: back to you.

I've finished the last three and also the Rule Britannia. I think that's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting after some very minor copyedits: very nice work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments to start:

  • Craig: To make it easier for readers to find the book, I think it's worth spelling out the title: The Mint: A History of the London Mint from A.D. 287 to 1948.
  • Wikilink British Numismatic Journal?
  • Dyer 1982: Capitalize the title per MOS:TITLECAPS and replace the hyphen with an en-dash per MOS:RANGE
  • Dyer 1982: The article appears to begin on page 234, not 232
  • Dyer and Gaspar 1992: I think it is worth using the whole chapter title: "Reform, the New Technology and Tower Hill, 1700–1966".
  • Fremantle 1877: The link goes to a text search for "Malta". This link to the title page seems more appropriate.
  • Same for Fremantle 1878 (a search for "copper"): This link seems better.
  • Same for Fremantle 1879 (another search for "copper"): I recommend this link.

I'll keep working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all done to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have addressed my above comments. Here are more:

  • Fremantle 1877: The publication year appears to have disappeared.
  • Spink & Son: The library listings I'm seeing for this book list Emma Howard as editor. You have it listed under Spink as the author. Shouldn't the editor's name be included and shouldn't it be listed under that name?
  • Not a source review comment: The Chamber's Journal quote is long enough it should be a blockquote, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
  • The Hansard article italicizes the name, but the citation doesn't. Perhaps it should be listed as the title and not the publisher.
  • Little was done in Cape Colony in South Africa or in New Zealand to call in the coppers sounds a little too interpretive to me to be supported by a primary source like Fremantle 1879, per WP:PRIMARY. When I clicked the link to that report and went to page 10, I couldn't find any mention Cape Colony, South Africa, or New Zealand. Is the citation wrong or am I missing something?
Should have read 1878 rather than 1879. It is fixed. Fremantle's reports are considered authoritative in their field, there's a discussion of that in our article on him which I wrote. He would be in a position to know these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that. I see how page 10 of Fremantle 1878 supports the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: The books are all held by academic libraries, with the exception of the Fremantle reports, which as primary sources are being used appropriately per WP:PRIMARY, with the one possible exception raised in my comment above. Some of the articles are from the British Numismatic Journal, which seems reputable. The other articles are from primary periodicals that I think are being used appropriately. For a fairly short article, the list of sources seems to represent a decent breadth of scholarship, supplemented by fair use of primary sources. The citation style looks consistent. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made one comment and done the remainder. Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added Emma Howard as editor but kept Spink & Son as the author of Coins of England. Worldcat lists Spink as publisher only and lists no author, filing instead under Howard's name as editor. Do you think it's more appropriate to keep Spink as author and file it in the list that way? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an series, now annual, that began in 1929 and has had various editors over the years (I have a copy of the 2004 edition, editor Philip Skingley). The only name that appears on the cover is Spink, as it is the only name on the title page. Howard's name appears only once, in a note on page vi. In neither the 2023 edition nor the 2004 is the editor's name on the cover or prominently mentioned. I think it serves the reader best to stick with Spink as author. Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I consider this source review a pass. I invite you to take a look at my current FAC nomination, which still needs reviews. Thanks in advance if you're able to leave since comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
Alt text added and image swapped. Thank you. Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

With regard to Wehwalt's introductory remarks, above – none of which I dispute – nonetheless, the satisfying sound of the clunk of big copper pennies into GPO telephones in phone boxes remains with me sixty years later. (And I still think of 50p as ten bob.) Be that as it may, I read almost to the end of the article before finding anything to quibble about, try as I might (and God knows I did). But in the paragraph beginning "The Royal Mint offered a premium of 2 percent…" I have three minor points. First, in BrE it is usual to render "per cent" as two words; secondly, I don't see why the deputy master of the Mint should be deprived of the capitalisation his senior, the Master, gets; and thirdly "this was done effective 31 July" is not familiar BrE: "this was done with effect from…" would be the normal BrE. Hardly earth-shaking, and I have no hesitation in supporting the elevation of this article, which I read with great enjoyment and from which I learned a lot. First rate, even by Wehwalt's superb standards. Tim riley talk 22:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done, many thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support, with a few very minor comments:

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though not all did as many were lightened by having the soft copper metal heavily worn": suggest "though many had become lightened as the soft copper metal was often heavily worn" -- to avoid misparsing this while reading as meaning that there were two types of this coin.
Done but phrased slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advertising disfigurements are an interesting note. Any chance of an image of one such?
The coin late in the background section is the best one I have available to me. I have access to the images of Heritage Auctions but they don't seem to have sold a really nice one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To correlate the metric and Imperial systems, 10 pennies, 12 halfpennies or 15 farthings laid side by side measured 1 foot (0.30 m)." I'm not sure what this sentence is telling me. Is it just a restatement of their lengths, presented in a different way? If so I'm not sure we need it.
The Royal Mint chose diameters so that a certain number of coins side by side equalled one foot. I suppose rulers were less common than today.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as reproduced in the Essex County Standard": does this caveat need to be in the body text? It's noted in the form of the citation.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thanks for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mujinga

[edit]

Commenting on this version I'm finding some source/text integrity issues:

  • 1 text: On 4 August 1859, Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, obtained a vote of £10,000 (equivalent to £1,265,000 in 2023) to be used to replace the copper coinage.
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 263.: it was not until 4 August 1859 that Gladstone, as chancellor of the exchequer, obtained from Parliament a vote of £10,000 for replacing the old copper with new coins in bronze
  • that's too close for me, "obtained" really sticks out
I've had a go at changing that, but the reason I stuck to the text is that "obtained" might be technical parliamentary language.
It's not. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 text: Literary Digest hoped for something that would be a credit to the country, and that would show the Queen, by then a grandmother, as "more matronly"; The Mechanics' Magazine similarly wanted the new coins to "tell the truth".[11]
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 263: The Literary Gazette hoped for 'something really creditable to the country' and in particular that the queen, a grandmother in ripe middle age, would be represented with a 'somewhat more matronly aspect'.7 A similar view was expressed in the Mechanics' Magazine, which also wanted the portrait of the queen to 'tell the truth'
  • again too close, also Literary Gazette not Digest and it's a bit unclear how the new coins would tell the truth in the wikiversion
I've played with the language some but again, the possible synonyms are meager. I think it's pretty clear they wanted the new coins to show the Queen as a woman of over forty as she was, rather than the woman she had been in 1839, Ive touched up the language. Sorry about the Digest/Gazette.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
language works for me, The Literary Gazette can be linked? Mujinga (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 text blockquote: what a bruised, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence [24 pieces]: large and small, thick and thin, old and new, pierced with holes, dented and scarred by wanton ill-treatment, disfigured by advertising newspaper proprietors, and that numerous but disgusting class of people who persist in placing vulgar names or initials where they are least to be desired.
  • source "Our Copper Coinage". Chamber's Journal. 29 December 1860. p. 6. Retrieved 16 June 2024 – via The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser and Newspapers.com : what a bruised, BATTERED, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence: large and small, thick and thin, old and new, pierced with holes, dented and scarred by wanton ill-treatment, disfigured by advertising newspaper proprietors, OR that but disgusting class of people who persist in placing vulgar names or initials where they are least to be desired.
  • differences capitalised
Fixed, regrettably I had to copy this manually and I obviously made a mistake or two--Wehwalt (talk)
  • 4 text: On 16 July, Gladstone was questioned in the Commons about the delays; he attributed the problems to "a mysterious secret of art"
  • Source: Even so, difficulties continued and in reply to a further question in parliament on 16 July Gladstone rather grandly attributed the delay to 'a mysterious secret of art
  • not particularly bad but "attributed" could be changed
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 text: There was considerable reaction, much of it focused on the use of BRITT. There were rumours that this was an error, and that the coins would soon be called in. BRITT had appeared on the sixpences and shillings of 1817, but BRIT on the current issue of florins
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, pp. 269–270: 269: There were the inevitable rumours, denied in The Times, that the coins were to be recalled, and in particular controversy was provoked by the double T of BRITT. 270: It was a controversy which would have interested Sainthill, who long ago had written inapproval of the use of BRITT on the sixpences and shillings of 1816.
  • 1816 not 1817
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 text: The Mechanics' Magazine felt that Wyon had captured the Queen's features adequately, but there was something inaccurate about the form of her head. It disliked the rendition of Britannia, though stating that Wyon had done the best he could. Other than these criticisms, it felt that the new coins were a complete success
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 270: The Britannia, as expected, was not at all to the Magazine's taste and it could say no more than that the artist had done the best he could with her. 'In all other senses than the artistic', however, 'the new bronze pieces may be regarded as a complete success'.
  • it is backed Dyer & Gaspar 1984 but by p269 and the "complete success" phrase is a direct quotation
I've changed those.

I did in total 9 checks, three were ok and six were not. This is a concerning number of errors and I'm wondering if I'll find more if I continue. Stopping here and I will oppose for now Mujinga (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check every source and get back to you when I have. Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga, would you take another look. I've checked the sources and made a number of edits. I'm not sure that we are going to agree on every phrase, but go take a look. If you need the wording of an offline source, or want page images, please let me know and if the latter, send me an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, should be able to do more on tuesday or wednesday. Mujinga (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, so on sources, checking this version:

  • 18: After Wyon had worked on designs for both sides of the coins, he went to the royal residence at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight on 7 December 1859, where, according to Wyon, Victoria "sat, or rather stood, to me, and told me that she would do so again when I was ready".[18]
  • fine
  • 39: The weight of the penny was halved, so that 48 of them would weigh a pound avoirdupois (454g), and it was made thinner to make it as large in diameter as possible. Out of concerns that the farthing would be too small if it were lightened to the same standard, that coin and the halfpenny were put on a standard so that 40 pence worth would weigh a pound avoirdupois. The Royal Mint were concerned that the public would object to the new bronze coins as having metal worth considerably less than their face values, but found that the public did not expect a penny to contain copper worth a penny.[39]
  • source - Craig p324
    could you take me through where the cited information comes from on p324? Mujinga (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weight of the penny was halved, so that 48 of them would weigh a pound avoirdupois (454g)", from "The occasion was taken to halve the weight of the penny ... At the new weights, 48d. in pence or 40d. in halfpence or farthings weighed a pound avoirdupois."
  • "and it was made thinner to make it as large in diameter as possible." from "the penny was made very thin, indeed too thin for good minting practice, in order that it might look as large and important as before".
  • "Out of concerns that the farthing would be too small if it were lightened to the same standard, that coin and the halfpenny were put on a standard so that 40 pence worth would weigh a pound avoirdupois. From "For fear lest the full reductions would make the farthings too small" and "The occasion was taken to halve the weight of the penny ... At the new weights, 48d. in pence or 40d. in halfpence or farthings weighed a pound avoirdupois."
  • "The Royal Mint were concerned that the public would object to the new bronze coins as having metal worth considerably less than their face values, but found that the public did not expect a penny to contain copper worth a penny.[39] this is from "" from "Complaints had been made at intervals of the weight of coppers, which the doctrine of intrinsic value had kept up almost to the level of 1672. The weight of the penny was halved, ... Apprehensions were unfounded; belief in intrinsic value of minor token coinage was dead." Remember that this book is The Mint and takes the Royal Mint's perspective implicitly, so it is their apprehensions. The doctrine of intrinsic value is that the coins should contain metal worth the face value, obviously halving them makes them "considerably less" than they were (and the passage says that the Mint had not been fully keeping up to face value), and the beliefs plainly those of the public.
  • 54/55: Remaining "Bun" halfpennies ceased to be legal tender on 31 July 1969,[54] and the farthing after 31 December 1960.[55]
  • source - lobel p604 & p615
  • could you email page images for the last two please? I'll send you a request by email as well Mujinga (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    54/55 checks out. is it possible to adapt the phrase "ceased to be legal tender" which is also used in the source? Mujinga (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Mujinga (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some prose comments:

  • farthing and halfpenny not linked on first mention in text
  • "It was awarded to James Watt & Co of Birmingham." - link to James Watt or Boulton and Watt?::No. The later firm had nothing to do with the original James Watt or with Boulton and Watt, except it was owned by Watt's descendants.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • wl Ralph Heaton & Sons
  • wl avoirdupois
  • "The Bun penny, with Wyon's obverse, and its analogue for the halfpenny and farthing .... Remaining "Bun" halfpennies ceased to be legal tender on 31 July 1969" -why Bun penny and "Bun" halfpennies?
The calling-in dates are for all coins of those denominations, of course including the Bun coins (since ALL halfpennies etc were called in, that adequately supports the proposition that the Bun halfpennies etc were.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear - I was asking why Bun sometimes has apostrophes and sometimes not Mujinga (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • obviously it's hard to avoid using the word coin, but in the lead it becomes a bit reptitive here - "The reverse side of the coin featured Britannia, as Wyon had been directed. There was initially some controversy over the Latin abbreviations in the inscriptions on the coins, with some believing that there were errors that might require the new coins to be withdrawn. With the aid of two outside firms, the Royal Mint struck sufficient of the new bronze coins that it started calling in the copper coins in 1861, a process complete after 1877, though less than half, in terms of value, of the extant coppers were paid in.", I'd suggest " The reverse side featured Britannia, as Wyon had been directed. There was initially some controversy over the Latin abbreviations in the inscriptions, with some believing that there were errors that might require the new coins to be withdrawn. With the aid of two outside firms, the Royal Mint struck sufficient of the new bronze pieces that it started calling in the copper coins in 1861, a process complete after 1877, though less than half, in terms of value, of the extant coppers were paid in."
I've done it slightly differently but in the same spirit. I think I'm up to date again. If I haven't commented, I've just done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, switching to support Mujinga (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Marker for now - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Had a few other bits to clear up first: I'll be here in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review. 750h+ 12:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) Feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification.[reply]

lead
  • 1797 in a variety of sizes, all of which were seen as too large ==> "1797 in various sizes, which were seen as too large" (conciseness)
  • who modelled for him multiple times, and who let her ==> "who modelled for him multiple times and let her "
  • until the run-up to decimalisation in 1971 is there a point of "run-up to"? just asking
Since only the penny was a legal tender on 14 February 1971, I don't want people coming back to me. The abolition of the farthing was mostly unrelated to decimalisation, though it did free up the size slot filled by the 1p.
background
  • bronze coins for Nova Scotia and for the remove the second "for"
Disagree, it would create confusion as to whether the Mint actually was creating coins good in both Nova Scotia AND in the Province of Canada, or (as was the case) separate issues.
preparation
  • credit to the country, and that remove comma
  • had not yet completed the work, and that remove the comma
  • He found, though, he did not have add a comma before "he"
There is one. Are you sure?
oops, my bad
  • room for F.D., unless he shortened remove the comma
release and reaction
  • this was an error, and that remove the comma
  • success":[35] their lightness, and the remove the comma
production and aftermath
  • Rapid, large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint, and several difficulties were encountered at the start, resulting in broken or prematurely-worn coinage dies. I'd split, this sentence is pretty long. What about, "Rapid, large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint. Several difficulties were encountered at the start, resulting in broken or prematurely-worn coinage dies."
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • broken or prematurely-worn coinage should there be a hyphen
Several UK-based editors have looked at the article and haven't commented on that. This is the sort of fine point that I let others tell me of.
  • their face values, but found remove the comma just for consistency with other parts of the article
  • there are a large number of ==> "there were a large number of"
No, the varieties still exist and are collected.

That's all I got. Thanks for the article, @Wehwalt:. 750h+ 12:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. All done or commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. 750h+ 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Sources: How are you deciding whether to give a publisher location or not? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to omit them. I don't think where a publisher was many years ago is that helpful to the reader. Done. Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.

The last source, I am not enthusiastic about "author=Spink & Son Ltd". Is that deliberate? It is more normal to list by editor. As you have in the actual cites. (And having another source with the first name of Howard is just odd!) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the Howard (surname) issue above. "This is a series, now annual, that began in 1929 and has had various editors over the years (I have a copy of the 2004 edition, editor Philip Skingley). The only name that appears on the cover is Spink, as it is the only name on the title page. Howard's name appears only once, in a note on page vi. In neither the 2023 edition nor the 2004 is the editor's name on the cover or prominently mentioned. I think it serves the reader best to stick with Spink as author."
Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that, but the instructions for Template:Sfn it says that for the second sfn parameter give the "surname of first author or corporate author" and you have used "Howard", who you do not consider to be the author. Why not 'Spink & Son Ltd' as in the list of sources if "it serves the reader best to stick with Spink as author"? I may be expressing myself poorly, but I don't see why the author in the sfn and in the source list aren't the same. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've made them consistent, I hope. Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2024 [3].

Algebra

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are familiar with algebra from their school days, where they learned to solve equations like . However, there is also a more abstract form of algebra, which is of particular interest to mathematicians because it provides a general framework for understanding operations on mathematical objects. Thanks to Bilorv for their in-depth GA review and to Mathwriter2718 and Chatul for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Support)

[edit]
  • As an administrative note, I noticed this page had been semi-protected since 2008. 16 years of protection seemed excessive, so I unprotected it.
  • I'm still looking at this, but I do want to say that it's a joy to see a math article which is so approachable. My training is in engineering; I'm a user of math, but not a mathematician. Most math articles (Lie algebra being a good example) make my eyes glaze ever before I get past the first sentence. In this article, I'm down to Linear algebra and I'm still following every detail. This is wonderful!
    Hello RoySmith and thanks for reviewing the article! The parts on abstract and universal algebra will get a little more challenging but this is not entirely avoidable and I hope they are still accessible enough to grasp the main ideas without feeling overwhelmed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm working on Abstract algebra now. Slower going than before, but I'm still hanging in there :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word algebra comes from the Arabic term الجبر (al-jabr), which originally referred to the surgical treatment of bonesetting You can't just leave the reader hanging without giving at least some explanation of how we got from bonesetting to a high-school math class. You link to Traditional bone-setting, but that doesn't say anything about it. I did a bit of searching. "The Origin of the Term "Algebra" on JSTOR". jstor.org. Retrieved 6 August 2024. talks about this a bit while "Simplifying equations in Arabic algebra". sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 6 August 2024. suggests the connection may be entirely accidental. Either way, I think it's worth a sentence or two.
    That's a good idea and the sources are helpful. I put it in a footnote since there is no consensus on the exact meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • x-y-pair do you need both hyphens? I would think "x-y pair".
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An equation is linear if ... no operations like exponentiation, extraction of roots, and logarithm are applied to variables why the equivocation, i.e. "operations like"? Which operations are like those and which are unlike? My understanding is that an equation is linear if there's no power greater than 1, and things like logs and roots get included in that implicitly via their Taylor series. I think this would be better written as an explicit list of operations that are allowed, rather than a vague "stuff like this isn't allowed".
    Done: I added the general form and cut the "stuff like this isn't allowed" down to a short side remark. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An operation[k] is associative if the order of several applications does not matter, i.e., if (a circle b) circle c ... This is the first time you use the circle notation. A little earlier when you introduce N for Natural Numbers, you do a good job of explaining what the notation means; you should do similarly here. My understanding is that it's just "an arbitrary binary operation", but that should be clarified.
    That explanation is given in a footnote, which was unfortunately positioned in a rather unintuitive place. I moved it right after the first use of the circle symbol so that the connection is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An operation admits inverse elements... explain what it means to "admit" an element.
    I reformulated the expression to make it simpler. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The natural numbers ... contain only positive numbers Why not "positive integers"?
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Group theory is the subdiscipline of abstract algebra studying groups. studying -> which studies.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how File:Magma to group4.svg relates to the rest of the article, or at least to the text it's near. It's near a section that talks about rings and fields, but the diagram only shows relationships for groups. Perhaps it should go with the following paragraph, where magmas et al are discussed?
    You are right, I moved it to the following paragraph. I expanded the caption to make it easier to see how it is relevant to the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They differ from each other in regard to the types of objects they describe and the requirements that their operations fulfill To me, this is the key sentence in this whole section. To go back to my comment about my eyes glazing over when I read articles like Lie algebra, this lays out the logical foundation that helps me read " a Lie algebra (pronounced /liː/ LEE) is a vector space ... together with an operation called the Lie bracket, an alternating bilinear map ... that satisfies the Jacobi identity}} and really start to get my head around what it's saying. By analogy, I have a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, but I can usually read something well enough to say, "OK, that's a conjugated verb. I don't recognize the verb, and I'm not sure about the tense, but at least I can get past that and keep going with the sentence, knowing I can always go back and look up the verb later". The same thing here. I don't know what an "alternating bilinear map" is, but with your explanation in mind, I can say, "OK, I don't know what that is, but at least I recognize it's describing "the requirements the operation fulfills" and I can keep making progress, knowing I can come back later and dig deeper. The point of this rambling note is just to say that I think this sentence needs more prominent placement, perhaps in the first paragraph of this section. Then you can still conclude the section by saying that you've only described the three most basic structures, and lots of other ones exist, such as magmas, etc.
    I found a way to mention this characterization in the first paragraph. I very much agree with you about the accessibility problems of several math articles. Some of them read as if they were written primarily for mathematicians, which becomes a problem specifically for the lead if an educated non-expert reader can't figure out what the topic of the article is. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm done with Major Branches. I'll pick up with History another day)

I couldn't stay away, so I finished this up today. I really can't find anything else to complain about in the rest of the article. I'll just leave you with a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave at your pleasure. One is that in Other branches of mathematics where you talk about algebraic solutions to geometric problems, you might want to mention that origami has been used to solve algebraic problems using geometry, see for example https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_09/papers/Sheri.pdf. The other is that I don't think you can talk about Gerolamo Cardano without at least mentioning that he has been credited with inventing (or at least accepting the existance of) imaginary numbers.

I added a short side remark about origami and mentioned imaginary numbers. Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not qualified to review this for the quality of the research or comprehensiveness, but I'm happy to give my support for general structure and "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī.png: the fine print on the licensing tag suggests a cropped image like this might not be covered by the copyright exception
    I removed the image since there were also other concerns about it in the comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I know even less about this one than ethics, so a more sensible person would stay away -- a few comments regardless:

  • Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations at the same time.: "all equations in the system"? As phrased, it sounds like we mean all equations in existence.
    Good catch. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algebraic methods were first studied in the ancient period: as with ethics, I think we could do with being a little more precise. Are we happy, for instance, that the Rhind papyrus is the earliest document to concern algebra, and/or that none exists older than the 2nd millennium BCE, or that the oldest known studies are from Egypt?
    We could mention the example of the Rhind Papyrus with a date in this lead paragraph. But I'm not sure that we want to go into those details in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A matter of taste, maybe, but I'm not sure about a 1980s postage stamp (especially as the likeness is almost certainly totally fictitious) for al-Khwarizmi, especially if we're not going to tell the reader what the image is (some will, I'm sure, assume it's a contemporary portrait). Elsewhere, we have this, which is a page (I think the first page?) from the text we're discussing -- would that be a better illustration here?
    Good idea, I replaced the image, especially since there were also some copyright concerns above. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transliterated Arabic should be in a transliteration template.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A higher level of abstraction is achieved in abstract algebra: is is achieved the right phrase here -- it sounds like we're saying that abstract algebra is better than elementary algebra, when surely they're each trying to do slightly different things? "Abstract algebra uses/creates/allows a higher level of abstraction"?
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking countable noun.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very pedantic, but the link on " a certain type of binary operation" covers the "a", while the one on "a specific type of algebraic structure" doesn't. Usual form is to include it, I think.
    I included the "a" in the wikilink scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little odd that note c mentions al-Khwarizmi before we've introduced him, and when we're talking about the use of the term prior to his work. I'd move it to the end of the following sentence.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This changed in the course of the 19th century: why not, simply, in the nineteenth century?
    Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note e (definition of constants vs. variables) does strictly need a citation, even though it's not exactly controversial. There are a couple of others -- I noticed l and s.
    Done, I hope I got all. I reformulated footnote l to be only about this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss on this point, but it would be reassuring to provide a citation to show that other people do this too (in other words, that it's not our own idea). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lowercase letters a and b are usually used for constants and coefficients. For example, the expression 5x+3 is an algebraic expression created by multiplying the number 5 with the variable and adding the number 3 to the result. I don't really understand the use of "for example" here -- I think we need to introduce this as a new thought.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An equation is a statement formed by comparing two expressions with an equals sign ... Inequations are formed with symbols like the less-than sign (), the greater-than sign (), and the inequality sign (). : would it be better to explain this in terms of meaning rather than symbology? After all, the statement "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides" was as much as passed for an equation for a large part of mathematical history, and we can imagine some other form of notation that expresses equations with a different sign or none at all.
    I reformulated it to take a middle path, covering both meaning and symbols. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some algebraic expressions take the form of statements that relate two expressions to one another: two or more?
    Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main goal of elementary algebra is to determine for which values a statement is true: more idiomatic, to me, as "the values for which a statement is true".
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similar way, if one knows the exact value of one variable one may be able to use it to determine the value of other variables.: do we lose anything important by cutting exact here?
    Not really. Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It bothers me that the graph example uses the wrong symbol for subtraction (the dash is too short), but that's not really your problem. Do consider, however, MOS:COLOUR in describing the line as red (not everyone can see its colour) -- perhaps also add that it slopes upwards to the right? I appreciate that there's only one line that graph-literate readers could identify, but we're rightly pitching this article to complete beginners, and it's not impossible that some won't know what the axes are.
    I updated the image file to use a longer symbol for subtraction (I had to close and re-open my browser for it show the new version). I also followed your suggestion to identify the line not only by color but also by slope. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This means that no variables are multiplied with each other and no powers of variables occur.: or that no variables are raised to a power greater than one?
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent. This is the case if the equations do not contradict each other: better as A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent if the equations do not contradict each other? At the moment, we state something, and then immediately seem to state that it isn't (always) true. If I've got it right, we're saying that it's impossible to be inconsistent and to have any solutions, so it might even be clearer to state that first -- something like If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is called inconsistent and has no solutions. For example, the equations and contradict each other since no values of and exist that solve both equations at the same time. If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is inconsistent and has no solutions. A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent.
    I implemented a similar reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LU Decomposition: decap decomposition, and consider spelling out lower–upper?
    Decap done. I kept the "LU" since this is the more common way of referring to it and also the name of our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a geometric level, systems of equations can be interpreted as geometric figures: do we need the first bit? Seems repetitive, given the end of the sentence.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For systems with two variables, each equation represents a line in two-dimensional space. The point where the two lines intersect is the solution: can we briefly explain why this is so?
    I added a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • binary operations, which take two objects as input: as inputs, surely, or as their input?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of the Rhind papyrus -- can we give an idea of the "error bars" on the debate -- does everyone agree it's C17th, for example, or do some people think it's much later, or a modern forgery?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These developments happened in the ancient period in diverse regions such as Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India: our phrasing here implies that this list isn't exhaustive. Is that what's intended?
    Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ancient China: I know the date of The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art isn't totally straightforward, but we should give it one anyway, if the Greeks get them.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Vector 22, I have quite a lot of sandwiching between the Al-Khwarizmi manuscript and the double portrait. I realise I've earlier suggested using it in place of Al-Khwarizmi's face, so that would solve this problem as well.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We get a lot of people described as "the nationality mathematician": you could consider dropping mathematician in these contexts, and take it as read that we're generally talking about mathematicians (see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful for an argument for this). Very much a matter of taste, though.
  • the German mathematicians ... Emil Artin -- he was Austrian.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to solve puzzles like Sudoku and Rubik's cube: we generally speak of a Rubik's cube, so I'd pluralise it here (especially as there are different variations on the form).
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algebra education mostly focuses on elementary algebra, which is one of the reasons why it is also called school algebra. It is usually not introduced -- the series of its may not be totally clear -- we seem to be swapping antecedent here (the first one is elementary algebra, the second algebra education).
    I replaced the first "it". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • unlike arithmetic calculations, algebraic expressions often cannot be directly solved: you might add an easily in here -- you can solve most school problems by trial and error, or simply by spotting the answer, but it's much easier to do it "properly".
    I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the education side -- how worldwide is the use of balance scales? We've cited a single school textbook here, which to me is verging on WP:PRIMARY -- I'd be more comfortable with a survey article on the use of the technique in (American?) mathematical education. I've never seen it in UK schools, outside isolated word problems -- function machines are more common over here as a basic introduction to the ideas of algebra. I'd be interested to know how things are done in places like Shanghai and Hong Kong, which generally seem to outperform both systems, at least as far as concerns producing students who can solve school-algebra problems.
    I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I echo Roy's praise for the clarity and approachability of this article -- I'll admit that I skipped fairly lightly over the abstract algebra section, but the rest was absolutely clear and manageable, and I suspect I'm going to be one of the least qualified mathematicians to review this here. Excellent work once again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another detailed review and for taking a leap to provide a non-expert opinion on the article! Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, this is also an important perspective to consider. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

Although I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, I have a few comments. Overall I very much appreciated the clarity and structure.

  • Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures --> while I like overall how clearly topics are being described, there are a few cases where I get a sense of recursion. Is there a way to avoid using algebraic in the definition of algebra?
    You are right that this sounds circular, but I'm not sure that there is a good alternative. There was already a detailed discussion on this point in the GA review that resulted in consensus on the current formulation. It sounds circular but it isn't circular since the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • called a system of linear equations. --> why italics?
    This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we talk about the term "system of linear equations". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that appear in several linear equations --> a definition of linear would be good
    We could add a footnote but I'm not sure that we should get into this in the lead section. The first paragraph of the subsection "Linear algebra" provides a definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures --> too recursive for me. A question: do I understand it correctly that algebraic structures include lgebraic operations? If so, do we really need to say "algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures" or can it just use structures?
    You are right, the operations are already included. I found a way to reformulate the sentence to take this into account while cutting down on the repetitive language. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arithmetic studies arithmetic operations --> too recursive for me
    I removed the term "arithmetic" since we already list the main operations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • first use of axiom in body is not linked. Perhaps do this: together with their underlying axioms, the laws they follow.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The natural numbers, by contrast, do not form a group --> should the + operation not be mentioned?
    Correct, I added it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the earliest documents is the Rhind Papyrus --> One of the earliest mathematical documents is the Rhind Papyrus
    I implemented the idea in a slightly different way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • several generations between the 10th century BCE and the 2nd century CE --> I don't think 1000+ years can be described as several generations
    Agreed, this is an understatement. I adjusted the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thābit ibn Qurra in the 9th century --> I assume there is no more accurate estimate? Since 825 CE is also the 9th century, perhaps something like "also in the 9th century"?
    I think he made contributions in several works so we would have to list several dates. I added the "also". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1247, the Chinese mathematician Qin Jiushao --> how come this is not with the other China info?
    For chronological reasons: roughly speaking, we have two paragraphs on ancient history, two paragraphs on post-classical history, and then modern history. It's not ideal but putting him into the ancient paragraph is not ideal either. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edwininlondon, I appreciate you taking the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

  • x y c – variables/constants --> would be better to make 2 lines and separate the variables from the constant
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • forgive me if this has been agreed already, but is Encyclopedia of Mathematics as a wiki a reliable source?
    Thanks for raising this point. The website use wiki software to display the pages but it is not user-generated. The articles were originally published in book form by Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer and only later made accessible online. We could cite the original books but the online version is much better accessible for readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent date formats. Example: "from the original on 4 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2023" but also "from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-01-13"
    Done. I hope the script got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walz, Guido (2016) needs a trans-title
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck: 37 51 84 85 87 118 all check out
  • 80 does indeed give 1550 but somehow I feel this source is not right to make the claim "The exact date is disputed and some historians suggest a later date around 1550 BCE" A more scientific source would be better.
    I replaced it with a better source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 87 is correct but the link unfortunately does not put me on page 31, nor is that page accessible to me. Perhaps this link is better: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11540/chapter/4
    I fixed the link, the page preview works for me now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for this final round. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope I was able to address the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current first sentence is: "Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures". This definition is not circular since "algebraic structure" has a precise definition that does not refer to the field of algebra. So it's not a problem with the definition itself but only with the linguistic level since it is preferable to avoid repeating the words algebra-algebraic.
I'll brainstorm some alternatives:
  1. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies abstract structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures
    The expression "abstract structures" does not have a precise definition and could mean all kinds of things, so this formulation sacrifices information for linguistic improvements
  2. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
    This is precise but most readers will have difficulties figuring out what "operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set" means. Especially for the first sentence, this is not a good idea.
  3. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations on mathematical objects and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
    This is a less detailed and more accessible version of (2). Instead of repeating algebra-algebraic, this formulation repeats mathematics-mathematical.
When compared to these alternatives, I prefer the current version, but I'm also open to other ideas. Option 3 would be my second choice.
Roughly speaking, the first clause on algebraic structures covers abstract/universal algebra while the second clause on the manipulation of statements covers elementary/linear algebra. If we removed the second clause, we would focus only on the more abstract side of algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for generating alternatives, much appreciated. I'd be curious to hear what other FAC reviewers think. In my mini-sample of 2 non-maths people, both raised an eyebrow at "algebraic". Alternative 2 is too technical indeed. Number 3 would be my preferred option. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any mileage in "certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures", or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those structures.
5. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract systems, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those systems.
6. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract frameworks, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those frameworks.
All of them are a little bit longer than the original. Maybe they could work without the word "certain". In (4), the repeated use of the word "structure" might be a problem. Of these three, (5) would be my preference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like (5). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 makes sense to me as a layman, though obviously I can't speak for its technical accuracy/completeness. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the suggestion. It's a little longer but should be more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. My uni algebra is too long ago to fully vouch for the technical aspect, but it looks very convincing. A nice piece of work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathwriter2718's comments

[edit]

I am here in my capacity as a mathematical expert. My goal is to review the mathematical content of this page and make sure it is accurate and clear. Others have already done more comprehensive reviews of other aspects.

I think this article is excellent. I have a few extremely minor concerns and one bigger concern, but none will take so long to address. For the big concern, Let us look at the descriptions of linear algebra, abstract algebra, and universal algebra in this article.

"Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations in the system at the same time. Abstract algebra studies algebraic structures, which consist of a set of mathematical objects together with one or several binary operations defined on that set. It is a generalization of elementary and linear algebra since it allows mathematical objects other than numbers and non-arithmetic operations. ... Universal algebra constitutes a further level of generalization that is not limited to binary operations and investigates more abstract patterns that characterize different classes of algebraic structures."
"Abstract algebra usually restricts itself to binary operations that take any two objects from the underlying set as inputs and map them to another object from this set as output."
"Universal algebra is the study of algebraic structures in general. It is a generalization of abstract algebra that is not limited to binary operations and allows operations with more inputs as well, such as ternary operations."

I think many mathematicians define linear algebra as the study of finite-dimensional vector spaces. The description of linear algebra in this article is pretty different on the surface, but still a valid POV, and not actually as different as it may appear. Anyway, it would be nice to put in somewhere that the algebraic structure linear algebra studies is a finite-dimensional vector space. The bigger issue is that everyone thinks vector spaces are under the domain of abstract algebra, and scalar multiplication is not a binary operation on a single set, so the descriptions of abstract algebra and universal algebra are wrong. Even if you expanded abstract algebra to be about binary operations where the input sets can be different, this would still not be how mathematicians view abstract algebra.

I think the way mathematicians view abstract algebra vs universal algebra vs linear algebra is like this:

Abstract algebra is the broad field of math that studies algebraic structures.
Linear algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure that is important in the study of systems of linear equations: finite-dimensional vector spaces.
Universal algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure called a universal algebra. This structure is kind of unusual in that its instantiations include many of the most important algebraic structures.

I think we should just remove the offending content and not change things too much otherwise. I am merely arguing that we should avoid explicitly limiting "abstract algebra" to binary operations on a single set, and that we should avoid thinking of universal algebra as a generalization of abstract algebra, but rather as the study of a structure that encases many of the most important algebraic structures. If there are no objections, I can make these changes.

@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking a look at the article! I followed your suggestion to mention that linear algebra can also be defined in terms of vector spaces. I included the reference to linear maps in the definition so it is more focused. I put it in a footnote since I have the impression that it is difficult to understand for the average reader but we could try to work it into the main text if that is preferable.
Concerning abstract algebra, one problem is that some sources restrict abstract algebra to binary operations. In order to avoid taking sides, I softened this claim by saying that it is "primarily interested in binary operations".
The relation between abstract and universal algebra is tricky. Pratt 2022 says "Universal algebra is the next level of abstraction after abstract algebra". Other sources also emphasize the general nature of universal algebra but don't make the relation to abstract algebra this explicit. I reformulated some passages to emphasize the generality. I tried not to imply that universal algebra is distinct from and more general than abstract algebra. I also added a footnote covering the alternative definition of universal algebra as the study of universal algebras, as you suggested.
I hope these changes are roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good compromise to me. Thanks. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less important comments:

  • Consider replacing
    For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x.
with
For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x, since 7x - 3x = (7-3)x = 4x by the distributive property.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider replacing
    This technique is common for polynomials to determine for which values the expression is zero.
with
This technique is commonly used to determine the values of a polynomial that evaluate to zero.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses the term "x-y pair". I don't think I've seen this before, but it perhaps isn't wrong? I would expect to see (x,y)-pair or (x,y) pair, I think.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it could be good to put in some image of a symmetry group when the article is talking about symmetry groups, though I didn't find an image on dihedral group that really stood out to me.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a short look, I didn't find a good image either. This part of the article already has several images so we might have to remove an image to create space for a new one. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathwriter2718: I appreciate the insightful suggestions. I hope I was able to address your main concerns. I was wondering whether, from the mathematical perspective, you would support the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 I hope that I can read up more on universal algebra before giving an answer. This might take a bit. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look at the subsection "Universal algebra". The main challenge for this subsection is to make the abstract topic accessible to the reader without oversimplifying too much. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phlsph7, is this ready for the reviewer to take another look at yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The article is ready and, as far as I'm aware, there are no outstanding comments to be addressed. Mathwriter2718 said that they needed more time to familiarize themselves with the literature before wrapping up the review.
@Mathwriter2718: Just checking to see how things are progressing. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 I am very sorry for not getting back to you sooner!! I have recently become extremely busy and I have had trouble finding the time to review the mathematical literature and decide whether I support/don't support this nomination. I will give myself a deadline of tonight to finish this and if I can't get it done by then, then I think I can declare I just don't have enough time right now to do this. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking another look! If turns out that you don't have the time to review the part on universal algebra, you could explicitly exclude that part from your assessment. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 @Gog the Mild I have finished my review of the mathematical content of the article except for the "Universal algebra" section and I support the FA nomination based on the content that I have reviewed. Maybe there is someone else who can review that section but I am not sure if there are many Wikipedians familiar with universal algebra. Looking at the history of the page Universal algebra one can maybe find people who are familiar with the subject. @Jochen Burghardt has a decent number of edits there. Personally, I'm just not qualified to offer my perspective on that area and I am too busy at this time to really become familiar in the way I would like to before offering an opinion. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance here. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and all the time and energy you have poured into this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

So, this is one of these broad topics where it's hard to tell for an outsider whether the coverage is representative. So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing that aspect of a source review. I wonder why some page numbers have Google Books links and others don't. Google Books serves up different results to different people, so I am not sure that these links are very helpful at all. By the same principle, I don't think that Google Books needs archive links. Springer is referred to by various names, is there a need for consistency? Are Jones & Bartlett Publishers and Linus Learning a prominent publisher? What makes "Edwards, C. H. (2012). Advanced Calculus of Several Variables. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-13195-5. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved January 24, 2024." a high-quality reliable source? "Majewski, Miroslaw (2004). MuPAD Pro Computing Essentials (2 ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-21943-9.", "Nicholson, W. Keith (2012). Introduction to Abstract Algebra. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13535-8." and "Mishra, Sanjay (2016). Fundamentals of Mathematics: Algebra. Pearson India. ISBN 978-93-325-5891-5." don't have the retrieval dates where other sources have, although with books and papers I don't think we need these at all. Otherwise we are using prominent publishers and series, although I notice the overrepresentation of Western sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for taking care of the source review! I usually add links to google book pages that offer page previews if I'm aware of them. For some books, google books does not offer previews, in which case I can't add links. It could depend on the reader's geo-region whether a page preview is available. If it is available, it is a convenient way for the reader to verify the material without needing to buy the book. I removed all the google book webarchive links. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically when it runs, so they could be back soon. I implemented a more consistent approach for referring to Springer. I replaced the sources by Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Linus Learning, and Edwards 2012 with alternatives. I added an access/retrieval date for Nicholson 2012. Majewski 2004 and Mishra 2016 don't have access dates because they have no links to a website. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject.
Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like we need some discussion somewhere about IAbot adding archives to Google Books. But not an issue for a FAC I figure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this has already come up several times. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Google_Books_web_archive_links_and_IABot. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo, sorry to drag you back to this again. Would I be correct in understanding this to be a source review pass so far as FAC is concerned? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but note the caveats "So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing [the thorough and representative survey] aspect of a source review." and "overrepresentation of Western sources." I am not sure that limiting oneself to English sources justifies incompleteness, although we can't expect editors to be polylingual. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D.Lazard

[edit]

I did not follow the changes of the article done by Phlsph7 since January 2023. My first impression is that the new vesion is much better. Nevertheless it is too much biased toward educational aspects of algebra. I'll discuss this in several items in order to makes improvements easier.

  • Abstract algebra: Presently, this phrase is almost never used outside mathematical education. This must be said in the article, and in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebraabstract" must be removed.
    Hello D.Lazard and thanks for taking a look at the article! I found a source that talks about how the term "abstract algebra" is used in the educational context and added a sentence on it. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. If you know of a source that spells your point out in more detail, I would be happy to have a look at it. Most of the sources that I'm aware of define abstract algebra as a field of inquiry rather than a math course in undergraduate studies.
    Clearly, I have no source saying "I do not use abstract algebra because this is reserved to educational context", but, AFAIK, there is no recent sources (say, not older than 50 years) that use "abstract algebra" outside educational or historical context. D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to suggest the addition of a sentence like the following: "In the last 50 years, the term abstract algebra has only been used in educational and historical contexts." I'm not opposed in principle, but we would need to figure out how to source this sentence and how to deal with possible counterexamples like [4], [5] and [6]. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get what you mean by in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebra" must be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it was a typo, I meant "abstract". D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Depending on the context, the term algebra is sometimes used to refer only to elementary algebra or only to abstract algebra, as explained in our section "Definition and etymology". I think it's in the best interest of the readers to use the more specific names to avoid confusing them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, reading the article again, I do not find any improper use of "abstract algebra", except in the last paragraph of section "abstract algebra", which is controversial for other reasons, for example, by asserting implicitly that, say, the the study of groups of geometric transformations belong to abstract algebra. D.Lazard (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major branches: Presently, this section has only 4 subsections: "Elementary algebra", "Linear algebra", "Abstract algebra", "Universal algebra".
    For defining branches of algebra, the most authoritative source is the Mathematics Subject Classification. The previous version of the article referred to this source by writing: Today algebra includes section 08-General algebraic systems, 12-Field theory and polynomials, 13-Commutative algebra, 15-Linear and multilinear algebra; matrix theory, 16-Associative rings and algebras, 17-Nonassociative rings and algebras, 18-Category theory; homological algebra, 19-K-theory and 20-Group theory. Algebra is also used extensively in 11-Number theory and 14-Algebraic geometry.
    Three of the four major areas belong to 08-General algebraic systems, and very little is said about the seven other major areas of algebra. So, without sections on other major branches of areas, this article fails the second criterion of featured articles: comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
    As far as I'm aware, the Mathematics Subject Classification does not provide a general definition or subdivision of algebra. The sentences you cited from an older version of our article were unsourced. If you know of a source that supports this subdivision of algebra, I would be interested to read it. The sources that I'm aware of do not divide it this way, but there may be different ways of dividing it.
    Most of the categories you mention are covered in one form or another in our article. For example, polynomials are covered by the section "Linear algebra", algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory are mentioned in the subsection "Other branches of mathematics", and the different rings, fields, and algebras would be belong to the section "Abstract algebra". The last paragraph of the section "Abstract algebra" gives various examples of different algebraic structures. We could add more if you feel that this would help comprehensiveness, but we probably shouldn't overdo it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Mathematics Subject Classification was elaborated by the whole mathematical community, this is a reliable source for subdivision of mathematics; it is undoubtly much more reliable than any text written by a single author. So, it is wrong to say that the old paragraph was unsourced. Per WP:BLUE, no source is needed for asserting that field theory, polynomial theory, commutative algebra, associative rings and algebras, nonassociative rings, homological algebra, and group theory are branches of algebra. Nevertheless it suffices to open any textbook having these subjects in their title to see that these subjects belong to algebra. So, the present state of the article breaks policy WP:NPOV by giving much less place to all these subjects together than to universal algebra, a subject that is not really used outside itself (it has been replaced by the much more powerful category theory). D.Lazard (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my doubts that this is a WP:BLUE-statement. The Mathematics Subject Classification is a reliable source but does not support the claim about how algebra is divided into the main branches. Of the items you mentioned, our article provides a detailed explanation of the basics of groups, rings, fields, and polynomials. It also mentions some of the more specific algebras without going too much into detail. I think it's not the responsibility of this type of overview article to go into the more advanced details of these subjects.
    Universal algebra is usually given more weight in reliable sources than the other areas you mentioned so I don't think this violates WP:NPOV. For example, Pratt 2022 discusses it as one of the main branches, without characterizing any of the other areas you mentioned as main branches. Bronshtein's "Handbook of Mathematics" paints a similar picture: in its division "5 Algebra and Discrete Mathematics", universal algebra gets the main subdivision "5.3 Univeral algebra" but none of the other fields you mention get main subdivisions. But you are right that universal algebra is not as important as abstract algebra. I could try to reduce the length of the section "Univeral algebra" by boiling it down to 2 paragraphs. Would that address your main concern? I was thinking about adding a few sentences on homological algebra but this topic could be quite challenging to the average reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most influential graduate textbooks in algebra are probably Van der Waerden's Algebra and Lang's Algebra. They are probably the most reliable sources for this subjects. In particular, Lang has more than 10,000 citations. It is unbelievable that none of these books is cited in our article. Clearly, they do not contain everything that belongs to algebra, but they are certainly reliable sources for the important branches of algebra. I have not these books under hand, but the phrases abstract algebra and universal algebra do not appear in the table of content of Lang nor in the list of Van der Waerden's chapters. On the other hand, all the branches that are cited above appear, at least in Lang (which is more recent). So, the fact that the above cited branches belong to algebra is supported by reliable sources. They support also the fact that "abstact algebra" is not used outside educational level, and that universal algebra is not a major branch of algebra (Lang knew universal algebra, since he is an author of an article on this subject, and did not included the subkect in his book). D.Lazard (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections "Abstract algebra" and "Universal algebra" are both devoted to the general study of algebraic structures. So, there must be merged and shortened for making place to (presently lacking) other major branches that are much more active.
  • Theorems: The article is misleading by suggesting wrongly that there are no important theorems in algebra. As an example, one thinks immediatly of Feit–Thompson theorem, which is the theorem of algebra with the longest proof (the complete proof of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is probably longer, and contains much algebra, but is not limited to this area of mathematics). Other examples are Hilbert's basis theorem, Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and Hilbert's syzygy theorem. Beside their historical importance, they are interesting here, since they predate "abstract algebra", and are therefore difficult to classify in this branch of algebra.
    I responded to this and the two preceding points on the article talk page, which is probably a better place for this type of discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D.Lazard It seems to me like your overarching concern is that the article Algebra should be about exactly the thing mathematicians call "algebra". I think it makes more sense for this particular article to be a middle ground between what most people call algebra and what mathematicians mean when they say algebra. For example, you want to remove the use of the word "abstract algebra". Indeed, mathematicians don't use this word to talk to each other about research-level mathematics. But I think it makes a lot of sense to use this word for contrast with elementary algebra. The way I interpret the current state of this article, everything under the mathematics subject classification for algebra falls under what this article calls "abstract algebra".
I probably support your view that this article should be closer to the viewpoint of a modern mathematician than it is now, but I want to be very careful to not transform the intended readership of this article away from the most lay audience possible by going into things like K-theory and nonassociative rings that are certainly not necessary for a comprehensive description of "Algebra" for the lay reader. Math Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for being too technical and obscure, and only a vanishing fraction of those who search for the article Algebra on Wikipedia will have much background. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Mathematics Subject Classification is to be used by journals to organize research. I don't we should expect that purpose to align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to adhere to the conception of some readers ("what most people call algebra"); it is to inform the reader on the whole subject implied by the title. Here, this includes "abstract algebra", and also all the content of the most influencal books entitled Algebra (in particular, Serge Lang's and Van der Waerden's ones). Since no way is given to the reader to accede to information on most of the content of these books, the article is far to respect the policy WP:NPOV, and thus should never to have been labeled as a WP:GA.
I never asked to not speak of "abstract algebra", but it must be given its WP:due weight, which is the name of the part of algebra that is taught at some level of mathematical education. D.Lazard (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Mathwriter2718 here. Writing an article that respects both the mathematicians' definition of algebra and the more vernacular meaning is an intrinsically difficult problem. Having no representation for the latter meaning would itself be a violation of NPOV, and would make the page far less useful for a large and important audience. Moreover, I agree that the Mathematics Subject Classification doesn't necessarily align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. The topics that it lists are important enough to include, but it doesn't dictate the organization of an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a related discussion at WT:WPM#Should Algebra be reverted to the version of 21 Decembre 2023?. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Eppstein

[edit]

A drive-by comment: the claim in the universal algebra section that "Two algebraic structures that share all their identities are said to belong to the same variety." and the examples that follow this claim do not match my understanding of the subject. As I understand it, and as Variety (universal algebra) describes, a variety is defined by any set of identities, and an algebra belongs to a variety when it obeys all those identities (even when it might also obey others). So a single algebra might belong to many varieties, not merely the single variety defined by all its identities. Two algebras might belong to one variety, and differ in their membership of another variety. In this same section, "the ring of polynomials" is ambiguous: polynomials over what domain? Footnote [74] appears off-topic; neither linked reference page is about membership of integers, polynomial rings, or rationals in varieties. (One of the two pages uses "variety" in a different sense, from algebraic geometry rather than universal algebra.) The claim that the integers and ring of polynomials (over whatever domain) obey the same identities is unsourced, and may be false depending on the domain of the polynomials. For instance polynomials over GF(2) obey the identity x+x=0 that the integers do not.

Hello David Eppstein and thanks for your comments! I had a look at a few sources and I think your interpretation of varieties is correct. I reformulated the passage to avoid the misleading formulation used earlier. I added the sources I consulted and replaced the example with another. It's a simplified version of the one found in Rosen 2012. If this is still controversial, we could either use the full example from Rosen 2012 or leave it out. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There another issue in this section: it is not said explicitely that not all algebraic structure belong to a variety. For example, fields do not form a variety since division by zero is not defined. D.Lazard (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote to mention this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter

[edit]

A drive-by comment: this article is well on its way to being very nice indeed. I am somewhat dissatisfied by the "Applications" section. Despite a recent reorganization for the better, it still suffers from the problem that the applications of algebra are so staggeringly vast that any selection of examples will look weird and arbitrary. Right now, it reads rather like, "Linear algebra is useful in optimizing the yield of pumpkin patches." It needs both to be augmented with further examples and to be phrased in a way that makes clear the choice of examples is illustrative, not exhaustive. The "Education" section is also a bit shallow. It makes sense to focus on "elementary" or "school" algebra, as the text currently does, but we should say at least a little about the teaching of "higher"/"modern"/"abstract" algebra at the university level.

The references need to be combed through for cruft. I have removed a couple that looked like someone just pulled the first item in a Google Books search that wasn't obvious crankery [7][8]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Thanks for your comments. I added a short paragraph on tertiary education to the "Education" sections. I think it's a good idea to mention it but I don't want to delve too much into it given that most of the literature on algebra education focuses on secondary education. I reformulated some parts of the "Applications" section to make sure that the examples are not presented as an exhaustive account. I also expanded it by adding several new examples. If you have specific examples in mind that are not yet mentioned, I can also try to include them. I also replaced some sources with better alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BorgQueen

[edit]

@Phlsph7: Nice work, another comprehensive article on a core topic from you! Just one thing—as per MOS:SEEALSO, Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. I notice that you've got quite a few links in the See also section. Are they all really necessary? If so, I suggest you use {{annotated link}} for the links that aren't obviously self-explanatory. BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BorgQueen and thanks for the comments. I'm not sure that all the see-also links are necessary. There were some disagreements about what the article should and shouldn't cover. As a result, many of the more specific topics were added as see-also links. I trimmed the links a little and followed your idea to use annotated links since it wouldn't be clear to the average reader what they all mean. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2024 [9].

Leroy Chollet

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I first read about Leroy Chollet in a local newspaper that mentioned him as an African American basketball player who played in the Whites-only inaugural NBA Finals because he did not tell anybody that he was Black. That sounded a bit off, so I googled him but didn't find much. The Wikipedia article was a stub. As I read about the guy, I expanded his article. This is my first nomination, so feel free to offer any guidance on this process. Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Lovely article. I'll take a look. All of the suggestions listed may be rejected with justification. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • and became a teacher and varsity head coach for the school. I'd remove "for the school"; i think the start of the sentence does the job
early life

No problems here. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

college carreer
  • colleges were segregated, and neither remove the comma
  • rival colleges Louisiana State University (LSU) and Tulane remove the acronym "(LSU)", as it's not used later in the article
professional career
  • ball to the teams' veteran players ==> "ball to the team's veteran players"
later life

Excellent work for a first nomination, short and sweet article, hope we'll be seeing this on the main page as TFA soon! 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 750h+, I've addressed the comments above in the article,[10] Rjjiii (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I did the GA review for this and am glad to see it here at FAC. I left some comments on the article talk page in preparation for FAC, and I see those have been dealt with, but rereading the article now I have a couple more comments.

  • I can see why the Loyola national championship is mentioned in the first sentence, but it's awkward because the third sentence has to repeat the information, since we're recounting his timeline and that's early in it. It might be best to cut the first sentence all the way down to "was an American professional basketball player", and let the succeeding sentences tell the story.
  • Suggest adding "He died in 1998" to the end of the lead.
  • In the lead, "When Chollet's African American heritage was revealed" is followed by a note giving the details of his paternal great-grandmother, and that note is used again in the body of the article. I don't see any reason why those details can't be brought into the body, and for the lead I'd suggest something like this: "Chollet had one black great-grandparent, and when this was revealed he was pressured into leaving Loyola. He moved to New York ..."
  • Why is note 3 in a note instead of in the body of the article? It's only marginally relevant to Chollet, but if we're going to include it at all I think it's interesting enough to be promoted to the body of the article.
  • Similarly can we incorporate notes 4 and 5 into the article? These are good quotes; no reason to bury them; and "could not influence the unfolding events" is not as effective as the quotes it summarizes.
  • "Louisiana newspapers did not openly publish their ancestry": what is meant by "openly publish"? I'm sure this isn't in contrast to clandestinely publishing their ancestry, but I don't know what is intended instead.
  • Can we get links for the BAA and NBL, and a link in the body for the Syracuse Nationals (currently only linked in the lead and infobox).
  • "Chollet was the varsity head coach from 1956 to 1960 and retired from teaching in 1985. He was an administrator for community sports programs at the Lakewood Recreation Department from 1960 to 1980": any reason this is out of chronological order? Can we mention his retirement after his work for Lakewood Recreation Department, in other words?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mike Christie, addressed in article,[11] Rjjiii (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support; fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "he became a role player" - what's a "role player"? Is there an appropriate link? I presume it doesn't mean that he played Dungeons & Dragons ;-)
  • "Chollet signed with the Syracuse Nationals" - link the Nats
  • "In the NBA, Chollet was a reserve guard tasked with facilitating" - are there appropriate links to whatever a "reserve guard" is and whatever "facilitating" is?
  • "Chollet was the varsity head coach" - what does this mean? "Varsity" would suggest to me a university, but it was a high school.....?
  • That's all I got on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, ChrisTheDude! Linked the Nats. I've added "role player" to the glossary of basketball terms and added a link to this article's lead. In the body, I've tried to explain his role in the NBA with less jargon. Is that more clear? Regarding "varsity", I've specified that he was a high school varsity coach and added piped links to varsity team. In high school, it contrasts with a JV or freshman coach. Rjjiii (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images are well placed. Have the newspapers been checked for a copyright notice? Does the ALT text for the second image have to be this long. Source-wise, is there a reason for the inconsistent application of "via newspapers.com."? What makes Statscrew a reliable source? Newspapers seem to be inconsistently formatted, both between the "References" and "Sources" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked the newspapers for copyright notices.
  • The alt text is longer for one image because it includes the caption from the newspaper. This makes the text in the image accessible (Example 3). To shorten it, I'd need to crop out the caption.
  • Removed "via newspapers.com".
  • I'm basing the reliability of Stats Crew on WP:USEBYOTHERS. It has been cited by a variety of reliable news sources,[12][13][14] and I don't see any doubting it. The article cites it only for the table of ABL stats, so if it doesn't meet FA standards, I can remove that two-line table.
  • For consistency, I've used similar parameters for all the newspaper sources.[15] The sources cited inline and left out of the "References" section list are all primary sources.
Thanks for checking it out, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Rjjiii (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am questioning Stats Crew is because I don't see a clear editorial mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Gotcha, I've removed the ABL stats cited to Stats Crew. It's just there as an external link now. Rjjiii (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK. Unrelated to sourcing, but ALS should be spelled out IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Rjjiii (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

[edit]

* 1 Can I have a copy of this source?

I notice that there is an inconsistent citation format between the notes and the article text. Unrelated, but I wonder if Milan Cemetery could be linked anywhere - for me it sounds like Milan the Italian city. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I appreciate you checking them out. In one case above, I somehow removed a citation without realizing it and have put it back. In the others I've offered quotes. I've wiki-linked Milan to Milan, Ohio. Regarding "an inconsistent citation format between the notes and the article text", does that mean using citation footnotes in the explanatory footnotes? That's worse for accessibility (on mobile), but I can do that if it's an FA requirement. To provide a copy of the sources noted above, can I email you? Since you're catching some errors, I'm going to try to double-check the cited pages first. Rjjiii (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (on the email thing) and yes (the footnotes and article text should be using the same citation style) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The explanatory notes now also have footnotes (instead of parenthetical citations). I've added links to two of the requests above. With newspapers.com working consistently, I was able to clip and link a bunch of the newspaper sources. Since the first post in this section,[21] I've gone over the citations and added a page number to one of them, so the footnote numbers will be different. Rjjiii (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we are done here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I appreciate the patience with citation questions, Rjjiii (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]


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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2024 [23].

Tesla and unions

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about unionization efforts at Tesla in different countries and Tesla's relation to trade unions more broadly. A lot of attention is brought to Elon Musk's commentary, but this Wikipedia article authoritatively brings attention to older campaigns and countries in order to WP:GLOBALIZE coverage. It is a GA and has continued to be expanded since. This is my first WP:FAC so I am appreciative of any assistance/guidance along the way. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hello Shushugah and welcome to FAC. I'll do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are own works published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. They are relevant and placed at appropriate locations. Both images are from Germany. Since Tesla is an American company, it would be good to have America also represented image-wise. The images lack alt-texts, see MOS:ALT. The captions are fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📸 Done! I agree more photos would be nice. I have contacted United Auto Workers and IndustriALL Global Union to WP:DONATE some photos because there are nice ones that show diversity and breadth of Tesla workers movement. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the alt text. It would be great if it works out with the photos from the unions. If not, alternatives would be to use a picture of a Tesla factory where workers tried to unionize, like Gigafactory New York, or to have a multiple image of the logos of the different unions that made attempts. The article is relatively short so we don't need many images. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 using logos of unions would violate WP:NFCC rationale. I do not think the differing logos add contextual understanding to the differences between the unions, their efforts. The logo usages would need to be minimal, and this article is akin to a list of different union efforts (me thinks). I did also consider whether creating a geographic map with different union logos would be possible, but I believe that would be improper WP:Derivative work. Generally I think the File:IG Metall brochures for Tesla employees.jpg is the best image for the moment, being prominent in both English/German and representing the largest/most active union campaign. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding an image of Gigafactory New York (like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_sign_2.jpg) to the subsection "Giga New York"? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it with captions and accessibility text. I note in Giga New York image caption, this is months before first union effort there. I opted to leave Fremont without a photo as the Tesla Fremont Factory and NUMMMI have numerous photos, and immediately above it I added a dynamic photo from 2023 United Auto Workers strike using File:United Auto Workers Strike 2023.jpg which plays an important role in overall enthusiasm for UAW union revitalization at non-union automobile manufacturers. Images are CC-BY-SA 4.0 and PD respectively. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including the images, they help add variety. I think it would it be better to move the image of the 2023 strike to the last paragraph of the section "Fremont Factory", where it is discussed. Otherwise, looks fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 ✅ Done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That solves the remaining problem. I moved the image a little down so that it is closer to the paragraph discussing the strike but feel free to revert if you prefer the original placement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

[edit]

Lovely article. My initial comments:

  • Do we have any information about China? With 20,000 Tesla workers, it would be interesting to know if they are part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.
    Does not seem like it. Formally speaking, every mid-sized company in China should have representation on ACFTU, but in practice this does not always happen The PwC report summarizes inconsistent enforcement. Walmart did not get a union until 2006, despite being in the country since 1990s. I have asked 2 China Labor scholars, who both indicated it is unlike that Tesla has a union at this stage and they're not aware of any such efforts.
Further more, I checked the both the US-based China Labor Watch and the Hong Kong based China Labour Bulletin for any related news about Tesla. There are several articles about employee dissatisfaction at Tesla, but nothing about collective action (strikes -- which are formally illegal anyways in China) or worker representation. I will contact CLB and CLW for any hints to the contrary as well, but as far as I can tell to best of my research, no there is not. I have written Volkswagen_and_unions#China and Apple Inc. and unions#China where there was more to write/say. I am also keeping an eye, if anything changes/appears in terms of sourcing from the Netherlands. This paragraph was rightfully so removed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why the New York case was withdrawn?
    No idea. I cannot find any further mention or context. I can remove it if it is WP:UNDUE. The union effort (and its fizzling) are notable, but withdrawn NLRB complaints are quite common. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • This article about the strikes in Sweden talks about Tesla's intimidation tactics. Should that be included?
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • In the description of Sweden, you give the reader some background (such as sympathy strikes being legal in the country). I think the article would benefit with the same amount of background in the US and Germany.
    Excellent suggestion. I have added backgrounds for Germany and USA. I aimed to avoid WP:SYNTH or getting overly WP:Technical. I hope I struck a decent balance. Will re-read it a few times. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    Looks better. I think mentioning the detail of "codified in the Works Constitution Act" is unnecessary. Do we need to use jargon like "protected concerted activity", or can that jargon be hidden in a wikilink? It seems like you forgot to add a source to describe the US situation? The LAT source doesn't go into the details of the general situation with unions in the US. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's now gone too much in the opposite direction (too much background for the US). Can you limit it to one paragraph? The first paragraph seems a bit too detailed in particular. I'm pretty sure the main template (labor unions in the US), should not be in the middle of the section. I think it's best to delete it, but you can also change it into a further at the top of the paragraph. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like, how is it possible that with 400,000 dollars, no union is formed? Do you need a certain percentage of the workers to vote in favour? Are there other barriers?
    I cannot explain (with available sourcing) whether $400,000 is a lot or not (my personal feeling is it not) but I added a contrast to it with the $40 million UAW announced in 2023 for 13 non-union workplaces over 2 years. That won't all go to Tesla, but it's a marked increase and change in UAW organizing philosophy (Shawn Fain makes that very clear). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • What is a Works Council in Germany?
    Explained in the background added for Germany. (Note: while I am a central works council and works council chair myself and also a member of IG Metall, I exclusively rely on what sourcing explain about them, do share if the prose/clarity can be further improved. The distinction between works council/union and works agreement/collective agreement are key imho to understanding Tesla dispute and structural tensions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • Are non-disclosure agreements legal in Germany for work conditions?
    Basically no...but I cannot easily find sourcing for that, and more importantly what legal consequences that has. Depends on very particular/archaic court rulings. What's clear in any case is culture of fear/intimidation, and overall pattern of Tesla willing to bend the law. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • Prose quabbles:
    • In October 2017, Tesla fired Richard Ortiz who was organizing (alongside Moran, one of the union organizers), which the NLRB later ruled to be illegal retaliation. --> do we need the parenthesis here. Not quite clear if both were fired.
    I removed paragraphed quote, Moran was not fired as far as I can tell. His experience was very much part of NLRB's 2021 ruling about unfair labor practices. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • and discussing with workers their opinion on unions --> this text is not quite clear.
    Expanded, basically Captive audience meetings where employer grills workers about their views of unions and discourages unionization. Which previously had legally ambiguous status, but was cemented as illegal by current NLRB general counsel ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • I'm not sure I follow the connection between the two sentences here: " Electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to fewer union members and a higher labor supply."
    Expanded in the background explanation. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • In January 2023, IG Metall called for an investigation after stating that workers had called the organization to report that they were being made to work longer hours, with less time between shifts. --> I think we can be closer to WP:Wikivoice here for conciseness (called for an investigation after workers had called).
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    Done. Thank you for my first FAC prose review! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • I dislike the new first sentence, with the addition of "(half in the United States)". You're trying too put too much in, making readability worse. Try to be more conservative with parentheses too, they can impede flow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Femke I've slimmed it down by half. A good background should provide necessary context to understand the Tesla union specific challenges which are different in each country. In the case of US me thinks it is about challenges of unsuccessful unionization, renewed momentum of UAW organising non-union shops in 2023 which is further contextualized in the body. I have slimmed usage of parentheses as well and rewritten them to flow with sentence structure. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting & sourcing squibbles:
    • I've removed some fullstops per MOS:PERIOD.
    • Make sure you use the right parameters in your cite news/web. A newspaper should be in italics. An organisation (like the Finnish Transport Workers' Union or National Labor Relations Board should not be italics. Typically, if the Wikipedia article about something is in italics, that's how it needs to be formatted. You can change the formatting by moving it from work to publisher.
  • The union dues are not exactly 1%, but typically 1%. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and addressed all of the above squibbles! It appears both website/work= parameters italicize, while publisher= does not. It does not feel very semantic, but I have formatted all of them accordingly. Medium.com, SEC, NLRB and Finnish Transport Workers' Union were the 4 instances where I kept Template:Cite web instead of Template:Cite newsso I formatted them accordingly along with publisher parameter. I also removed language=en-* which is a default. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of consistent source formatting:
    Archives added everywhere including external links, ISSN added for NYTimes, pluralized pages used. I have rephrases sentences where parenthesis was impeding, and kept them where they did not impede. I have expanded a larger section about US background of labor. The sources are high quality, but it's still a challenge to summarize them in a meaningful and succinct manner. Will get some rest myself and re-read them for clarity.

Support. With Mike's comments addressed, I'm happy to support. I would still remove at least one of the Tweets from Musk as it's given undue attention to this framing. Instead, incorporate it into the text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Gog the Mild, would a time extension be possible as this is my first FAC and I've only had the chance to receive and respond to generous feedback from Femke in the past 4 days. As you can see above, we have been collaborating extensively since. My hope is that some more editors will opine now that the ice has been broken. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a further review or two are started, then I and my fellow coordinators will certainly consider extending the time scale, we have no wish to close any nomination down prematurely. But do note the "if". Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild this is moving along. There are currently 3 supports and an image pass. One thing I was wondering about is source review. I've seen several source reviews, where people mainly comment on the formatting of source review, rather than in-depth review of text verification/source integrity. In my opinion, Mike Christie generously and thoroughly reviewed the content of the sourcing, and there have been numerous discussions back and forth with all the reviewers either about presence/absence of certain sources. Do I need to explicitly solicit a source review, in addition other reviews? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, could you confirm or otherwise as to whether you consider your review to include a source review and/or a first-timer's source to text spot check and/or a plagiarism check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask about the use of some of the sourcing, but did not do a full review of all the sources as I would for a FAC source review, nor did I look at the formatting of the sources. I did a spotcheck at the GAN, but of course that doesn't count as the spotcheck for a first FAC. I have more confidence about the sources than I would have for an article I hadn't reviewed, but I think it would be best to have someone else do a normal source review and spotcheck. If nobody gets to it by the end of the week I can probably do it -- I'm travelling from Wednesday through Sunday but would probably have time next Monday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Noting that I was the GA reviewer for this.

  • The first paragraph of the "United States" section is repeated as the second paragraph of the lead. There's occasionally call for repeating sentences from the body exactly in the lead, but a whole paragraph is too much, particularly when only a handful of sentences separate the first occurrence from the second. I would compress and rephrase this (and there's no need for the citations in the lead).
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Union busting is common": I think we should use more neutral language -- "union busting" brings to my mind some of the bloody and brutal violence from the US's history, and our own article on it says it's the term used by the workers, not the corporations. Perhaps "US corporations often oppose unions, sometimes using methods outlawed by the NLRA, but there are no criminal consequences if they are found to have done so." Assuming you can source something like that?
    Done. I switched to civil enforcement (ability to impose fines), since that is what existing and newly added EPI articles emphasis, which is unique compared to other federal agencies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    The text used to say there are no criminal penalties, and now it says there are no civil penalties -- is that correct? And I think "in the US" is necessary after "is common". I know we're in a section about the US but as written the statement seems more general than that. And can we make it "Opposition to unions" rather than "Union oppositions", which could be read as unions opposing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially read enforcement to be criminal in other source, since it is true NLRB has no criminal enforcement capability as well. Some federal agencies do, like the Environmental Protection Agency, but to lack even civil enforcement is quite unique. The EPI source laments how NLRB is one of the weakest federal agencies period. Even the adjacent Occupational Safety and Health Administration has ability to impose fines. So emphasizing even the weaker enforcement shows how little enforcement power NLRB has. Out of the scope here, but when a company does not comply with NLRB order, they need to seek enforcement from another court or agency with criminal enforcement capability, e.g US Marshals. See example here. I will change to opposition to unions in the United States. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • Per WP:PULLQUOTE, you should not repeat the tweet from Musk in a quote box.
    I retain the full tweet in a quote box, but removed it from the body and managed to condense as a result, including removing parenthesis. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Tesla appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the original NLRB order, in 2023": I think that last comma needs to go -- if I understand correctly the appeal was in 2021 and the affirmed decision was in 2023.
    Your understanding is correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "UAW president Ray Curry responded that if Tesla was serious about supporting organizing, Tesla would acknowledge it broke the law": can we say what Curry is referring to?
    Added Ortiz and unlawful tweet, which is mentioned earlier so brevity should be ok. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Later, in June 2022": "later" is redundant since the date is given and it's later than the previous date.
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "The new UAW president Shawn Fain attributes": needs "as of" or "in <date>" and past tense.
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "attributes past unionizing failures due to".
    Changed to attributed previous unionizing failures to ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "alleging that Tesla illegally surveilled and fired 6 workers in retaliation": this says the illegal surveillance was only of the six workers they fired; is that the case? And MOS:NUMERAL recommends words rather than numerals for numbers under ten.
    Changed to illegally surveilled workers and fired six in retaliation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "employees who participated with Workers United": what does "participated" mean here?
    Changed to 18 employees involved with the Workers United campaign ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "and captive audience meetings where the employer discuss with employees their opinions on unions and persuade them against it": the last few words of this are just a definition for readers who don't know the term. I think this might be better as a footnote.
    I simply deleted everything past captive audience meetings. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • In the discussion of Grohmann Engineering, was Herzig saying that the salaries went down by 25‒30% under Tesla's management, or that they were already that low under Grohmann?
    Source does not specify. My personal hunch is a bit of Grohmann being below the pay-bands and also with renewed annual IG Metall bargaining raises (5-10% each year) Tesla Automation would have fell behind regardless. We cannot speculate why, but only present relevant info, that the pay disparity was there, whether as inherited or newly introduced. Would not change anything ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    I had a look at the source; I think it should be clearer to the reader that Herzig's statement is only three months after the acquisition since that makes it unlikely that the whole gap was caused by Tesla falling behind -- there hadn't been time to miss more than at most one collective bargaining raise. Can we add "In April" to that sentence? It would be good to find a way to introduce the "5-10% each year" that you mention. Can you sources that, for this time period? I assume that "matched employee salaries with the regional Metal Industry collective agreements" means that the salary increases were expected to continue year-to-year? If so, that would be a reason to quote the expected increases. And I've just noticed the two mentions of "Metal Industry"; should this be "IG Metall"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can clarify that this is in April and shortly after the acquisition so not an effect of Tesla directly so much. The analysis re IG Metall is way too much synthesis and complex. These sectoral agreements in the Electronics and Metal Industry differ state to state, with various exceptions/expansion/deviation clauses, and the salary increases are assuming a certain pay-bracket that each employee matches in. This is way too much original research to do, without having sufficient analysis of Grohmann employee salaries. My assumption would be they are referring to the Entgeltrahmentarifvertrag (Wage Framework Agreement) that is common in IG Metall. In case you are curious, this salary estimator in English can give you a feel, for select jobs in the tech sector. Re Metal industry, no it refers to the defined sector that both IG Metall and the employer association Gesammtmetal sign collective agreements for, as opposed to say textile workers which IG Metall also represents, or individual company agreements like Volkswagen which are too powerful to be part of the Metal Industry. I can try expand/clarify this, since it is confusing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    I think it's fine as is if you just remove the initial capitals from "Metal and Electronics Industry"; the caps make it look like we're talking about a specific organization. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Employees expressed concern after former CEO Klaus Grohmann was ousted and business contracts with clients were cancelled": why is this relevant to this article? It's not clear what they were expressing concern about. Did these actions imply anti-union attitudes in some way?
    Removed, it's speculative and employee fear/dissatisfaction is common after any restructuring. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "seven non-union employees of Giga Berlin initiated the works council process": does this mean "started organizing a works council for the factory"?
    I welcome feedback on improving vernacular clarity. Here, initiate has special legal meaning and title. It is the precursor to forming an electoral board (works council), which is precursor to running actual election. Similar to Wikipedia elections in some ways. The German phrase is Initiator eines Betriebsrats and I've rephrased it as initiated the legal process to form a works council which is more wordy but maybe more clear.
  • The Giga Berlin material feels a bit out of sequence. We don't find out Tesla is hiring 12,000 new employees until after we've mentioned "the first 1,800 hires". I realize you say "new" Gigafactory, but perhaps we could move the statement about the 12,000 hires to the first paragraph?
    Rephrased chronologically. I am much happier with An employee is eligible to run as a works council candidate if they have at least six-months tenure. Tesla eventually planned to hire 12,000 employees in total. In the first six months, Tesla hired 1,800 employees, mostly middle–management personnel. IG Metall expressed concern about the future works council being dominated by management, because only those with six-months tenure would be eligible to run. Also switch to MOS:NUMERAL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    I think that's much improved, but now I'm curious as to why it's relevant that the next works council election might be in two years instead of four -- why does the reader care about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If management dominates the works council because they are the only eligible ones, then the possibility of an election happening sooner is relevant to workers having another chance. Given that the actual works council election did indeed happen 2 years later and is mentioned in lawsuit (for other reasons too of depriving candidates time) it can be removed here to reduce undue emphasis. So will move it to next section (see subsequent discussion). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "employees voted their first works council": should be "elected", surely?
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "with fewer rest-time between shifts": "less", not "fewer", or else "fewer breaks"; "fewer" is only used for things that can be enumerated, not for things with different sizes or durations.
    Done and emphasized rephrase with less resting time ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Strikes are incredibly rare": not encyclopedic tone; suggest just "very rare".
    Done, though I think could have been kept here given it's Sweden. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "At some point, unidentified individuals suspected to be strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute." This is a bit vague -- do we know what actually happened?
    Rephrased to Strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute. Their exact identity is unknown, but reused existing source to confirm strikebreakers and trimmed down language using WEASELWORDS of unknown etc.. The negative impact of strike breakers on strike is the key point. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "and some strikers were contacted by Tesla after Tesla found photos uploaded by the strikers' families, contributing to a climate of fear of reprisal": again, "contacted" is vague -- it could be anything from "We're watching you, strikers" to "Merry Christmas"; I assume it felt like surveillance to the strikers but we should be as specific as we can be.
    Photos was incorrect sourcing. Specifically had chilling effect on non-union members from participating. I can attribute quote as well. According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after company found social media posts by the strikers' families, which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular.
  • "only a third of the 130 Tesla mechanics in Sweden had joined the strike": I assume this refers to the strike mentioned in the previous sentence; if so can we make this "joined this strike" to be clear?
    Moved this higher to the top, and also expand that about half of them were union members. I refrain from calling it a single strike, since none of the sources do, but it's a continuous period and I tie them closer together in paragraph.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again Mike, and thank you for your in-depth reviews both times round! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Have struck most of the above, and left a couple of replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to all of them now! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point left. I will read through the article again, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Done! Guess I will need to write Metal and Electronics Industry article right? For consistency all wiki links ought to be blue or red (WP:HUMOR). Looking forward to your final review and appreciative of all the time you, Femke and Phlsph7 put in.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second read-through
[edit]
  • "There were three unsuccessful unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York": I was going to suggest that we give the year range for these three in the lead, but when I look down at the body I only see two that are in the past: the fall 2016 campaign at Fremont, and the 2018 drive at Giga NY. The third seems to be the the early 2023 campaign implying that that's in the past, but the subsection on Giga doesn't give the results. Presumably that's still underway? In which case I don't think it should be past tense; it seems from the body that there are active campaigns at both Fremont and Giga, and only two past campaigns that have concluded (with failure). Or have I missed one?
    😝 I suppose the two phrasings none were succesfull and were unsuccesfull are not equivalent tautologies. I rephrased text with None of the unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York were succesfull which can ambiguously incorporate campaigns regardless of whether they fizzled/failed or not.
Extended content

The ambiguity arises from differing understandings of whether there were 2 failed and 2 active campaigns versus 3 failed and 1 active campaigns, with the Workers United and UAW campaigns in 2023 leading to this confusion.

Inside the body I use None of the unionization efforts since 2017 were succesfull. This keeps the language flexible, regardless of both the number of union campaigns and whether they are successful or not. I initially counted the Tesla Autopilot as unsuccessful for the following reasons: They launched in February 2023 and immediately afterwards, a number of workers involved in the campaign were fired. Several months later after little news, the NLRB affirmed that they were not fired unlawfully, meaning none of the workers will be reinstated. It doesn't mean the campaign can never revive. However, requiring an explicit source that says a union campaign is officially over almost never happens. The fact that the 2023 campaign is more recent compared to the 2017 Fremont or 2018 Giga NY still does not mean it is ongoing necessarily. Separately, I note that the website for Tesla Workers United is down, and their social media has not since May 2023, which means there is no easy way for workers to contact Workers United if they want to. Because of the sensitivity of this topic, we will likely not find out for a long time whether it is fizzled out or active underground.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

OK -- I think the language you now have works, given that as you say it probably won't quickly become clear whether the most recent campaign can be said to have failed or ceased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tesla poses a structural challenge to IG Metall in the automotive sector, because electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, the electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to overall shrinking union membership base and lower union density, resulting in reduced bargaining leverage." The source cites electric vehicle production in general, not just by Tesla, as reducing the "labor density", and I don't understand the point it makes. Surely IG Metall's influence depends on percentage of unionization, not the absolute number of members? Wouldn't IG Metall rather have 90% unionization of half-a-million workers generating the same revenue for their employees than 50% of a million workers? Wouldn't they get more leverage in the former case? That's the point of "Every plant that opens that's not unionized hurts [IG Metall's] power." I see the source says "It's especially crucial that IG Metall preserve all the sway it can at a time when carmakers are pivoting to EV production, which, Wheaton said, requires roughly 30% fewer workers than traditional auto manufacturing" so you're certainly following the source, but why does that matter?
    🤓 You are asking tough but good questions here. How to phrase this in a meaningful way in the article remains a challenge it seems. In short address by removing this misleading/reductive line , resulting in reduced bargaining leverage. I do not wish to reduce the challenges to any one factor when it is least seven different factors as shown above. Ultimately reduced membership/lower union density are two most important ones. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
Extended content

I could give you my opinion of your hypothetical question, of which situation is preferable, but I believe the situation is closer to something like Ottomotive and Tesla Germany each hypothetically produce same amount of cars/value capture for sake of simpler comparison. Suppose there is 70% union density among 100,000 workers at Ottomotive at traditional combustion-engine plant versus a lower 20% union density among 70,000 workers at Tesla Germany (with electrification requiring 30% fewer workers). (The union density at each company is unknown, but Tesla is almost certainly lower than say Volkswagen or BMW or Daimler where there are collective agreements, history of union activity etc..) This means 70,000 union members versus 14,000 union members. Suppose each individual worker at Ottomotive makes 100,000€ per year, and at Tesla Germany they make 80,000€ per year (based on sourcing about 20% lower salaries at Tesla) which translates into collective union member's wages of 7€ billion at Ottomotive and at Tesla 1.12€ billion. With union dues being 1% of each, that would be 70€ million and 11.2€ million respectively. No matter how you look at it in terms of absolute members or percentage, this is a major challenge for IG Metall. All of this would also means there is less money for organizing or credibly striking (dependent on size of strike fund and duration of strikes). Some other parameters for analysis would be the value capture created by workers at each of these locations which determines both how valuable or productive each worker is, and also how dangerous a strike would be for the company. In the case of Sweden, while the strike is disruptive, its value capture is relatively small compared to say if Fremont or a China factory struck. On the other hand, the Swedish unions have a massive strike fund that can last several decades given how few workers are involved here, and how rare strikes are in Sweden, so they're able and willing to do it. Clearly Germany is invested in unionizing, and whether this will pay off or not, the economic and ideological challenges are hopefully evident. We cannot provide original analysis here (like I did just now above), but some of these points are hinted or explicitly mentioned in the case of the Nordic countries, in terms of the interdependencies of the global supply chain, and also challenges in sustaining a disruptive strike. In summary there are many variables including:

      1. Absolute membership at IG Metall
      2. Union density of members in relation to non members
      3. Wages of workers (higher wages of union members means more union funds)
      4. Strike capacity (depends on strike fund of union, but also how disruptive a strike is)
      5. Elon's hard-bent ideological opposition is apparent, even if not every single source repeats it explicitly.
      6. Labour market share in a local area
      7. Market share of product both locally and globally
    🤯 And so many other variables.
Thanks for the detailed thoughts; the union dues point is a very good one that I hadn't thought of. I think you're right that removing "resulting in reduced bargaining leverage" is a good idea -- it's still in the article at the moment but it sounds like you intended to remove it? I would also remove "As a result", since it's already clear to the reader that that sentence follows naturally from the previous one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie replaced with shorter sentence (removing also a second overall) of The electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to shrinking union membership and lower union density. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure to bolster the signed works agreements": is "bolster" the right word here? It means "reinforce", but I think what is meant is that the threats and pressure helped get the signature; once the agreements were signed no bolstering was needed. How about "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure as having helped influence Tesla to sign the works agreements"? Although I'm also not clear what "internal pressure" means beyond "threat of strikes"; looking at the source no other pressure seems to be mentioned.
    ✅ Agreed. I rephrased as IG Metall acknowledged that there were "good negotiation results" and credited the threat of strikes with pressuring Tesla to sign the works agreements. which also has same grammar tense throughout ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees surpassed more than two fold since the first works council election": assuming I understand the rule correctly, suggest rephrasing as "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first election, rather than after the usual four years".
    ✅ Much clearer. I finalized with Giga Berlin's initial workforce of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first one, instead of the usual four years.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "234 candidates from nine lists ran": per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid starting sentences with a figure.
    ✅ Combined sentences for On March 20, the election concluded with 234 candidates from nine lists.
  • "Michaela Schmitz, the incumbent works council chair": needs an "as of" date. And I take it from this paragraph that Schmitz was the chair from the 2022 election onwards? If so I'd change the description of her from "incumbent" to something like "who had been elected as works council chair in 2022". Then I don't think we need "incumbent" at all because we mention her election on April 4 after that.
    ✅ I changed it to Schmitz, the current works council chair. It is most likely she was the chair from day one of the works council in 2022, but the sources don't verify that. The chair of the works council is customarily one person, but it can rotate either by vote, or when someone steps down, e.g Daniela Cavallo replacing Berthold Huber in middle of a term. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • We have "as of May 2024" for the Swedish strike; is it still ongoing? If the point is that May is when it became the longest in Sweden for 80 years, then I would suggest making it "In May 2024, the ongoing strike became the longest ..."
    ✅ Removed dated claim. Not exactly clear nor important when exactly it became the longest strike within 80 years. I have removed the "as of" claims, and replaced it with a more recent update, including a delegation that visited the strike in September. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute": suggest "prompting concerns among the strikers about their impact on the labor dispute".
    ✅ Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • turningpointmag.org has an editorial board, and I don't see any reason to distrust its factual reporting, but I see it's used to support "which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular". The source has "This created a climate of fear that few non-union members were willing to bear". Turning Point says in its about page that it supports radical change, so it's a leftist source. I don't see how they could know about the climate of fear among non-union members without having spoken to some of them, and I suspect this is speculation on their part, since there's nothing in the article about having spoken to individual workers, union or otherwise. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could imagine they'd speak with workers, given how historic and rare strikes are in Sweden. But I've rephrased with the following According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after the company found social media posts made by the strikers' families, which also hampered non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

One point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the last point above. That takes care of everything with regard to the content. Looking through again, I see quite a few consecutive paragraphs starting with "In <date> ..." which isn't the most engaging prose style. I think this could be improved. I can take a crack at it, probably later today, if you like? Or if you want to, go ahead before I get there. I'm asking for a bit more variety in presentation of the sequence of events, to avoid WP:PROSELINE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie I will take a crack at it. Something like Modifiers "Later in X" as well as moving dates to end/middle of sentences to help with variation and removing dates when not absolutely essential altogether? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally that sounds right. Sometimes joining short paragraphs can help, since you can then say things like "the following year", or "eighteen months later". I think this is my last complaint and I feel confident of supporting once we've addressed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Done! I removed two mentions of date, since they were not crucial/could be reasonably re-summarized as "three years later" or in other cases, moved it to the back/middle of paragraph. Curious for your feedback. Also found gnarly American/British inconsistency with successful and succesfull. My current text editor shows both as correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a copyedit which you're free to revert if you want to; I did put back in one instance of "In <date>" to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Looks good; thanks for your patience with my nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. comments

[edit]
No comment besides commending Shushugah for their excellent work in preparing this article for its inevitable FA status! QRep2020 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]
Article looks in good overall shape. A few (good faith) suggestions.

This version of the article reviewed, no previous reviews read.

  • Link "high injury rates" to Occupational injury, or perhaps Occupational safety and health.
    Done
  • Likewise Labor dispute.
    Done
  • Labor unions in the United States should probably be linked somewhere, possibly at "not represented by a union".
    Done
  • Unionization.
    Done
  • The sentence "In cases where there is..." could be clearer. I know unfair labor practice is linked, but a quick gloss (e.g., "In cases where there is illegal interference such as ULPs, the National Labor Relations Act—codifying worker rights—is unenforceable in civil law". (The "which" changes the meaning, disadvantageously).
    Replaced with Employer opposition to unions is common in the United States. In cases where there is illegal interference such as unfair labor practices, the National Labor Relations Act, which codifies worker rights—is not enforceable by civil law, such as penalties
  • After Ortiz's firing was legally reversed, did Tesla obey? Did Ortiz or anyone comment on the NLRB decision?
    Existing source mentioned his statement, so included In a published response, Ortiz stated "I look forward to returning to work at Tesla and working with my co-workers to finish the job of forming a union"
    Solid attitude!
  • "coziness with management" sounds a little... informal?
    I wrapped "coziness" in quotes to make it clear it's Fain's words.
  • "In contrast in 2017, UAW spent $422,000" > "In contrast, in 2017 UAW had spent $422,000".
    Done
  • Suggest the line about UAW winning 30% payrises should come before Fain's attribution remarks, as it keeps it chronologic, moving as it does on to the later organizing drive.
    Done
  • Any ideas why the USW case was withdrawn in NY?
    No idea. I've checked carefully since a reviewer above asked same question
    Of course, no problem.
  • Absorb the run on sentence: "Workers United is affiliated to Service Employees International Union, and had previously led the first successful unionization drive at Starbucks, also in Buffalo..." or something.
    Done. Also removed SEIU mention altogether, not crucial to understanding anything.
  • Since Works Council is alsready a page, is Establishment (works council) a viable relink per WP:REDYES? What is the difference?
    I replaced red link with workplace. Any worker under a specific works council is part of its "works" or Betrieb. It's basically a German bargaining unit. It is usually is a workplace, but can be more complex/custom. It is unnecessarily complex, so no need for red link.
  • "IG Metall pushed... IG Metall acknowledged..." remove duplication, perhaps with "IG Metall pushed for formal ratification, while acknowledging..."
    Done
  • I'd also make the strike threat a new sentence: "It also credited..."
    Done
  • "Nearly half of the employee" > "Nearly half the employees"
    Shouldn't the be removed instead of of? I adjusted elsewhere, Nearly half of the employee voted for the manager
    It's totally up to you. To my ears, they both sound fine, so it could be a Br/Eng thing.
  • Curiosity, but would a Frankfurt (Oder) article say much more than the overarching Federal Labour Court does already?
    I kept the Template:ill but created redirects so that both the German article is clickable, but also an English link (Federal Labour Court) is available. Did same thing for the Berlin-Brandenburg State Labourt court too.
    The redirects are a good idea.
  • What was the net effect of teh March 2024 election? On the one hand, a union seems to have won most seats, but on the other, an anti-unionist (and presumably mangement?) runs the Works Council? Suggest a sentence clarifying the result: at the moment a short sentence identifies IGM as having a majority, but then most of the remaining paragraph is about their opponent.
    We cannot stray into original research. How close are the non-union lists with each other? Unclear. We can only speculate with Schmitz being re-elected, that no other lists considered supporting IG Metall.
    Indeed!
  • Link "banned from the company premises" to Lockout (industry).
    Done
  • When Tesla contacted individual strikers, do we know what they said? Threats or bribes normally!
    Not done. Sources don't say, I checked.
  • Did Tesla successfully recruit their Swedish lobbyist?
    No confirmation found. Can leave it or remove it, if undue.
    It's not doing any harm, and the information might become available in the future.
  • There's an abundance of information in the Sweden section, but dates are sparse, and it covers almost a year. A date per paragraph should suffice to form a narrative.
    Done
  • "as the strike continued more than 10 months": Well, it's now 11 months; suggest rephrasing this so as to avoid haveing to update it every month. Or maybe just removing it.
    It would be accurate regardless because it's about time between strike and past Ford visit, but I removed to avoid ambiguity.

If nothing else, the article succeeds in telling us everything we need to know about Mr Musk's concern for those who make him his profits. It's a good read, and maintains an absolute neutrality—an achievement in this kind of topic! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 15:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Serial Number 54129 for kind words and review! I have addressed the above feedback and also took liberty to add some other grammar rewrites. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Shushugah, your changes are all well-thought out. I'm happy to support this article's promotion: it casts an important light on the underbelly of supposedly modern industrial relations. SerialNumber54129 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way—and not part of the review—you might consider a page move to e.g. Tesla and trades unions, as just 'unions' could refer to other kinds of union. In any case, leave it until after promotion. SerialNumber54129 15:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 labor unions, labour unions, trade unions are all possible expanded variants of unions. I think creating redirects in case people search for it is pragmatic solution, while keeping the article target as succinct as possible. And given all the other similar articles, I'd prefer to keep it consistent if possible and have a wider RfC on that (Microsoft and unions, SAP and unions etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I keep forgetting the AmEng usage; you're absolutely correct, of course, Tesla and labor unions would be best. SerialNumber54129 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The New York Times and The Guardian do not need an ISSN. What makes turningpointmag.org/ a high-quality reliable source? I kinda wonder if there are think tanks or research papers discussing the topic, rather than just news media and NLRB rulings. Spot-check wise, going by this version:

  • 3 2016 in the source, not 2017.
    Jose Moran contacted UAW in fall of 2016, but the effort first went public in early 2017 and is when we can definitively say unionization efforts happened. Better to err on side of conservative interpretation of claim, than potentially introduce a made-up claim. Either way, I don't have a strong opinion.
  • 10 OK
  • 11 OK
  • 14 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    It supports most of the content, but some of it relies on #13 which doesn't seem like a good source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercury News source was an opinion-editorial was used to state verify claim that NUMMI was a unionized plant. I have removed it and replaced it with an NPR news article instead, which is in any case a stronger source. Elsewhere, the same Mercury source claimed $420,000 was raised, while Fox Business article has more exact figure of $422,000 so it was removed without replacement.
  • 15 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 OK
  • 24 Not sure what this supports?
    I removed it. It is a redundant (primary) source that supports fact Tesla appealed in 2021 and was used earlier in sentence. The NYT source summarizes the 2021 appeal and upholding in 2023, as well as the written response by Ortiz. I removed the NLRB source and confirm that rest of claims are verified by New York Times source #25.
  • 25 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    OK, except that the source says co-workers not coworkers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! I have returned it to exact quote, and for consistency, changed other instance of coworker to be co-worker as well.
  • 27 That sum is only for the Tesla campaign and it's the sum UAW claims it spend on the campaign.
    Agreed. I wish there was a more direct Apples to Apples comparison to make. I do think the amounts of money here and broader expansion of UAW organizing are important, and contextualized with other quotes/claims with change UAW leadership. I will rephrase wording to be UAW subsequently launched organizing drives at 13 non-union auto manufacturers, including Tesla, with a combined organizing budget of US$40 million through 2026. In contrast, in 2017 UAW had spent $422,000 on Tesla alone
  • 29 OK
  • 31 Where does it speak about the first Starbucks unionization?
    Common Dreams source says Its initial Starbucks victory was in Buffalo roughly six miles from the Tesla factory (and I have separately confirmed this claim elsewhere, with other sourcing but did not see it as necessary to add here)
  • 33 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    It doesn't say that the firings were of workers in the WU campaign. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. There's a much weaker claim in both sources. The charges are that they fired people for allegedly being involved in union activity (whatever that means) and more broadly Tesla discouraged unionization. Given that the retaliatory firing charges were not substantiated, I have tweaked accordingly. Also number of firings was expanded to 37.
  • 38 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    Where does it speak of shrinking union membership? The text isn't clear if it's talking about an ongoing development or something that Tesla's presence would trigger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source does not directly say shrinking union membership, so I will remove it from this claim. It is implied from shrinking union density and declining workforce in automotive industry, but I don't need to explicitly spell that conclusion. I had a longer discussion with Mike Christie above (see hat-noted discussion if curious) about the different factors. I added additional line about union membership IG Metall membership (2005–2021) has declined by 9%, while the automotive labor market has grown, especially in companies without regional collective agreements supported by this academic source on declining union membership. I have read through some other sources, which are interesting but do not immediately address the points here or [24]. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 I don't see "good negotiation results" in the source.
    The German phrase in quotes is „das sehr gute Verhandlungsergebnis“ which literally means "good negotiation results". The larger rough English translation of whole sentence is Although a genuine collective agreement remains the goal of IG Metall, the "good negotiation result" of the works council must be acknowledged.
    That phrase actually means "very good negotiation result". Quotes generally are literal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vielen Dank! I will defer to your native-language expertise. I have modified the quote and surrounding grammar accordingly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • 52 OK
  • 53 OK
  • 54 "The company also contacted the strikers when they found strikers’ family members posting about the strike on social media" in the source is a bit too similar to the article.
    Rephrased already (see comment below)
  • 59 OK
  • 60 Need a copy of this source.
  • 65 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) for your source review! I am able to access the New York Times, Business Insider and USA Today sources you requested access directly via Archive.is, but if that does not work for you, I'd be happy to send you a PDF copy of all of the sources you requested and any other.
If and when there are any think tank or other institutional reports on Tesla unionization, I would be happy to attach them in the article. Regarding efforts mentioned in the article, but also possible efforts not mentioned, e.g on China or Netherlands. I have accessed a private, non-published report for example, claiming that Netherlands workers were covered by FNV Metaal (Dutch union) collective agreement, but I haven't found any published (offline nor online) reports confirming this, so it's not mentioned in the article since verification isn't possible. Of course, I may have missed valid sources; I have reached out to a number of academics, as well as union officials in relevant departments for any tips on reports, photos they're willing to donate etc.. and will continue to remain vigilant for future sources. The wide variety of languages these sources might exist in, is one hurdle.
Regarding turningpointmag.org, I do not think it is the highest quality source ever, but it has an editorial board and even if it did not, I would consider Gabriel Kuhn the author, to be a relevant WP:EXPERTSPS who provides unique perspective and specifics on union/non-union member participation within the IF Metall led strikes as a non-member himself. Still, I have weighted his claims in his voice, instead of wiki-voice. I have rephrased bit about families being contacted with According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, Tesla contacted individual strikers after family members shared news of the strikes on social media, which discouraged non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe I have addressed all the open points. Let me know if you find any more issues. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think #60 is the only thing still pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to gift NYT links (do not open this unless you are @Jo-Jo Eumerus). I moved #60 NYT source to the sentence ahead, and switched the API source with existing Reuter source that actually verifies claim about electrician and other port workers. The edit change is visible here. Thank you for your time reviewing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it, but it seems to say that the union only stopped unloading - and only when it's them who unloaded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've added a couple of RS that both support the claim of "loading and unloading"; format them as necessary. I don't understand what and only when it's them who unloaded? actually means, so am unable to help with that. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the question correctly, it’s whether a complete stoppage of unloading happened or whether there are non-union/non-striking workers who still continue? In the case of Tesla workers, this statistic is importantly but for secondary strikes it becomes borderline trivia either way. The wider impact has not been successful, in part because trains/truck deliveries of Tesla vehicles. In some cases (my hunch) it’s more about symbolic solidarity. The distinction between loading/unloading is not clear to me. The port strikes are directed at Tesla vehicles headed to the Swedish market. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source only mentioned unloading, that doesn't imply that loading was affected too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: (@FAC coordinators: ) What? There are three sources, two of which explicitly reference loading as well as unloading. (Footnotes numbered 60 & 61 in this version.) SerialNumber54129 11:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
60 doesn't mention loading and 61 is paywalled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: 60: Dockworkers are refusing to load or unload Teslas at this port and all others across the country; 61: For six weeks, dockworkers at Swedish ports have refused to load or unload the electric cars made by billionaire Elon Musk. Also see WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFLINE and PAYWALL are policies about non-online or you-have-to-pay-for-it sources being acceptable, they don't mandate that a spot-check should pass sources that the reviewer cannot see for themselves. In these cases, I ask for a quote, screenshot or emailed copy. But OK then, not sure why I didn't see it before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, one's policy; is policy primate, I ask? I hope quotes suffice, because the articles are on the Wayback Machine, and IA has gopt itself completely caned over the last couple of weeks with DDOS attacks. They're still not back online from the latest. They reckon it's down to Brazillian script kiddies, but my money's on some COINTELPRO-style operation by the black bag departments of Hachette and Penguin. SerialNumber54129 15:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not say that folks have to accept offline sources uncritically (hence the If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf). But I found a way to verify this sentence, so I guess that the source review now passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
It seems to have been taken care of by SN so I'm promoting this. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2024 [25].

2015 KNVB Cup final

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2015, one of the best days of my life. My favourite (local) football club winning something for the first (and thus far, only) time. Travelling down to Rotterdam with several family members, seeing people on viaducts waving and cheering on the passing buses with us fans (even ca. 100 km down the route), and the incredible (but tense) atmosphere in the stadium, is something I won't forget. There's one image in the article, which is not mine, as the few pictures I took were all a bit blurry ;) I've used online and newspaper articles to try and give a comprehensive (and of course unbiased) view. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Image review

Comments

[edit]
  • "Groningen reached the final of the competition once before" => "Groningen had reached the final of the competition once before"
  • "PEC Zwolle began, as a professional side and defending KNVB Cup champions, their campaign" => "As a professional side, defending KNVB Cup champions PEC Zwolle began their campaign"
  • "In the last minutes of the match" - I think "In the closing minutes of the match" works better
  • "VVV equalised, but the goal was disallowed" - if it was disallowed then they didn't equalise. I suggest "VVV appeared to have equalised, but the goal was disallowed"
  • "it was the sixth time it happened since 1956" => "it was only the sixth time it had happened since 1956"
  • "It was the seventh time both sides met" => "It was the seventh time the two sides met"
  • "Groningen also entered the 2014–15 KNVB Cup in the second round" would suffice, I think
  • "found the back of the Vitesse net in the rebound" => "found the back of the Vitesse net on the rebound"
  • "showed his squad video messages of their family members before the match" => "showed his squad video messages from their family members before the match"
  • "Jans was hailed as a "motivator"" => "he was hailed as a "motivator"" (avoids repetition of his name)
  • "Groningen were already 1–0 down after two minutes when Romário scored, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history" - this is slightly confusing as a standalone sentence. I suggest joining it to the previous sentence as "reached the final once before when they lost 4–1 to PSV in 1989;[25] PSV's Romário scored after two minutes, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history"
  • "played each other once in the Eredivisie during the season, with Zwolle winning 2–0 at home" - is the league not a double round-robin? Why did they only play each other once?
  • Jans image caption needs a full stop
  • "but played since 2012 for PEC" => "but had played for PEC since 2012"
  • "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that they claimed the club's first major honour" => "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that the team had claimed the club's first major honour" (avoids the suggestion that it was the fans who had claimed it)
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited; let me know if you disagree with any of the changes I made.

  • "stated that Van de Looi mainly formed his plans on the quality of his players": a bit vague; can we be clearer about what Van de Looi meant by this?
  • "RTV Noord stated that Groningen were more nervous than PEC; several minutes later Groningen grew into the game". Suggest "Early in the game the RTV Noord coverage suggested that Groningen seemed more nervous than PEC". I don't think the second half of the sentence is worth keeping; this is a live blog, not a post-match analysis, and "grew into the game" is vague.
  • "Antonia reached Juninho Bacuna, but he misjudged the ball": "reached"? What is this saying?

That's all I have. It's hard to get this sort of article to flow smoothly, with engaging prose, but I think this gets there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much, Mike. The copyedit definitely is an improvement, IMO. I also tried to reword/clarify the three sentences mentioned here. I sometimes found it hard to find the right English words for some Dutch text in the references, but I'm glad it gets there:) Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't reached a consensus to promote. I'm adding it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's liable to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs - I understand this nom still needs a source review and probably another content review, but with 2 supports and 0 opposes, it is closer to a promotion than to being archived, right? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

Prose looks good. Just a few nitpicking comments:

  • Zwolle were appearing --> I don't see any source referring to PEC Zwolle as Zwolle. I find it jarring how it jumps between Zwolle, PEC, and PEC Zwolle. I would do what the sources do, use PEC Zwolle at the start and then just PEC
  • Groningen, founded in 1971, --> good, but I would then also give a founding year for PEC
  • had played each other once in the Eredivisie during the season to date --> I would swap the order of this 2014-15 info with the historical "marked the third meeting between both in the KNVB Cup" bit in the next sentence. Just to keep all historical info together, and end on the current season
  • Groningen's game". --> Groningen's game." as per MOS:INOROUT
  • "We hebben hem!" (lit. 'We got him!') --> I don't think that is right. Because "hem" is likely referring to "de cup" or "de beker", both masculine nouns, the literal translation really is not "him"/ It just translates into "We got it!"

Sources: formatting looks good. However, a few questions:

  • fcgstats.nl seems to be a fan site, not quite matching the reliability standards needed for FA, or am I wrong?
  • fcgroningen.nl seems to be the club web site. Do you have a less biased source?
  • same for peczwolle.nl
    • I think I've used PEC's and Groningen's websites for objective information only (e.g., for Groningen: "Groningen, founded in 1971" or when mentioning the 4th round tie v Volendam; for PEC: their history in the cup or "Botteghin, the Groningen defender, played for PEC from 2007 until 2011"). However, if you insist that I need to replace both sources, I will do that. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anderson Independent-Mail. 27 April 2015. p. 12 --> I could not find this and am a bit puzzled why this source would be right for substantiating the league table standings

That's all from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comprehensive review, Edwin! I've addressed your comments and left some comments above. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon - replaced the sources mentioned above. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a spotcheck: 27abcd 42abcdef 45 46 47 all check out. I Support on prose, sources, comprehensiveness. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

[edit]
  • A shame there's no lead image for the infobox? Not even of the stadium? Would be better than the blank we have right now.
  • Someone should write a featured list about the List of KNVB Cup finals.... just my opinion...!
  • "scored 22 goals, the most goals of all" repetitive "goals", probably "the most of all" is fine.
  • "PEC were considered the slight favourites ..." re-establish the context here now you've talked about other stuff, so "PEC were considered the slight favourites to win the final"...
  • "was subbed on " still think that "subbed" is colloquial and not encyclopedic in tone: substituted.
  • "by three goals to two with goals " grim repeat of goals.
  • "club HHC Hardenberg at home" where is home?
  • "HHC headed against " so you mean the entire club headed the ball??
  • "added a second and third goal" maybe "added two more"
  • "meeting in Venlo" link Venlo.
  • "appeared to have equalised" sounds like a newspaper report.
  • "against Eredivisie club" I think this is first mention of the league structure, so what's the context for this match-up?
  • "semi-final of the KNVB Cup for the third consecutive year" this is good background for the lead of a FA.
  • "whilst at PEC.[7] PEC were" whilst? archaic. PEC... PEC. repetitive.
  • "neither side found the back of the net" sorry, this is an encyclopedia, neither team "scored".
  • On my screen the next section's right-hand table is crushing the text. Consider using a "break" piece of code.
  • "played in Barendrecht" why not link the location and provide context for its geography?
  • "a convincing 8–1 " no need for "convincing"
  • "finding the net" do you mean scoring?
  • "found the back of the Vitesse net on the rebound" scored from the rebound.
  • "the semi-final of the .... [16][17] The semi-final," repetitive.
  • "without key players" opinion.

Takes me to Pre-match. Ping me once this is dealt with. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: great to see you here again. Thanks for taking a look, I addressed your comments. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad to be back in the thick of brilliant football articles! So, progressing from my previous comments:

  • "the 1928 final" notable enough to be linked, even if red?
  • "against RCH and" I would expand this per common name.
  • "the 1977 final" per above, link, even if it's red.
  • " in 2014, defeating" this is an easter egg link, perhaps link something like "2014 final" instead of just the year.
  • "by Dagblad van het Noorden" perhaps "by Dutch newspaper Dagblad van het Noorden" to help those of us who haven't heard of it!
  • "in 1989;[25]" similar comment re: Easter egg linking a bare year.
  • "football player" why not "footballer"? And what's the context for this guy who's a red link, is his opinion notable?
  • "Drost scored eight goals and registered seven assists..." reads odd to me because the season is still ongoing, perhaps a subtle reword to make it clear that it was their record in the division at the point of the final.
  • "Groningen scored more goals" -> "Groningen had scored more goals" as the competition was still going.
  • "home team, they wore their home kit and were awarded the home" home home home.
  • "6 pm" seem to remember there should be a non-breaking space between 6 and pm and actually pm should be p.m.
  • Any more info on Richard Liesveld, like had he refereed these clubs or this kind of final previously?
  • "in his own goal...." how?
  • "of the box," maybe "penalty area" just to be clear to our non-European readers. I know you mentioned box earlier, perhaps there too.
  • Noted that "header" isn't linked first time in the article.
  • Ditto for "foul".
  • "seemed more nervous than" perhaps quote them directly as this is a bit journalistic.
  • Link for "dribble"?
  • "dribbled through the PEC defence ... dribbled through" repetitive...
  • "replaced" could link substitution. Better here than the later link for "substituted off".
  • "Antonia crossed the ball" quickly repeated, boring prose.
  • "Several minutes later" odd thing to say in a match report.
  • "stoppage time" link?
  • "who misjudged it " poor wording, what actually happened?
  • "PEC's Nijland had a goal disallowed a minute later" how, why?
  • "Groningen red ones as the victors. Groningen captain Kieftenbeld was handed the trophy by former Groningen" Groningen Groningen Groningen.
  • "Post match" normally hyphenated.
  • "1933–34 KNVB Cup" link.
  • "winning the Cup" not formal name so no need to capitalise Cup.
  • "1.9 million" non-breaking space between 1.9 and million.
  • No photo of the mural?

That's it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 21:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I addressed your remarks and left some comments above. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Seems like most sources here are in Dutch, to be expected. What makes https://www.oost.nl/, https://www.elfvoetbal.nl/, https://www.pzc.nl/, https://www.vi.nl/, https://www.ad.nl/, https://www.voetbalzone.nl/, https://www.rsssf.org/ and https://www.destentor.nl/ reliable sources? Formatting seems mostly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus;

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • The article is titled "2015 KNVB Cup final", the first line of the infobox is "Event: 2014–15 KNVB Cup". I assume that it is the infobox which needs amending?
  • "losing to PSV in 1989." Could we have PSV in full at first mention in each of the lead and the main article. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I amended the first line of the infobox. About PSV, I changed it to PSV Eindhoven (also the name of the article), to have it presented in a similar manner as PEC Zwolle, abbreviation first followed by the place name. Hope that's alright. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2024 [31].

Robert Poore

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Anglo-Irish sportsman and military officer Robert Poore. Hailing from an Ango-Irish family of some standing, he was a prolific first-class cricketer who, interestingly, played Test cricket for South Africa. Mostly associated at first-class level with Hampshire, he was known for his outstanding 1899 season when, between June and August he was the highest first-class run-scorer in England and averaged 116.58. In that time he made 304 against Somerset, which was the highest individual first-class score for Hampshire until it was surpassed by Dick Moore's 316 in 1937. His average in 21 innings across the season was 91.23, which was a record average for an English season, that was not broken until Don Bradman averaged 98.66 in 1930, and not surpassed by an English batsman until Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 96.96 in 1931. He was a multi-talented sportsman, having success in polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and was the best-man-at-arms in several of the British Armed Forces Royal Tournaments. He had a long and distinguished career in the British Army, serving in the Second Boer War and WW1 amongst others, and ending his career as a brigadier-general. The article has been reviewed by WP:CRIC members, who have made suggestions. As a sidenote, I don't think we have any Irish cricketers at FA! AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Because it's come up in an article I'm working on at the moment -- the militia wasn't, technically, part of the British Army, but a separate institution (unlike its successors, the TA and the Army Reserve). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Weren't they amalgamated with the British Army sometime around 1906? AA (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- reading more carefully, I think you've threaded this needle fine: you have been clear about the distinction between militia and regular service. Might be worth checking whether the militia of the Wiltshire Regiment is accurate, or whether it was a militia battalion under the command of the Wiltshires (but not part of them) -- for example, the Bucks Rifle Volunteers were under the command of the Oxford Light Infantry, but didn't wear the cap badge and were rather protective of their separate identity. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I've made a slight amendment in the article, linking to the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion in both the lede and "Military career" section. AA (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change has gone slightly the wrong way, unfortunately: if he joined up in 1883, that's before the creation of the TA in 1908, so he would have been part of the Volunteer Force, rather than the British Army, until 1886. That's compatible with the body but not the lead. Being even more picky, in the British military, terms like "3rd (RWM) Battalion" don't make sense without an attached regiment, so you need "of the Wiltshire Regiment". UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poore began his military service in the Volunteer Force with the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion of the Wiltshire Regiment in 1883, before gaining a regular commission in the British Army in 1886." And reads along the same lines in the "Military career" section. Does that make more sense?! AA (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works perfectly. As the Volunteers were (very) part-time, most people who served in them would have either had a day job or been so aristocratic as to not need one: I wonder if we know what else he was doing for those few years? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find out! Thanks again :) AA (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a further look and it appears to be a rather quiet (or unwritten) period of his life. The family were very wealthy, so I wonder if he had need to work? AA (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying to do a proper review: may be a bit fragmentary:

  • A couple of sources are to Who's Who, which has its issues (see WP:WHOSWHO). This one in particular might be a problem: he was a first-rate swordsman, and polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and shot player.
  • On that note: what's a shot player?
  • Use an endash, not an emdash, in date ranges (MOS:RANGE)
  • I find the first paragraph of the lead a little confusing: we get a run of statistics, which are all at different levels (a number of test matches, a run rate in county cricket, a record for a particular county). I wonder if it would be better (and clearer) reworked to focus more on the overall narrative and less on the minutiae, which can be left to the body.
    Reads much better to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he commanded the Jhansi Brigade of the British Indian Army with the rank of brigadier-general: advise a cut here, as this was/is the normal rank to command a brigade.
  • I find the lack of dates in the second lead paragraph to demand rather a lot of the reader's historical knowledge.
  • Juliana Poore née Lowry-Corry: see MOS:NEE
  • Lowry-Corry, (daughter of: rogue comma here.
  • "Junior" is normally capitalised in names, isn't it?
  • Poore joined the Volunteer Force as a lieutenant : is this definitely accurate? Officers normally joined at the rank of second lieutenant (which is one down), sometimes named as ensign.
    • Comment. I did wonder the same myself, but the earliest reference to him is in the London Gazette on 14th August 1883 (here), where he is commissioned as a lieutenant. AA (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm -- yes, that does seem to be what's going on (looking at the note above about the HAC, I wonder whether this was a period where -- for whatever reason -- parts of the army weren't bothering with 2Lts: the rank hadn't been around very long in any guise). Strictly speaking, though, the Gazette doesn't demonstrate that he joined the Volunteers on that date -- he could have been serving before he became a lieutenant. I see the Gent. suffix, which probably indicates that he was a civilian, but we'd need another source to confirm that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rank of second lieutenant (introduced in 1877) was abolished in 1881 and reintroduced in 1887. All new officers in the period (and existing officers of second lieutenant rank) were granted the rank of lieutenant. If you want a citation its covered on page 271 of Roper, Michael (1998). The Records of the War Office and Related Departments, 1660-1964. Public Record Office. ISBN 978-1-873162-45-3. - Dumelow (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Africa, where he served in the Second Matabele War in Rhodesia: Rhodesia wasn't in South Africa (with the capitals).
  • before being promoted two years later to brevet major in May 1898.: would cut two years later: we don't need to say it twice.
  • I would explain what a provost marshal is in the text. Was he the provost marshal for all of South Africa?
  • and was mentioned in despatches in March 1900, to which the commander-in-chief, Lord Roberts: not the right preposition. I think it would be wise to take another swing at this section, cutting the long sentence down a few times.
  • He was particularly active on the frontlines in the early years of the conflict: this seems needlessly ambiguous: did he later become particularly active in other parts of the conflict, or particularly lazy on the frontlines?
    • Done. I have removed entirely to eradicate any ambiguity. AA (talk)
  • where he was present at the Battles...: an odd way of saying it: this seems to imply that he didn't do very much?
  • with his diary including contemporary notes on their war crimes case: there are a few of these with phrases throughout. In general, they're best avoided: they usually become either or both of clunky and unclear. Suggest "his diary includes...". Also, hyphenate "war-crimes case" as a compound modifier.
  • He returned home aboard the SS Canada in 1902, but would return there on military service until his final departure in 1905: return where?
  • he was promoted to colonel in June 1915, and commanded the Jhansi Brigade in the British Indian Army for the remainder of the war, for which he was made a temporary brigadier-general: do I read right that he was promoted in June 1915, then immediately reassigned and promoted again?
    Nice one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poore was not initially overly enamoured with cricket, which he had learnt not through classical coaching but the perusal of textbooks, reputedly chiefly from the Badminton Volume of Cricket (1888); it was not until he visited India as a subaltern with the 7th Hussars that he realised his love for cricket: lots of positives phrased as negatives here: I'm not sure the density of them is good either for clarity or for style.
    Yes, it looks good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Styling his game on W. G. Grace,: on that of Grace, surely, unless his game was bearded and medically qualified?
  • "called up" and "called off" are not generally hyphenated (but the noun call-up is).
  • as being "a remarkable feat of physical endurance", on what was "a sweltering July day".: more concise simply as as "a remarkable feat of physical endurance" on "a sweltering July day"?
  • Had Poore met with success in these, he would likely have played Test cricket for England in the latter half of their series against Australia, but no Test cap for England was forthcoming: we've buried the lead here: presumably, he didn't play very well?
    • Comment. He didn't particularly shine in the Gentlemen v Players fixtures, which were often used to choose the Test team for forthcoming matches. AA (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he made two final appearances in first-class cricket for the Europeans cricket team,: I'm not sure we need cricket team here, as they've been introduced further up. We haven't done it for the Parsees, who have a similarly ambiguous name.
  • Up until his final years, he ran a cricket school which encouraged the development of young cricketers: I might be missing something, but what else would we expect a cricket school to do?
  • Cricket was not the only field in which his sporting talents : it's good practice to restate the name in a new paragraph or section.
  • MOS:BIO discourages adding people's dates after their names; if someone's age or date of death is important, state it in prose.
  • Poore's sister Nina Mary Benita Poore (1878–1951), married her brother's brother-in-law: this took me a while. Poore's brother-in-law -- this is the Duke, right?
  • and was also a justice of the peace for the county: JPs don't generally cover a whole county; they sit at particular courts within a county.
  • a memorial was erected to his memory at Salisbury Cathedral.: as with the cricket school: is there any other sort of memorial? Simply "to him", I think.
  • he seems to stand for the Eccentric Ideal: I don't really see, from the article, where this would have come from. What did Cooper see in him that was so eccentric?
  • Why does Stern come before Lonsdale in the bibliography (and Lonsdale come in two different places)?
    The usual mantra around here is "any consistent system is fine", though purely personally, I've never seen a published work order its bibliography by the order of citation in the text. Given that it's a distinct system, I don't think many readers will pick that up, so it will look "wrong" to most of them, and I can't see a utility improvement to compensate. Most style guides go for alphabetical order, sometimes subdividing by source type if it's felt appropriate (for instance, separating out primary sources, like newspapers, from academic sources). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't Warner in the bibliography at all?
  • He was initially privately educated, before attending Cheam School in England: wasn't Cheam a private school? It certainly is today, and from looking at its Wikipedia article, it wasn't exactly an egalitarian place.

Nice work -- as usual, lots of pedantry here and, due to my lack of expertise on the subject, mostly quibbles about style and MoS. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about the name "Royal Navy and Military Tournaments" -- is that definitely right? I generally see it referred to simply as the "Royal Tournament", and very occasionally as the "Naval and Military Tournament".
  • From there, he transferred to the 7th Hussars in the same year and would shortly thereafter serve: better to keep the tense straight: shortly after served...
  • army headquarters South Africa: that's a proper noun, so Army Headquarters South Africa (possibly with a comma in the middle) -- unless it's not the official name, in which case we need something like "the British Army's headquarters in South Africa".
    • Comment. His appointment as provost came under the umbrella of the South African Field Force, so I would say that "Army Headquarters South Africa" would be more apt? AA (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that the official name of the place he was serving? If not, how about "the headquarters of the South African Field Force", with some explanation of what the SAFF was?
    UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @UndercoverClassicist: His Gazette citation reads: Captain and Brevet Major R. M. Poore, 7th Hussars, to be Provost-Marshal, South African Field Force. Dated 13th November, 1899. On page 125 of Breaker Morant: The Final Roundup it states he was provost marshal at Army Headquarters Pretoria. I will expand that section to include that detail. On the SAFF, we don't seem to have a Wiki article for it. So I wonder if it is an informal term for the South African Army?
  • war-crimes trial: strictly, MOS:DASH prefers war crimes–trial (note the endash) when the modifying prefix is multiple words.
  • Roberts praising Poore with regard his "care of prisoners": with regard to or just for.
  • the Battles of Paardeberg, Poplar Grove, Driefontein, Vet River, and Zand River: this should be the battles of Paardeberg etc (there's no such thing as the Battles of Paardeberg, so no capital on battles).
  • In February 1901, he was tasked by Kitchener with forming a Boer commando, the Bushveldt Mounted Rifles, which was made up of surrendered Boer combatants, whose task it was to loot cattle from enemy forces: the double relative clause is tricky. Suggest breaking the sentence after Rifles, and saying something like "The commando was made up of surrendered Boer combatants, and tasked with...}}
  • he was a "brilliant" swordsman: tricky one: MOS:QUOTEPOV is an issue here. Advise he was considered a brilliant swordsman ....
  • referencing the unusual manner in which he took up cricket, wrote of Poore: I think this would be clearer if we swap the he and the Poore -- at the moment, it could be Cooper who took up cricket in a strange way.

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a support: reads well, nicely researched, and solved a few tricky problems in the course of the review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria: I was absolutely confident it was going to be in The Jubilee Book of Cricket (1897) by Ranjitsinhji, but to my surprise it wasn't. The original upload by User:Materialscientist was taken from Getty, and they haven't provided any authorship or publication information. AA (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can a publication old enough to satisfy the terms of the current tagging be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of these images suffice? AA (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing publication info on those - is it known? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one has erroneously been listed on ESPNcricinfo as having been published by The Cricketer in 1899, however it wasn't published until 1921. I have located the picture from this volume of Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game, published in 1899. AA (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that would make it PD in the US for sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely upload to the Commons (and when I do, it's always my own cricket photos), so I'm a little unsure if I have done this correctly. The original author is Lafayette, who I am fairly certain is the Irish photographer James Lafayette (deceased 1923). AA (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the wording of the copyright template you've used, it indicates that you'll need an additional tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the PD-US tag to it. AA (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi AA, my comments:

That's all from me, I will try to get a source review done soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC - source review: pass

[edit]
  • Full review to follow later, but in the meantime:
  • In the references you should delink the publishers and locations (all of these are superfluous and fairly useless – several of them are OVERLINKING, and they don't aid readers at all
  • Ditto in the Works cited section, I'd advise delinking all the locations and publishers
  • It's best to aim for consistency in how you present sources, so get the ISBNs into the same 13-digit format; (you can use https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter to get the correct version for Thomson)
  • If a book has no ISBN (like Humphris), consider adding the oclc instead, which you can get from https://search.worldcat.org/.
  • Why are you using sfnref for the two entries from The Cricket Statistician when you could cite them directly to the author, Lonsdale? Ditto Warner
    • Comment and done. As they were contributors to a section in the journal/magazine, I was under the impression we link to the work and not the author. If this is not the case, I have now changed it to cite directly to Lonsdale and Warner. AA (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a full prose review in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC prose review
Lead & IB
Military career
India and South Africa
Hampshire
  • "his height and massive frame": this is the first time his physique has been mentioned in the body, so it may be worth putting in some details (what was his height, for example)
    • Comment. It was a little difficult to insert too much detail on his height and physique, however, I have inserted his height into the sentence using template {{convert|6.4|ft|m}}, though not sure if "6 feet and 4 inches" would read better (but the conversion template does not allow for this wording). AA (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 24 October 2024 [32].

Cerro Panizos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second time's hopefully the charm. This volcano is in a remote area of northwestern Argentina and southeastern Bolivia, it bears no traces of recent activity but it is an important member of a regional volcano group. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I am happy to support with regard to the prose, and the article seems comprehensive. I think the actions suggested in the previous nomination and a recent copyedit have contrinuted much in bringing this contribution to FA level. Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also support per my review in the previous FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did what was essentially a pre-FAC review on the article talk page and have nothing to add to those comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that I will be away for a few days. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJo, Very little from me, just a few of very minor points:

  • "two calderas (a depression...": As 'calderas' is plural, it may be a bit smoother to say '(depressions...'
  • "includes Cerro Panizo:[36] it consists of two parts: a volcanic arc" I'm never a fan of two colons in one sentence – maybe swap the first for a full stop?
  • "northeast~southwest": did you mean to have a tilde there?
  • "antimony, copper, and uranium": you don't use serial commas elsewhere

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Done. In case you are interested in any pre-nomination review, Socompa is the next article on my FAC block. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

Two are public domain, the other is CC BY-SA 3.0. The image "LandsatLook_Viewer_Cerro_Panizos_ignimbrite_shield.png" has an alt text and a caption, the other two images are part of the map preview of the infobox mountain template. All images are relevant to the article and placed appropriately. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'm completely ignorant on this subject, but after a careful and enjoyable perusal of the article I'm confident enough to sign up to support. The substantive content is well and widely sourced, and my only quibble on the prose is that we have a rash of "numerous"es: some more precise numbers or at least a few synonyms for "numerous" would be nice. Tim riley talk 22:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymized several. @SchroCat: now I am back and available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll do the source review soon. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all appear to be high-quality RS. Various searching for unused sources gives me confidence that this article is based on a representative survey of the underlying literature. Reference formatting looks fine. I'm not particularly capable of assessing the non-English sources but the usage appears to be appropriate. Spot-checked the following items:

  • The sole citation to Breitkreuz et al looks fine
  • Deroin et al. p. S42 for "The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, respectively" is okay
  • Deroin et al. p. S41 for "The only vegetation consists of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs. Wetter areas feature wetlands (such as bofedales), and there are salt flats." is okay provided that there's a source somewhere establishing that the general Puna conditions are representative at Cerro Panizos
Deroin is discussing the Sur Lípez region of Bolivia, and (the Bolivian portion of) Cerro Panizos is in Sur Lípez. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fine based on the prior reputation of the nominator; this can be considered a pass of the source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 23 October 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2024 [33].

Can't Catch Me Now

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Can't Catch Me Now". Just two months after raking in massive critical acclaim with her second studio album, Guts, Rodrigo contributed this lush folk ballad to The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. The song, which consistently escalates in intensity throughout its duration, drew positive reviews for its sound and Rodrigo's vocal performance. Oscar buzz soon followed but the competition was unfortunately too tough. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.NØ 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending review from NegativeMP1

[edit]

Soon. I hope... λ NegativeMP1 17:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm going to review this article anymore following some real-world developments. I'm also unsure if I am currently in the right place to determine what meets FA criteria or not. If something like a spotcheck or an image review is needed, let me know in a couple weeks and I might volunteer. But I don't think I will be reviewing the article prose. I wish you luck, and I'll try to make up for it at a later date. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

[edit]

Somehow this song from her discography had escaped my notice until now, so this review gives me an excuse to throw it on. Will complete in the next 24 hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Since it has been a week, I thought I'd send a reminder. But please take your time :) NØ 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten! Expect comments tomorrow UTC (for real this time!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is the link Music critics in the lead and §Critical reception overlink? Since music criticism generally is not a matter of discussion here, I think it is.
  • "ubiquitousness" is a good word, but I fear it might not be clear in meaning to a general audience. Perhaps replace with "constant presence" or "inescapable presence" depending on context.
  • "For her debut studio album" While I appreciate that Rodrigo's career is still in a comparatively nascent stage, I think that discussion of genres from her debut studio album is off topic and should only be mentioned if a source makes a connection between the "Can't Catch Me Now" and that debut (the current citation is from 2021, so there's an NOR concern, too).
  • "returned as her principal collaborator on the follow-up album" The citations for this date to September 2023 and appear to make no reference to the subject. While this could be BLUESKY, I'm inclined by NOR towards asking for a source that explicitly draws a link between the subject song and Nigro's work on Guts.
  • Mentioning that a producer was a frequent collaborator of an artist is standard practice for Background sections. "Out of the Woods" mentions the producer's prior work with Taylor Swift, for example. An example of a NOR violation would be a statement like "Can't Catch Me Now was conceived during the Guts sessions". Guts and its success were mentioned in several articles announcing the subject song, like this, this, and this, so the article would be incomplete without discussion of Nigro's involvement in it.--NØ 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources determine the details that comprise complete coverage, so I would like an RS cite here that engages with this relationship as a continuity with Guts. Otherwise, it could be considered as unnecessarily emphasizing Nigro's relationship with Rodrigo's work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for having to push back on this, but that is not how NOR is applied to background sections based on my experience at FAC. If you see articles like Laundromat (song), even CD liner notes are referenced to provide information on previous collaborations between writers of a song. We cannot nix a project that the two collaborators released together just two months before this song. That part is staying.--NØ 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was released to critical acclaim" We probably don't need this regarding Guts for NOR and PUFF reasons, especially without a direct link to "Can't Catch Me Now" in the sources
  • This is not a NOR violation since the album receiving critical acclaim is a widely held opinion by secondary sources and is cited. Not really PUFF either since that guideline refers to exceptional claims in wikivoice, e.g. "Mariah Carey is widely regarded as the best vocalist of all-time". An album with a metascore of 91 and six Grammy nominations being referred to as acclaimed is standard fare imo.--NØ 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we mentioning this critical acclaim at all, though? It's a sentence that has zero bearing on article's subject and utilizes a reference that makes no mention of "Can't Catch Me Now". It's unnecessary glossing. Nix it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It complements readers' understanding of the critical reception for this song, which is covered later. Comments like it marking "one more step towards Rodrigo's world domination", it representing a change in her sound, or forming an earnest addition to her discography are better understood when not divorced from how her prior output was received.--NØ 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any non-primary RS information available on the vinyl release? This made me wonder if there's some missing angle to coverage here, but I'm struggling to find any additional content on the 7". Will report back if I have more success with a little more time spent.
  • I'm aware, but I linked to it as a possible aspect of the subject that has gone unrepresented in the current article, particularly when the article lacks reference to any secondary source on the 7". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects that were not reported on by reliable secondary sources should be unrepresented in the article. Usage of unreliable sources as a reference would constitute a violation of the FA criteria.--NØ 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and chamber-folk ballad," The comma here seems to serve primarily as an anchor for the citations that follow and not as an appropriate grammatical device.
  • Thank you for attributing quotes and reviews to the writers rather than their publications. It's infuriating to look at some FAs and GAs see stuff like "the New York Times positively reviewed the song"–no they didn't! A specific critic did! Anyhow, thanks for getting that right.

Will return with additional comments shortly, but my spot-checking of sources is also yielding positive results besides the issues mentioned above. Great work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pbritti. I look forward to it.--NØ 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards an oppose now, unfortunately. I am especially concerned by the repeated preference to defer to the precedence of individual articles over policy and misunderstanding of my question of whether an element of the subject has been adequately covered. (I am not asking you to cite the article I linked and stated that; I am asking you to tell me if there are RSs that do cover it.) This is exacerbated by the apparent willingness to overlink to comply with a GA request. These are minor requests with a policy basis, so please make them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is disappointing, since other FAs have been pointed out as examples that your interpretation of policies is not shared by the larger community or the precedent here at FAC. I cannot remove important details from the article due to one user's unpopular interpretation of a guideline. I am not sure how else I am supposed to state this to make it clearer, but no, there aren't any RS that cover the "angle" in the student newspaper you have linked. But thanks for your feedback anyways and happy editing.--NØ 05:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed at NORN. No further concerns. The article is well written and the citations are strong. I would reckon it among the best song articles on the project. Support. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Sky Harbor

[edit]

I was asked to review the article on WP:DISCORD, and at first glance the prose looks good. Maybe a couple of errors here or there but otherwise written well. In honor of Olivia Rodrigo's Guts World Tour and it stopping in the Philippines (and also because she's Filipino American and it's Filipino American History Month), I will endeavor to review this more deeply and will post some thoughts on the article later depending on my real-life workload. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, MaranoFan. Thank you very much for taking the time to write this article, and I'm glad that you had taken the time to write it. For this review, I will focus primarily on prose and writing, deferring to others more versed in the current FA process than me for more technical aspects:
  • In the first sentence of the composition and lyrics section, I would include that Dylan Waterhouse plays the instruments you mention in the next sentence ("..., who also plays..."). In the current arrangement I am left wondering who "he" is.
  • In the music video section, is the "white sleek dress" a specific dress, or is it a white dress that happens to be slimming?
  • I personally write out numbers as words so long as it's ten or below ("Ten days later" instead of "10 days later"), but I get that this is a stylistic choice.
As I mentioned initially, the prose itself is written well so I don't see any major impediments to the article becoming an FA, and I think the suggestions made here would push that case even further. Best of luck. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reviewing this and the nice words, Sky Harbor. Done on points one and two.--NØ 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I appreciate the edits made and I am glad to vote Support for this nomination. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "which intersperses scenes from The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes with clips of Rodrigo singing it in a cabin and a grass field" => "which intersperses scenes from The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes with clips of Rodrigo singing the song in a cabin and a grass field"
  • "On November 1, 2023, Rodrigo's hotline" - what's her "hotline"?

Image and source review - pass

[edit]

Image licencing, rationales and placement seem OK to me. The sample needs an ALT text. Sources look pretty mainstream but I wonder why some have archives and others don't. What makes Qobuz a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sample does not contain video so it does not need ALT text. TimedText is already present. All sources should now have archives except the singlechart templates, as there does not currently exist a way of adding archives to them. Qobuz is just a music store and streaming service which is used for credits since Tidal went behind a paywall. The information about credits is provided to them by the record label when songs are published there. In the case of this song, it matches the vinyl booklet (hard to read). Do the reviews pass now, Jo-Jo Eumerus?--NØ 10:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to qualify that Pbritti's concerns above are not overridden by my review of the sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Since this is almost down to older nominations, would it be okay for me to put up another one? My schedule has changed a bit due to starting a job and I would only have time to attend to comments on a new nomination during the weekends (aka the next few days).--NØ 04:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. FrB.TG (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2024 (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) 22 October 2024 [34].

Battle of Saipan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Battle of Saipan in June 1944. Because it was underway at the same time as the Normandy landings in France, it is less well known. It was the first invasion of the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign. The invasion triggered the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy's airpower. The island's capture pierced the Japanese defense perimeter and provided the American forces with an island base that put the Japanese home islands in range of the B-29 bombers. The fall of the island led to the collapse of the Japanese cabinet with the resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the prime minister of Japan.

The article has passed an A-class review and the images have been reviewed by Hawkeye7. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • Updated three maps of campaign progress to upright =1.2
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • Alt text added to 27th infantry moving inland, troops moving through Garapan in flames

Matarisvan

[edit]

I was one of the reviewers at A class and found this article to be a comprehensive review of the battle. I can happily support for promotion to A class on the general text quality. On source formatting, I would suggest adding archive URLs for the National Park Service source in the Online sources section, and also for Trefalt 2018, the only two sources we don't have archive URLs for. I will be doing a source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matarisvan,
I added the archive link for the National Park Service. I couldn't archive the convenience link for Trefalt as it is behind academia.edu's server, but the doi is available for readers, who have access to the journal. Wtfiv (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • #3, #8, #21, #68, #81, #172, #267, #287: all ok.
  • #124: ok but only Shaw, Nalty and Turbladh 1989 has the required supporting text, I could not find any in Harmsen 2021. Perhaps you should remove the latter.
  • #153: For this text, "Less than a half hour after the start of the amphibious invasion", p. 63 would be the correct one, not p. 64. For the other use of this ref number, p. 64 is correct. You will have to separate the two.
Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a pass then. Also I'd really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye 7

[edit]

I reviewed this at A-class and looks good to me. But to prove I read it:

  • "Nagumo" is misspelt as "Nagamo"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hawkeye7! I fixed it. Wtfiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I figured I should review it since I have an FAC open too.

  • "Organized resistance ended when at least 3,000 Japanese soldiers died in the final gyokusai attack" - eesh I had to look up what gyokusai was. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think a brief description here, either wave or swarming. I also noticed that gyokusai redirects to Banzai charge. Any reason for this particular wording here? I'm not familiar with the subject matter, just the first thing I've noticed.
  • " and left Japan vulnerable to strategic bombing" - you mention this in the third lead paragraph, but it's also in the first. I'm not sure if the material in the first paragraph should be moved to the third, since that all kind of lumps together the aftermath of the battle.
  • removed repeat of strategic bombing in lead, taking out mention of strategic bombing from the fourth paragraph, but left it in the first since it is important.
  • Is it worth mentioning the brief history of Saipan being taken by Japan/Germany/US as part of the background? The US was kind of taking the island back, and it never gave it up after the war. Or furthermore, there isn't even much of a background to the Pacific campaign, just starting the narrative in 1944. I see you mention more history under "geography", but that kind of feels like "background" to me.
  • Changed section name to "History and Geography". The US occupied Guam before the war, but not Saipan. The Saipan became a Japanese possession, part of the mandates, immediately after World War I.
  • I notice that two times you use "nmi", without ever using the term "nautical mile". I was only familiar with the abbreviation because tropical cyclone articles (which I usually focus on) often have their units listed in nautical miles/knots, which we always convert since the average reader probably doesn't know what they are. Considering you mostly use imperial with metric units in parenthesis, I don't think you need the nmi, unless you think otherwise.
  • " 81 and 91 inches" - convert to metric please. Ditto "seven miles"
  • nmi removed, rainfall has cm conversions, seven miles now has kilometers.
  • "The largest towns on the island–the administrative center of Garapan with its population of 10,000, Charan Kanoa, and Tanapag–were on the western coast of the island, which was where the best landing beaches for an invasion were. " clunky wording here
  • reworded, breaking it into two sentences.
  • "Nimitz assigned Admiral Raymond Spruance, " - I had to scroll up to remember who Nimitz was. Maybe remind the reader his significance, since it's the start of a section (Opposing forces). Kinda similarly when you say "the amphibious landings of Forager". I had to look up what Forager was again. Not a huge deal, but to a non-military expert, it might be helpful to have a few more reminders.
  • added that Nimitz was commander of the Pacific Fleet. Replaced "Forager" with "Mariana Islands"
  • Over 60,000 troops were assigned to the assault:[b] Approximately 22,000 were in each Marine division and 16,500 in the 27th Infantry Division. - I'm not sure the use of the colon after assault:
  • Colon deleted
  • "6 June 1944" - this stood out to me that your date format is European. Saipan is a US territory now, and most of the US uses Month and Day, not Day then Month. Is there a reason you chose this date format?
  • I wanted to keep the format consistent with this article's companion article, Battle of Tinian. Tinian was the next island invaded a month after Saipan. (It's about three miles from Saipan.) I kept the format of that article because it passed both the A-class review and is a featured article using the DD Month Year format.
  • "This made the defenses brittle." - is "brittle" the best word here? I'm not familiar with military terms here, and I'm not sure if "weak" is better, but maybe there's a better word out there than a word that makes me think of brittle candy.
  • "brittle" changed to "weak"
Battle
  • "On 11 June, over 200 F6F Hellcats from the Fast Carrier Task Force launched a surprise attack on Japanese airfields in Saipan and Tinian..." - we don't have an exact number?
  • "which began around 08:40" - timezone? Is this local time? Washington time? Coordinated Universal Time?
    Here I followed MOS:TIMEZONE which states that event times should be given in the time zone in which the event occurred.
    That's fair, but anytime I deal with anything time specific, it's helpful to clarify with a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink, I assume that for the American sources, time would be based on the WWII version of Military time zone (Zulu time) Saipan's military time zone falls within K time (or Kilo time), GMT+10. But none of the sources clarify this. Wtfiv (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason "8000 men" doesn't have a comma for 8,000? Also, is this exact or about?
  • Added "around" before 8000. Followed MOS:DIGITS, which states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.(Added comma)
  • I see "pillbox" is linked in the pic farther down in the article than when it's mentioned for the first time in prose.
  • Linked first occurrence of pillbox in main text.
  • "He proposed to indefinitely postpone the 18 June invasion of Guam." - I'm guessing that happened? There's nothing else of this
  • Added footnote that the Invasion of Guam took place on 21 July.
  • "Intelligence had estimated that there were no more than 300 Japanese soldiers in the area" - do we know what intelligence? It might be better saying "Advanced reconnaissance" or "Spies" or however they estimated that, than starting with "Intelligence", which is odd to me as a civilian.
  • Replaced "Intelligence" with "Smith". This follow's Lacey's wording.
  • Why does the "American firepower" section appear under "25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough"? I noticed that the Sherman tanks were already mentioned previously, just not in as much detail. I wonder if the "American firepower" should appear under "Opposing forces" under the American section? I think I see the logic having it where it is now: the American firepower allowed for this turning point. Right now parts of the section feels like it disrupts the narrative, considering what came before it. All of that said, the tanks with flamethrowers sounds fucking badass, which is partly why I think that needs to be highlighted better in the article than where it is. This section is what caught my eye:
  • "The Americans had other assets as well. Over 150 tanks–over 100 of which were M4 Sherman tanks–had been committed to the invasion.[204] The M4 Sherman tank was superior to the Japanese Type 97 tank.[205] It was primarily used to support infantry and was considered one of the most effective weapons for destroying enemy emplacements.[206] Flame throwers were extensively used. Smith had seen the need for motorized flamethrowers and had requested that the Army's Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) in Hawaii install them in M3 Stuart tanks. Seabees with the CWS had 24 tanks, nicknamed "Satans", converted to flamethrowing in time for the invasion. They were very effective for destroying pillboxes, cave defenses, buildings, canefields, and brush."
  • Moved the section on the tanks to "Opposing Forces". Kept the sections on artillery and portable flame-throwers in this section, as this is when they were actively deployed.
  • "But his army's cohesion was disintegrating. Some of the remaining forces moved north, others holed up in whatever caves they could find and put up sporadic, disorganized resistance." - I noticed a few times earlier where a sentence started with "But", which felt clunky. And then the second part felt like it was missing a word, or a semicolon. Maybe "while others holed up"?
  • Reworded sentences. Removed initial "But". Removed some of the other lead "But's" too.
  • "On 4 July, the 27th Infantry Division and 4th Marine Division headed northwest. The 27th division reached the east coast at Flores Point, south of Tanapag" - wait is the 27th the same for both sentences here? How did it go northwest and end up east? Going around the tip of the island, I'm guessing? If so, maybe clarify that?
  • That should have read "west coast at Flores Point". Fixed
  • "and inflicting 80% casualties" - the rest of the article used exact number of casualties, not percentages, so I suggest using an exact number if you can.
    Added "about 900 casualties". I left 80% as a clause to illustrate the magnitude of the loss.
  • "who survived the last banzai charge" - see my earlier comment about gyokusai or banzai, as long as it's consistent.
  • Changed to gyokusai.
  • "Eventually 1700" - why no comma?
  • Added comma. (MOS:DIGITS states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.)
  • " It was the Americans' most costly battle in the Pacific up to that time." - seems to have been deadly, not costly, unless I'm mistaken
  • Changed to "deadly"
  • What is "ordnance "?
  • replaced with "shells during the battle".
  • "Hirohito only accepted Saipan's eventual fall on 25 June when his advisors told him all was lost" - in 1944 or 1945? The last year mentioned was 1945, so I have to ask
  • added 1944

All in all an interesting read about a battle I knew nothing about! Well done all around. Most of my notes should be pretty easy to fix/address (I hope). Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I've responded. Do these address the issues you pointed out? Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, thanks so much for the quick responses! Happy to support now. Good work on this. I don't usually read military articles, but I found this fairly easy to follow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. Are "free Press" and "Metro books" really lowercase? Is Samuel Eliot Morison a reliable source? Some of what it says raises questions. Is http://www.historytoday.com/ a high-quality reliable source? In terms of reliability, it seems like we are working with good sources ... but even with WP:NONENG the fact that English and US-affiliated sources are almost the entire source body raises some WP:UNDUE concerns. Are there really no Japanese sources on the battle? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Capitalization: "Free Press" and "Metro Books" have been fixed.
  • Morison as a source: "New Guinea and the Marianas, March 1944–August 1944." is part of the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. It is not a perfect source, as that article points out. Unlike the United States Marines and the United States Army, the United States Navy never published an official history. Morison's is the closest it comes. The Navy stated that Morison's history was not its official history. His advantage however, is that the navy gave him access to its records, gave him an office office in the Navy Department under the Director of Naval Records and History while writing the book, and a staff of assistance. See the Naval Command and Heritage site for a review of Morison. Morison's strength is clearly one of the reference sources for later histories of the Pacific War, including Ian Toll's Pacific War Trilogy and Hornfischer. (see Hornfischer's review of Morison here.) In using Morison as a source, I did not use his analyses or assumptions of motivations. I used what he had access to, (e.g., ship number, troops, information about plans, and the like.)
  • Just to add here, Morison continues to be widely used by professional historians so is clearly a reliable source. He shouldn't be used in isolation as the books can be dated at times (and sometimes can be slightly eccentric), but that's not the case here. I've referenced Morrison in several FAs that passed with no concerns being raised over the source. The series remains the most detailed account of the US Navy in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese sources: My contributions tend to aim to a close adherence WP:NONENG when possible, though I will provide foreign language sources with a quote and translation when they make a critical point (see Frederick the Great or Joan of Arc). One of the major problems in most writing about the island warfare in the Pacific is that almost all the Japanese witnesses died. Testimony from Japanese survivors interrogated by the military is included in the article. I did include English-language works from Japanese-speaking scholars studying the Pacific War. These include Tanaka, Irokawa, Kawamura, and Hiroyuki. The former three have author links with their sources. They mainly focus on how the battle impacted Japanese decision making at the grand strategic level.
  • Ironically, one of the major sources for the Japanese military perspective on the island-as cited in the English-language sources- was Takashi Hirakushi. Almost all contemporary histories still cite him as a source, but as a footnote in the article suggests, his first-person testimony may not be reliable. Much of his testimony was initially shared under the name of an officer who had actually died in the fighting, and his story changed over time (cf., Hoffman's version written in the 1950s and Toland's summary based his interviews with Hirakushi in World War II), and some statements are contradicted by interrogations of other survivors. Problems with the details can be found in footnote h in the article. The sources in the footnote provide more information. I've provided convenience links to the sources wherever possible so English-speaking readers can verify the information themselves.
Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops, forgot about the Hughes. Removed it and replaced with Atroth.
  • Also,with respect to Japanese sources: Trefalt is an English-speaking source, but her article gives a critical treatment of civilians in Saipan in her analysis of civilian survivor's diaries. Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the Hughes from history today with the peer-reviewed article by him in the Journal of Military History. It's more in-depth and fully cited.
  • Interestingly, Hughes on pg 102 (with a footnote with specific references) also points out that the Japanese sources remain thin, though they would be useful. Very little of the Senshi Sōsho, the Japanese multivolume official history of the war has been translated, and it doesn't include the sections on Saipan Most personal memoirs by Japanese people who were at Saipan have not been translated either. Hughes mentions two untranslated memoirs about Saipan.
Wtfiv (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes also mentions Saburō Ienaga's work, which was translated into English, The Pacific War: World War II and the Japanese, 1931–45 (1968; New York: Pantheon, 1978). I had access to this book when writing the article. It gives an overview of a Japanese perspective, but Saipan is not discussed. The closest he comes is a passing mention of the Battle of the Philippine sea as part of the Japanese military being ground down by overwhelming American production. Wtfiv (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo, I am moderately up to speed with the Pacific Campaign, so I will reread the article with this in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, did you get a chance to do this yet? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing this Ian. There didn't seem to be any bias to me, nor any clearly relevant and unused sources. In brief, I am happy - in the light of my checks and Jo-Jo and Wtfiv's comments with the sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, I missed this until now. When working on the article, I looked for relevant articles in journals without a military focus when researching the article in the academic search engines of had access to, including Google Scholar. They were few. I used Trefalt (2018) in The Journal of Pacific History analyses Japanese civilian's experience using Japanese diaries and memoirs, Plung (2021) in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus discusses Saipan in the context of evacuation policies in Japan, Giangreco (2003) in the Pacific Historical Review discusses American casualties in terms of policy decisions in the war. The Tanaka (2023) chapter in the edited volume The Modern Japanese Nation and Empire c. 1868 to the Twenty-First Century described where Saipan fit into Japanese defense strategy at the governmental level. Though Astroth (2019), Mass Suicides on Saipan and Tinian, 1944: An Examination of the Civilian Deaths in Historical Context. is a book, not a journal, its is an in-depth about civilian casualties in a larger historical context. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I also reviewed this in its A-class review. I'd like to offer the following comments in regards to meeting the FA criteria:

  • The article appears to have been considerably expanded and copy edited since the ACR. It is clearly of FA standard - I can't find much to comment on, though I've made a few minor tweaks to tidy up the article.
  • The lead is excellent, and a model of how they should be structured.
  • As a very minor suggestion, I'd suggest replacing "took out" with something more formal, liked "destroyed" Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done! Thank you for the review Nick-D! Wtfiv (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Saipan's loss had a greater impact in Japan than all its previous defeats. Could be read as "all of its previous defeats put together" or "any of its previous defeats". Could we clarify in the text? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Wtfiv who may not have seen this note. Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Matarisvan, I did miss this! I've updated it to any of its previous defeats as per Ian Rose's suggestion. Wtfiv (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [35].

Ada Wong

[edit]
Nominator(s): JokEobard (talk) 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red dress.

The article has undergone a lot of changes due to the reviewers at the 2nd peer review. It received several reviews from Aoba47, PanagiotisZois, Panini!, and Crisco 1492 (thanks for their help). Because of it, I feel like the article is ready for the FA criteria. Thank you! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panagiotis Zois

[edit]

Given my involvement with heavily rewriting the content of the "Reception" section, could I even take part in this FAC? I feel like a "conflict-of-interest" situation might arise.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't think thats a problem in fact some reviewers wants to assist nominators more in a different way so that they can easily resolve any issues. Additionally, you were also not the author. Just in case you don't want to continue the review, you can strike it out. Thanks! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I wanted to ask is about the "Reception" section. The part about the Dragon Lady trope is interesting, but as it stands, only two sources are used. Are there at least one-two more sources discussing this trope that could be added? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PanagiotisZois. No, I went throughout and couldn't find more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, but understandable. All right. I've gone over the whole article again. It look really good. There are a few things I would like see changed, but that's more of personal taste, and not something that is required to make the article better. Taking this into account, I support this article's promotion. Always nice to see articles of female character get more love and attention. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 43 missing page(s).
Hi Vacant0. I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot; and as usual almost the entire book pages mentions Ada (same with the usage of that sources from Jill Valentine). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any particular issues with references and their reliability. Valnet sources are used, though TheGamer is now considered reliable.
I only used two TheGamer, but it is marked reliable unlike the content before. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First ref in the Ref 46 is still confusing me. Do you have an issue number or ISSN of the comic book?
Not at all. I ended up removing the Chinese comic book source. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked:

  • In Resident Evil series: Ref 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 (only mentions "Also, completion of Separate Ways will further flesh out new information files which get added to "Ada's Report."")
Nice caught! I Ended up removing the claim of ref 25 because I cannot support the claim. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other appearances: Ref 31, 33, 39, 47
  • Concept and design: Ref 49, 54, 56, 58, 62
  • Voice-over and live-action actresses: Ref 4, 12
  • Reception: Ref 8, 66, 75, 76

I'll take another look at the prose by the end of the week and will then decide my vote. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Take your time 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Just a quick question - I'll have another read later, as this has changed a lot since the peer review. Does Jennings offer any arguments for why Ada "demonstrate[s] the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze?" The next line, that Jennings criticized the game's whitewashing of her heritage, suggests to me that Jennings was arguing that Ada's representation as both a woman and as a person of Asian descent brought more potential agency to the character. Why, though? Is this worth a footnote, or even just a bit of a more explicit clause explaining her argument?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich I expanded a bit [36], and yeah she mentioned about her representation as a woman. I hope this is fine for you as a non-native English speaker. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)<[reply]
Lede
  • Worth mentioning in the lede that Lily Gao has reprised the role in the most recent release?
I'm not sure if this is needed as this may be potentially being removed by my co-nom, but I added it [37] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances
  • After the restructuring, it's not clear who Alice is on first mention.
Added [38] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the "costume" as an "alternate skin" [39]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concept and design
Hmmm, not sure how since Kadoi said he "randomly thought her name without much thought" in the first Resident Evil. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Separate Ways" is mentioned three times in three sentences. Any chance of reworking this to avoid the repetition?
Honestly, I prefer to repeat than to say DLC imor minigame because it confuses readers. In the original RE4, it is a minigame; but in the remake it is now DLC. Or you got any suggestion? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • For the feminist critiques of the character, I was wondering if there is any consideration of the deuteragonist in Ada's chapter in Resident Evil 6 vis-a-vis Ada herself. She has a name, a face, and a known story, whereas the faceless male-coded deuteragonist in her chapter is there simply to ensure that the game's co-play mechanics are available (he isn't even H.U.N.K.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich You mean if I can find more reception about her appearance in RE6? Nope. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, based on the peer review and review here. This appears to be a thorough review of the sources available, and it feels accessible to the average reader (though as someone who has played the games since release, and whose first edits were RElated, I might not be the best judge of that) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I will do a thorough read-through of the article later in the week. I have a few quick comments for now.

  • I would avoid repeating "video game" in the following sentence as it does make the prose unnecessarily repetitive: (Video game publications have positively responded to Ada as a video game character.)
  • I would move the Resident Evil 4 link up to this part, (a remake of the original game), as that is the first time that the game is mentioned. I would also include the year up there as well.
  • The source links for File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg are both dead (at least for me). Both links go to blank images for me.

Please ping me in a week if I have not posted anything further. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this part, (the character that would later become Ada was initially depicted as Linda), could be condensed to something like (Ada was initially depicted as Linda) to be more concise.
    Thank you for your comments! The reason I phrased this sentence the way that I did is because the final version of Ada that debuted in RE2 is an amalgamation of two prototypical characters that (initially) had no relation whatsoever: John Clemens girlfriend "Ada", who was only mentioned by name in RE1; and the Umbrella researcher Linda. Writer Noboru Sugimura ultimately gave Linda's role as Leon's supporting character to Ada in the final build, so Ada and Linda were never the same characters at all. I therefore feel that it is more appropriate to say that the (prototypical) character that was (eventually) transformed into Ada was initially depicted as Linda. I hope I'm adequately getting my meaning across, and I would be more than happy to discuss this further. :)JokEobard (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (After the prototype was scrapped), I would avoid the word "scrapped" as it is too informal for Wikipedia.
  • I do not think the director link is needed for (director Hideki Kamiya) as it does create an instead of a WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • This could be a matter of personal preference, but I would revise this sentence, (Ada's appearance was designed by artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama), to a more active tense: (i.e. Artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama designed Ada's appearance.)
  • I would better attribute the quote in this sentence: (Recognizing Ada's minimal role in the main campaign and her being a "very strong character" that "deserves to really stand out" in Resident Evil 4, Capcom developed a short campaign dedicated to her.) The sentence attributes it to Capcom in general, but the source makes it clear that it is from Masachika Kawata.
  • I have two comments on this part, (who helps protagonist Ethan Winters, such as helping him escape one of his trials early in the game). I would avoid repeating helps / helping in the same sentence as it is too repetitive. Also, is there a better and clearer descriptor for Ethan Winters? It would be helpful to give readers a better understanding of who this character is in the game itself.

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I hope that this is helpful and let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoba47. It seems like all of them are already resolved by @JokEobard (Thanks to him). Though, I don't know what's the best descriptor for Ethan Winters. Replacing "protagonist" into "civilian" seems kinda odd for you or not? Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I am likely just over-thinking it. "Protagonist" is likely the best word choice as it would clearly let readers know that Ethan is the primary character from that game. I agree that "civilian" would not really work in this instance, and after looking through the article about him, I could not really come up with a better word choice so I believe your current version is the best in regards to this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to use a more specific descriptor for Jenny Platz other than "critic". I would say that even something like "scholar" is more precise, but that is already used for Andrei Nae later in the same paragraph. I just think that the "critic" word choice is a bit too broad for this instance, and it is already used three times in close proximity to one another as well.
Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "femme fatale" gets repeated quite a bit at the end of the first paragraph and for the second paragraph as well. I would see if there are ways to avoid such repetition if possible.
  • I think that the prose for the Andrei Nae parts could use some further revision. It has some great information and I find it very interesting, but I think that it could flow better overall. Let me know if further clarification is needed for this. One suggestion is that I do not think this part, (Concerning Ada's portrayal as a femme fatale), is really needed. I do understand how it is being used as a transition and to make things flow better, but it does feel a bit repetitious as the previous sentence already makes it clear that the discussion will be on Ada's role as a femme fatale and the subsequent reviews about it.
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that when discussing the critic's opinions, the past tense should be used. This is pretty consistent throughout the "Reception" section, but I would revise this part, (scholar Andrei Nae notes), to be in the past tense and to double-check this section in case there are other instances of this that I missed.
  • I am not sure if "appeal" is the right word choice for this part, (makes her accentuated sexuality as a femme fatale appeal to Orientalist clichés of East-Asian erotic femininity). Maybe something like "conform to Orientalist clichés" or "continue Orientalist clichés". Neither of my suggestions are particularly good either, but I did keep coming back to this part as I am not sure you can really appeal to cliches. I am also not sure if femininity really needs a link here. I would think one for East Asian would be best. Also should that be hyphenated? It is not done for the Wikipedia article, but I am honestly the worst when it comes to this.
Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that you remove the stereotypical link as most readers would be familiar with this concept and it would avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE as it is next to "Dragon Lady", which is a more beneficial link.
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give some sort of descriptor for Stephanie Jennings to provide some background and context for readers.
Added, but not sure if this is the best descriptor for her after checking here [41]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that is better than nothing. It can be difficult to find a good descriptor for this if the person does not have a clear focus in their overall research. It should be fine in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the structure of the following sentence: (Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters, she opined, demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit without exploration of the character's racial identity.) The placement of "she opined" in the middle does not seem particularly beneficial for readers. I would also avoid "opined" in general, but that could be a matter of personal preference. I do not have any strong opinions about it, but I believe that I have seen it discussed in other FACs. That being said, I think the sentence structure is more of my issue here.
Already restructured by other editor. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the criticism for Lily Gao's vocal performance be mentioned in the lead as it has a separate paragraph in this section? It is a shame to hear that Gao got this kind of harassment in general.
Added 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would clarify that Gao was the one that received the criticism, not the character itself. It may also be worth briefly noting the review bombing as well to provide that additional context for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that is helpful. I have really enjoyed reading through this article. Ada has always been a character from RE that stood out to me the most so it was nice to finally learn more about her. I am a huge fan of spies in general. It would have been cool to see a RE game lean more into the spy stuff with Ada as a lead, but I doubt most people would want that lol. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd play the ever-loving... out of an Ada-centric game. On topic, as I had proposed the sentences summarizing Jennings' arguments, I've rephrased the last one to "She suggested that Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit undermined by the limited exploration of the character's racial identity."  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for being sincere. This character as a spy is my favorite thing to the franchise. I'm glad Aoba enjoyed reading it. I am attempting to work on it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I am not the only one who would want an Ada-centric game lol. I just love spies in general, and I cannot really think of anything zombie-related taking that kind of angle. The rephrase looks great to me. Thank you for being patient and understanding with my comments. I have a minor comment on the citations. I have been told in past FACs to be consistent with whether or not citation titles use title case or not. I am mostly raising it to your attention, and it would not affect my review as it is more so focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and yeah thanks to Chris Woodrich for rephrasing it. I already did italized the game or film titles before and I am not sure if there are still other citations that have been overlooked or you mean this type of capitalization [42]? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referencing how words in the citation titles are capitalized. See MOS:TITLECAPS. I do not believe that it is required, but I will leave that up to the source reviewer. Again, this is just something that I wanted to raise to your attention and it is not a requirement for my review. I will read through the article later in the weekend. I do not imagine that I will find anything major, but I want to make sure to be thorough. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will attempt to go through all the citation titles on what is needed to change. Thanks a lot for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination. I was debating on asking if the "a mysterious masked figure" description for Ada's planned appearance in Resident Evil Village should be more specific and mention the plague doctor element, but it may be getting too specific for something that was ultimately cut. Otherwise, everything looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review (with two notes about completeness)

[edit]

File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg has the problem that it seems to illustrate a part of the article subject more than the whole, and thus doesn't meet the "significantly" part of WP:NFCC#8. Otherwise the image placement and stuff is fine. Source-wise: Are these Twitter accounts and Terasaki, Kimberly associated with the franchise? #58 and the sources under #70 throw an error message that must be suppressed. The bibliography seems reliable, while the rest of the sourcing is conditional, so to speak, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. One thing that jumps out to me is that we don't have much description of her appearance, even though there are one or two paragraphs discussing the reception of her appearance. Also, the games themselves aren't cited as sources anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Jojo. Just a comment about the FU image. I proposed it at the peer review because the 1.5 concept art and the art for the model ultimately used shows some shifts in the character from "Linda" to "Ada". The left image shows the researcher design, including an Umbrella logo on the jacket, while the right image shows her in the design that was ultimately used. A similar comparison FU image is used at Jill Valentine, though in that case the image highlights a particular outfit rather than two iterations of the character.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus The two twitter sources are associated to the franchise like Vicky voiced her in DBD, while the terasaki source supports the claim that Sally Cahill vliced RE2, RE4 and RE Dark Chronicles. I don't understand why the sources at #58 and #70 are error to you since it was sourced fine; I don't know what needs to "suppressed" with that (You need to clarify what it is since other editors didn't spot any error at those sources at all). Also, there's nothing more that can be found to add about her description and most of it are now already at the "appearances section" and there are some games are cited like who designed her appearance. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" warning at 58 and 70. My question about the Twitter sources was more what makes them reliable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" at us from our POV? (I also asked my conom if he saw the "error" or "harv warning", but nope) Also, the Twitter sources came from the voice actors themselves (Other FA also uses that kind of tweet as a source), so I will say that they're fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's a function on which userscripts one has. I also note that archiving Google Books links is pointless. Did some spotchecking, nothing jumped out to me but I must stress that I don't have much confidence in my assessments of the reliability of typical video game sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When I use the sources, I did make sure to check it first at WP:VG/RS before using it. I will say all of them are reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are they high-quality, though? That's a bit of a tougher question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Yes. I did not include any inconclusive sources. The 2 sources of TheGamer are the only ones that may be controversial cause its Valnet, but it says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." + that sources were also used in the recent promoted article Raichu. So, it will be fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check
[edit]

Reviewing this version: * 4 Do the games and commentary name Taylor as the voice actor?

Yes 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.
ref 10 supports the first sentence, while 42 at the second sentence. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this was removed wholesale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 OK
  • 12 Seems redundant to 11
Removed it 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)
Still there, seems like. Also "portrayed Ada in the live-action film" appears twice, perhaps it can be reworded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus reworded, and the current source for ref 12 os different now and the Complex source was already removed. The current source for ref 12 supports the voice being dubbed in Japanese, aswell as the promoting thing from Li. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 I am not sure which part of 17 or 20 supports this.
17 supports everything, while I did replaced the source 20 into Digital trend to support the claim where Wesker sent Ada to steal the virus. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Los Iluminados" doesn't appear anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ehh, it is mentioned in the ref 17. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you ctrl + f it, but in their website they double spelled the "L", which it was written as "Los Illuminados". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, the article might need correction then. Also, does the cult use the parasite, is it infected by it, or both? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus the IGN articles does not us since they are spled correctlt. Also, both. They are infected and does contain the Las plagas parasite and often used it like for ex. when you blow up their head the giant parasite emerged and attacks protagonist. Is this aye already since this is the last one? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the source, it doesn't seem clear that the cult is using the parasite, instead of merely being its victim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Sorry for confusing you. I did ask RE fans at discord and they were right that the cult was only infected, and they didn't "use" for parasite since the creature is already controlling when they were infected. So, they didn't use them but was only infected and being controlled by the Las plagas parasite. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3rd party comment) Referring to the primary source (i.e., RE4), every villager met by Leon and Ada has a Las Plagas parasite in them ("infected"). Three leaders (Saddler, Mendez, and Saddler) have a "higher breed" of parasite that allows them to control others infected by Las Plagas. They also "use" Las Plagas to infect others; Saddler's ultimate goal is to infect Ashley (who is implanted with a parasite about midway through the game) and have her infect her father, the President, thereby allowing him to control the United States through him. This is consistent in both the original RE4 and in the remake. So, based on the games, "infected" (as per Ref 17) and "used" (which doesn't seem to be in the sources used) are both correct. That being said, I agree that we need a source that explicitly says "use" if we're going to use that word.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its hard to find and verify that claim that they "used" the parasite. I reworded it now to only "Infected" Since most of the cult were also victims and were just infected only. Update, we decided to reword it and doesnt mention "infected" or "used" anymore. I reworded it into simply into "from the los Illuminados cult". User:Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any update to this? ( your final concern) . User:Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.
I will say this source definitely support the claim and was spotchecked by Vacant before web.archive.org was taken down. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 OK
  • 31 Doesn't appear in article.
Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32 OK
  • 35 OK
  • 41 That Resident Evil: City of the Dead is a book is somewhat implicit here rather than explicit.
Eh, I just ended up removing the sentencr, but she still appears so her being mentioned appearing at novelization would be fine. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 OK
  • 47 The Linda part is supported by 48? Not sure what it supports in the other sentences.
"Ada was initially conceived as an Umbrella researcher named Linda" is supported by ref 48, while ref 47 support the rest 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask for a quote on #48?
Replaced it into Bloody Disgusting as a source just in case you're gonna doubt about it since I cannot access to that book. Bloody Disgusting still confirm that Ada was linda in the early concept, which it says that Linda was renamed as Ada in the final version. Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50 Don't have access.
It's in the end of game's credit scene. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.
It just supports her appearance in the "Separate Ways". Thats it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 56 Don't have access.
Download it at libgen website. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Library Genesis seems questionable, legally speaking. I am a little uncomfortable with sourcing something to pirated text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry for suggesting you about this as a source reviewer. I was able to download/receive books from other users after making request at resource. I've already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid that the emails did not include any content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus its in the second email. I already emailed you again for 3rd time now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 60 Don't have access.
For you to see at twitter [43] 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why that would be a reliable source, and it only supports part of the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus made a comment. If you can't access books then you download it from libgen website for free. About books, I was able to borrow/receive them from anotherr user via email after requesting at resource. Can I maybe take a screenshot and email it to you??? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 and 24, can I have a second pair of eyes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus about ref 24, this was the content fron a separate ways Ive taken to that website.

GI: Let’s talk about Separate Ways. Was this your idea? How it all come about?

Kawata: Actually while we were thinking about the game itself we realized that the development time was actually very long and we wanted to add something to the game more than just porting it. We wanted to really add something to the game and one of the things we realized was that Ada shows up in the game later but you don’t know much about her and she’s a very strong character and she deserves to really stand out in the game. So we really wanted to give her that side story in order to let her stand out the way she should have in the game

. I ended up removing the ref 10 and 40 aswell due their source problem I guess, its a Japanese full text and it might be a questionable source while archive org is still down. I've also already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus can you update? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. @FAC coordinators: It seems like everything have been strucked and finished now (His final concern has been addressed [44]. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panini!

[edit]

I workshopped some of this article with (if your username were to be shortened, would you rather be called just "Boneless" or just "Pizza"?), including a peer review. My main gripe was the reception section, but this recent version is written very wonderfully, with its detailed critical opinions and comparisons to stereotypes and popular genres. I'm not a character guy, but I think you nailed it; really! My other concerns have been picked up prior to FAC. I Support this article. Panini! • 🥪 21:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ada is hired by an unnamed organization to steal the G-virus mutagen developed by the Umbrella Corporation, a pharmaceutical company responsible for a zombie outbreak in the fictional American metropolitan area of Raccoon City. I really like this summary in particular
    Thanks for being sincere(if my username were to be shortened, I think it would be best to be called "Boneless" or just "BP" lol), that summary was made/copyedited by JokEobard wonderfully. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

I had a chance to re-read this article. It was already very close not long ago. It has improved significantly, and I can support the prose as being featured quality. Great work. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kung Fu Man

[edit]

Tossing my support, but two suggestions with one purpose: I feel the note section is unnecessary:

  • It should be fine to include the nihongo in the lead per other article. While I recognize Jill deviates from that, it's kind of an exception.
  • For the Dead by Daylight reference, there's really no need to make a special note for the Resident Evil crossover, as others such as Knives Out came out years after the game's release also. Simply putting the reference itself in place of the note should suffice.

With these two small changes, the notes section can be removed for easier reading.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tintor2

[edit]

Just like in the previous nomination, I think Boneless Pizza did a good work with Ada but I think he improved on it thanks to the fact the article provides more coverage about her other appearances like the making of the character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [45].

Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the disastrous loss of the entire Taxi Driver collection to, er, negligence, McQueen was still uncertain about launching his own label. After some dithering, he gathered up every odd and end he'd created since then and put them together in the primal scream that was Nihilism. Not yet capable of the sweeping narratives that would characterise his later career, and on a budget of approximately zero, he went for pure shock tactics. Models smeared in filth and fake blood stalked down the runway, wrapped in cling film, breasts and genitals flashing. The audience was struck dumb and even photographers quit snapping, aghast at the sight. Reviews were mixed, with many accusing McQueen of misogyny while others recognized the burgeoning talent beneath the gore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi ♠PMC♠, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

The logo is in public domain per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_originality. The other two images are licensed under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0. All images have captions and alt texts. They are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. The description on the wiki commons page of "File:Nihilism from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg" should be updated: it listed 5 items but the image is a cropped version that only shows one item. I'm confused since the wiki commons description says "Savage Beauty exhibition, 2011" but our caption says "2015 staging". The file was uploaded in 2011 so that date is probably correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

I looked through the prose and sources during the GAN review. I think a secondary source review is in order for FAC, but I can definitely Support on prose here; this is an extremely solid and thorough article. I noticed a couple cites were out of order, so I went ahead and fixed those. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, suggestions not demands, etc. etc.

  • Only one clothing-related image is annoyingly little. Some of your other McQueen FAs have images illustrating inspirations or resemblances; is that not possible here? Or you could argue for fair use for an image from the show, like the one on Watt 2012 p. 60. Would really help people like myself.
    • Yeah, the lack of images for early McQueen is very frustrating. It's early enough that a lot of it isn't uploaded online, and what is is so rare that people aren't willing to free license it. (Or they've abandoned whatever Flickr account and aren't responding to comments). I think you're right in saying a fair use runway one could be justified, I've added one from Fairer's book.
  • "Quest for Fire (1981), famous 18th century" shouldn't there be a "the" before famous?
    • There should and now there is :)
  • "There was a degree of primitivism" slightly unfocused phrasing, maybe "it featured" or similar?
    • Added
  • When you say "beetle blood", does it literally mean the blood of beetles? How many beetles do you need to squish to get a usable amount of blood? Also, link shellac?
    • Huh! You know, I think that must have been a typo in the original book that I just blindly replicated without really thinking about it. I've removed the whole quote rather than worry about it, and wound up reorganizing the whole section a little because it was getting on my nerves.
  • The fourth paragraph of "Runway show" feels like it belongs in the previous subsection, and indeed duplicates some content from its last paragraph.
    • It is a little repetitive, but the distinction is in the clothing in itself vs in the way the models were presented on the runway. I've made some changes that hopefully make it more distinct:
      • revised the opening to remove the duplicative wording
      • moved the cling film sentence and the androgynous model sentences into this para to beef it up a little
      • reordered the paragraph to flow with the opening sentence, so we move from the wet t-shirt effect (thin fabric) to the revealing silhouettes, which hopefully makes the logic clearer
  • "Many models were wrapped in cling film because McQueen and Niland realised at the last minute that there was no budget to purchase underwear for them." How does cling film ... help?
    • Ahahaha, I wondered about that myself. It's hard to see in the videos of the runway show, and they don't go into more detail in that source, so I'm guessing here, but I think... picture wrapping something a bunch of times, untidily so the plastic crinkles up a bit. It doesn't become completely opaque, but it obscures what's underneath. They weren't hugely worried about being modest.
  • "She wrote: "Themes of anxiety and distress continue to be combined with a latent sexuality in his work."" little confused about the tenses
    • Arnold was writing in 1999 when McQueen was still active, so for her it was the present tense. I've expanded a bit though because I think I wasn't as clear about her point as I could have been
  • "Press coverage continued to be mostly appalled" for how long? did it ever stop?
    • Oop, this was intended as a continuation of the prev sentence about the next few collections. I've combined the sentences; they shared a ref anyway.
      McQueen's relationship with the press was always messy. For his early career, reviews almost always boiled down to something like "he's talented, but he should stop being so fucked-up". That persisted until roughly Joan, where he got into performance art and the press started declaring that he'd ~matured~. The "talented but fucked-up" response was no longer the default, but it resurfaced whenever he got up to Antics™, which was pretty often throughout the rest of his career, up to and including his last collection in life.

Very tight article. Nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I am uncertain about this part from the lead, (in March 1993 London). I have not seen the month and year used as a descriptor before, and while I understand it makes the prose more concise, it does strike me as a bit odd. It could just be me though.
    • Not just you at all, it's a typo that snuck through GA. Good catch :)
  • When referencing the locusts in the lead, I think it would be best to clarify that they were dead, just to specify to readers who may be uncertain if they were even real in the first place or somehow were alive.
    • Done
  • I think a cellophane link would be helpful, especially since other materials, such as chiffon, latex, and plastic wrap, are linked.
    • Also done
  • Why is The 120 Days of Sodom described as "famous" while Quest for Fire and National Geographic are not? I would understand the inclusion if there was a focus on how well-known The 120 Days of Sodom is, but that does not appear to be the case so in my opinion, it sticks out as unnecessary and could be removed without losing any meaning.
    • Hmm fair enough, removed
  • In the "Collection" subsection, latex is linked twice.
    • Oop, yes
  • There is a bit of a tense issue in the "Production details" subsection for the parts on Niland. There is an instance of the present tense with "recalls" and it then shifts to the past tense with "described". Most of the prose is in past tense so this could have just been a typo or something missed during writing and revision.
    • I somehow manage to do this at least once per article, thanks for catching it.
  • I am guessing that this information is not available, but do we know why the show started 30 minutes late?
    • It doesn't say in this case

I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times, but I highly doubt that I will find anything further. Wonderful work as always, and good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

To follow - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 3 – should be pp, not p
  • FN 54 should be p, not pp
    • Both fixed

Otherwise, all sources are reliable and appropriate, the formatting consistent and in line with recommended guidelines and practice. I've run some additional searches, and no higher standard of source came out; no additional information or aspects for examination were located. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to 'pass the source review
SC prose review
  • "which at the time had": I'm not sure you need "at the time": it's all in the past tense anyway
    • Removed
  • "Many accused McQueen of misogyny, a characterisation to which he consistently objected": I think you may need to expand this slightly. "Many accused McQueen of misogyny" is referring solely to this one-off event "he consistently objected" relates to an ongoing rejection from McQueen. I think you just need to add something about the accusation being repeated after other shows for 'consistently' to work. (Ditto in the reception section – although as you repeat this in the Analysis section, I'm not sure the reference in the Reception section is needed)
    • Yes, you're right. I've expanded on this a bit, how's the wording?
  • I hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All good from me - happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [46].

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is the only non-Bond novel that Ian Fleming wrote. He did so shortly after suffering a heart attack and while he was supposed to be convalescing. Although he planned to release a story a year, he never saw this first one published, dying two months before it hit the shops. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Had my say at the peer review, and on rereading for FAC I see nothing to add. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments - they were much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Oh, I loved this movie growing up!
  • cliff hanger - just to confirm, no hyphen in the original?
    There isn't, but as we're able to make minor typographical corrections, and as it's hyphenated few words later, I've added one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been any commentary on how subsequent adaptations have abandoned the novel's names and styling for the film's (as in the sequels being Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and not Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang)?
    Nothing at all - they just disappeared without anyone saying anything. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roald Dahl - If I remember my history correctly, he and Ian Fleming had been friends. Is there any discussion of this, and the role of their friendship in his adaptation of the novel? (And, of course, would it be a weight issue if anything were included here?)
    There is passing reference to the fact they knew each other, but nothing about any possible impact it had on Dahl's work. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some small edits; please review.

Overall, nothing but nit-picks from me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris, much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

[edit]

I'm an uncultured millennial who's never seen the movie or read the book, but put me down for a review nonetheless :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the story was one that he had created for his son, Caspar, as a bedtime story" - could probably simplify to "he had created it as a bedtime story for his son, Caspar" or similar
  • Since you're linking other things in the synopsis, perhaps also touring car and bonnet (car)
  • "that character James Bond" reads a bit awkwardly. "the character" maybe?
  • " six-cylinder aero-engine from Maybach. The engines" singular, then plural
  • "One important aspect of the car was its sound, which was "almost as important as the appearance"," bit redundant, this sentence could be simplified
  • 2nd para of Critical reception overuses "avuncular" a bit, can it be written around?
  • In the same para, sentences 2 and 3 both start with "X praised"
  • "Three sequels to the book have been written by Frank Cottrell-Boyce." Passive voice here
    I think it's okay in this context - the subject is the book, so we focus on that first, rather than the writer. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might reorganize the Adaptations section a bit. Right now, the first half of the para is about adaptations of the original, two contemporary and one 2011. Then the latter half is about the sequels. Then we jump back in time to 1968 to deal with the film, then we close out with the 2002 musical, which precedes the sequels.
    I was going (broadly) for 1. Books; 2. Film; 3. Play, rather than a chronological run-through, with the first para (broadly) about the Fleming story and follow-ons, and the other two paragraphs about the non-Fleming adaptations, but let me rework it a little and see if I can improve it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved to a strictly chronological runthrough now. How does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me, very little to pick at here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC, just a little nudge on this one - although no obligation to add a !vote either way if you don't want to. - SchroCat (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, sorry! For some reason I thought I had replied to this already. Looking good to me, I'm a support. (And I do intend to get to the libels GAN this week). (PS, if you have time, I could use some more eyes at the McQueen Nihilism FAC). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC. Nihilism is on my list, and I should be there in a couple of days at most. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Loved the book as a kid, but haven't thought about it for decades! Just a couple of things:

  • "to necessitate hospitalisation and convalescence, which Fleming undertook at the Dudley Hotel in Hove" it's a bit unclear whether the hotel was the site of hospitalisation and convalescing, or just the latter. Also, "undertook" is a bit clumsy, would personally simplify to "hospitalisation, after which Fleming convalesced at the Dudley..." or similar.
  • That paragraph in particular contains so many "Fleming"s that my brain has done the thing where it starts considering a word as a collection of letters instead of an actual word, but I'm not sure if you can remove any and retain intelligibility. See what you think.
  • Why does the article primarily use Trog and not Fawkes?
I think he's probably better known as Trog (at least in the UK), as that's his common professional name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Nice article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks AirshipJungleman29. The first two points sorted (although let me know about the second of them) and the third answered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work which I gladly support. (If you have the time/inclination, any comments on another FAC of mine would be much appreciated.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this. I shall certainly pop round Chagatai Khan shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Is "The Man who Supercharged Bond: The Extraordinary Story of Charles Amherst Villiers." cited by anyone? That ISBN also says that it was published in 2010, not 2009. I am pretty sure I have reviewed the other sources here already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's cited by anyone (at least, not on the searches I have done). The book itself says 2009 on the imprint page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "whistle-like sweets". What does this mean? A few words of explanation would be helpful.
  • "the author Ian Fleming had published nine books". "The author" is superfluous and he was the author not the publisher.
  • "Legal difficulties before publication lead to a hearing". led rather than lead?
  • Illustrations. More details of the illustrations would be interesting.
    They would, but none of the sources deal with them as art, just the background on Burningham being used, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication history - maybe add the number of pages in the three volumes and the single volume.
  • In the lead you say the radio version was on Radio 4 Extra, in the main text Radio 7
  • A first rate article - just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, as always Dudley; these have all been dealt with (with the one exception) in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [47].

Cherry-throated tanager

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the word's most endangered birds, with currently only 20 individuals known. I was able to get permission to use three photographs; previously we didn't had a single one. The article just passed a detailed GA review (thanks to User:Esculenta), and I now believe it is ready. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added.
Added, thanks --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there some sort of link that could be provided for nape? This seems to be referring to a specific part of the bird. I looked at Glossary of bird terms, but there's no entry for nape there.
I just added the respective entry to the glossary, but also explained the term directly in-text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Mata de Caetas? Is this is a forest, a settlement, etc.?
Mata is Portuguese for forest. I now added a translation, both to the first image caption and to the first mention in the text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be in good shape from a non-expert perspective; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: that's the last of my concerns sorted. Great article: stylish, clearly well researched and eminently readable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to find much to complain about -- admittedly, I'm not an ornithologist, but this certainly seems like a clear, authoritative and polished article.

Cool, many thanks for the review! I addressed everything as best as I could:
  • The cherry-throated tanager belongs to the tanager family Thraupidae and is thought to be most closely related to the only other member of its genus, the hooded tanager, though this has yet to be confirmed by genetic analysis. : consider breaking this long sentence after Thraupidae.
Done.
  • The cherry-throated tanager is a distinctive bird: what does distinctive mean here? Aren't most birds distinctive (at least to bird lovers) in the sense that they have characteristic features that can be easily recognised?
I added "visually distinctive", if that helps? Most birds are less easy to identify than this one, and some have a totally nondescript plumage and can only be identified based on sound.
  • The undersides are white, contrasting brilliantly with the red patch.: brilliantly reads to me as an aesthetic term rather than a descriptive one: strongly?
Yes, that's better, changed.
  • tarsus (lower "leg"): why the quote marks here?
Because it only looks like the lower leg, but in fact it is part of the foot (the upper thigh in birds is usually not visible, it has a horizontal orientation and is hidden in the plumage below the belly).
  • Would be good to find some other solution than scare quotes: perhaps a footnote if nothing else? Mind you, a lot of sources seem to describe it as part of the leg (the body part of the same name in humans is the ankle, which can be considered part of either). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "the lowest, featherless part of the leg". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We clarify that the Atlantic Forest is in Brazil on first mention in the lead, but not in the body.
The Atlantic Forest is not restricted to Brazil, we only say that the tanager is restricted to the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Do you think we should add more background on the extent of the forest?
I think that would help, and consider rephrasing the lead to something like "Brazilian areas of the Atlantic Forest": "the Atlantic Forest of Brazil" reads as if the forest itself is of or somehow belongs to Brazil (cf. "the Pacific Ocean of China", "the Alps of France", "the Danube of Hungary" -- none of those sound quite right to me). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added, and wrote "the Atlantic Forest in Brazil" instead of "of Brazil". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dense Ombrophyllous Montane Forest, a type of Atlantic Forest: I don't think the second capitals are right here: something can't be a type of a proper noun ("a type of Atlantic Ocean", "a type of Berwick-upon-Tweed"). Perhaps "Dense Ombrophyllous Montane Forest, characterized by tall trees with abundant epiphytes, which is found in [certain areas of?] the Atlantic Forest"?
Right, done.
  • the species' ecology: MOS:' (I think) advises "the ecology of the species" in this scenario.
Fixed, together with another similar case.
  • whereas Nova Friburgo is from a different mountain range: part of?
Of course, yes.
  • It was often observed that one of the flock members sat higher and was noisier than the others, for unclear reasons: why the past tense here? "Has been"?
Changed.
  • Parasites are unknown: does this mean "we never find them with parasites" ("antisocial behaviour is unknown in Singapore") or "we don't know which parasites they have"?
The latter. Hope I made that clearer now.
  • Three additional nests have been found until 2020: had been found by 2020?
Yes, fixed.
  • Brettas' sketch: MOS:' prefers Brettas's sketch.
Changed.
  • a 2005 study deemed this relatively optimistic estimate to be "premature".: MOS:QUOTEPOV would advise dropping the quotes here.
Dropped.
  • The extraction of heart of palm (Euterpe edulis) leads to additional forest degradation. The species is particularly susceptible: as we've just introduced a new species, clarify that we're back to the birds.
Done.
  • Cherry-throated Tanager Conservation Program: no capital on Throated?
MOS:TITLE has this: "Follow the majority usage in independent, reliable sources for any given subject (e.g. The Out-of-Towners but The History of Middle-earth). If neither spelling is clearly dominant in sources, default to lowercase after a hyphen […]." The spelling used in the article is how the project spells it themselves.
A Google search returns three pages of results, but none of the hits has "throated" capitalised. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was tested if the birds could be supported with extra food: I don't quite understand what we're imagining here. Why wouldn't it be possible to feed the birds?
There are many risks here that could make such an endeavour counter-productive. I reformulated it: and supplemental feeding of mealworms has been tried
  • and in 2021, the team published an action plan for the conservation of the species: I think this would be clearer if we shifted in 2021 to the end and lost the comma.
Done.
  • There are proposals to develop ecotourism around the tanager, which could potentially benefit local communities.: and, based on what we said above, risk wiping it out? The sequencing here might need another look.
I reformulated: "Tourism targeting the species can be problematic if sound recordings are used excessively to attract the birds." This should make clear that ecotourism can work without playback of sound recordings, and is not necessarily problematic for this reason.
  • and to build pride of local communities in their natural heritage: this isn't quite idiomatic: instil pride in local communities about...? But then it reads as slightly woolly to me: I'd be happier if we could demonstrate some concrete outcome in this direction.
I tried "and to foster pride within local communities for their natural heritage", hoping that's better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you really feel pride for something (unless perhaps we mean feeling pride vicariously when another person has achieved something: 'her mother was proud for her when she passed the exam'), but you do feel pride in it or about it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reverted to "in". Or maybe "and to encourage local communities to take pride in their natural heritage", if that's better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works, but again I have very mild concerns that it's a bit meaningless: it reads like something you'd get in a presentation from the people running such an initiative. What does it look like, concretely? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen of removing the part about the flagship species, as I think that this is crucial information. The sentence in question describes precisely what a flagship species is supposed to do: One species that people can relate to, so that they care about conservation. Without support from the local populace, long-term conservation cannot work, it is an integral part, so I think we have to mention it. What such outreach looks like concretely you can see in their newsletter (e.g., [48]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you were asking for something concrete, the discovery of populations of a critically endangered catfish is a direct result of the tanager flagship species program, as discussed here [49]. The catfish is briefly mentioned, but I could make a separate sentence out of it, if you think that's necessary to make the point? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no -- I have no problem with the flagship species idea; my issue is the claim that it's "encouraging" local communities to take pride in the natural stuff around them. The doctor can encourage me to exercise more and eat less, but that doesn't necessarily mean I do it, or that the encouragement makes any difference to anything we both care about. If there's a nice link to be drawn that says "people said they were inspired by their pride in the cherry-throated tanager to go and look for other endangered species, and ended up finding an endangered catfish", that would solve the problem nicely. Similarly, if there has been a media campaign costing X thousand dollars to promote the image of the bird, that would also be a good thing to hang the statement on. This is a case where I'm not sure WP:ABOUTSELF sources are great, because we need some external measure of whether the encouragement a) meaningfully exists and b) is actually important enough to make WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely rewritten that part, please see if that's better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

I should try doing a source review for a biological article for a change. The sources here look high quality for the subject; almost everything is cited to academic publications, whether that be reports or journals. I checked the two Saíra News ones that gave me pause; its a newsletter of the research institute, which fits for an ABOUTSELF statement on that land acquisition and the very unlikely to be challenged news about the aracaris preying on the nest.

Citations are consistently laid out, and use RPs for multipage articles. There were a couple situations where cited were in the wrong order; I resolved these. Seems good to go for me; Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I made a few minor copyedits; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • "This increased to 20 individuals by the end of 2023, probably thanks to increased conservation efforts at Mata de Caetés, which at that time probably had 15 individuals": I think we need a date instead of "at that time", since otherwise this seems to say that there were both 15 and 20 individuals at the same time. I thought the intended meaning might be 2020, as mentioned in the previous sentence, but that can't be the case as only 10 individuals were known then.
Yes, both refer to 2023: 15 individuals in the Mata de Caetés, and the remaining five in the other reserve, therefore 20 in todal. I hopefully made this clearer now.
  • The first paragraph of the "Population status and threats" section isn't strictly chronological; I think it would read more naturally if it were.
Made it chronological now.
  • "the relatively large Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve might potentially house yet undetected birds": "might" is redundant with "potentially"; perhaps "has the potential to house"?
I went with "it is possible" to make clear that this is merely speculation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only issues I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike! All comments addressed so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga

[edit]


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2024 [50].

Freston (causewayed enclosure)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Neolithic site in England, this one being investigated by a Canadian research team, for some reason; only one excavation so far, so not a lot of findings to report, which is a pity as there's a possible Neolithic longhouse or Anglo-Saxon hall in part of the site, which I'm sure the team are keen to get to. The article has had a very helpful pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

[edit]

very exciting, always happy to see archaeology at FAC! i can commit to a review for this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

initial suggestions/comments:

overall the prose and such is great, not many issues at all. i think i'll do a source review for this as well - if i've not done that by sunday, ping me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source review
[edit]

in terms of source quality, no complaints. especially for more rural/"obscure" sites like this, these (archaeological journals, books/chapters from university presses, government trust reports, &c.) are definitely the best kinds of sources one can find. if necessary i have real-life access to most of these, but not immediately on my laptop.

comments:

  • Palmer (1976) is referenced but not listed in the bibliography. as far as i can tell, this is the only citation with this issue

a spot-check is probably unnecessary what with how many FAs you have, but just for good measure:

  • 10 (Curwen 1930) - good
  • 14a (Carter et al. 2021) - good
  • 20 (Martin 2007) - good, quote matches up
  • 32 (Wilson 1975) - good
  • 47 (Schofield et al. 2021) - good
  • 49 (Carter et al. 2021) - good

... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- have fixed Palmer. I can send you a copy of Curwen if you need it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sorry lol i forgot to put the "good" down for Curwen initially. now that we have Palmer 1976, support. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Another archaeology one, I'll be sure to review soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for how long it took to get to this; work got busiser than I expected.
Supporting, I read through it and had no concerns from a non-expert perspective. Hog Farm Talk 22:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HF; I appreciate the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Just some random comments for now.

  • Freston is a causewayed enclosure,[4] a form of earthwork that was built in northwestern Europe, including the southern British Isles, in the early Neolithic period. I'd drop "including the southern British Isles". It's a long complicated sentence, and given that the entire article is about something in the southern British Isles, that goes without saying.]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms does the source actually say they're difficult to explain, or is that you editorializing?
    The sources do make this point. For example, Cunnington says "It is very difficult to see why the frequent openings in the entrenchment should have been left, when apparently they must weaken it so materially, if it was intended for purposes of defence ... [one theory is] that they had some distinct purpose in the scheme of defence; that they were, indeed, a strengthening and not a weakening factor in this seemingly not very strongly-defended place". She goes on to give other possibilities, including the sally port suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also evidence that they played a role in funeral rites, you need to go back to the previous paragraph to be sure what "they" is referring to; probably better to be more specific here.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • material such as food, pottery, and human remains was deliberately deposited I think this is grammatically correct in a strict way, but it reads funny. The subject of "was" is "material", so it's correct to use the singular form of the verb, but at first scan you see "human remains was" which is jarring. Can this be rephrased to avoid that?
    Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were built in a single operation what evidence is there for this? I assume the source says so, but enquiring readers will want more.
    The source doesn't say so -- the statement comes in the concluding summary of an article about causewayed enclosures, and doesn't cite a source or give more explanations. I think the source is strong enough to include this, even without further explanation, though I agree I'd like to be able to say more on the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since these are found in both continental Europe and the British Isles, the obvious question is how did they get across the water, by whom, and when, and in which direction? I see you touch on this briefly at the ends of the "Background" and "Site" sections, but I think it deserves going into more and earlier in the article.
    I'm not sure I agree -- this is an article about a specific causewayed enclosure, after all, not about the whole class of causewayed enclosures. There's already a fair bit of text in the article that is not specific to this particular site (compare Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) and you'll see what I mean) and I'd rather not go further in that direction if I don't have to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enclosure is 8.55 ha (21.1 acres) in area, "in area" is redundant.
    That was added in the pre-FAC review on the article talk page, so I'd like to leave it there and see if other reviewers have an opinion one way or another. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four sherds of pottery were found link sherds -> Glossary of archaeology#potsherd
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All responded to; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments...

  • The Discovery, fieldwalking, and watching briefs section starts out a bit oddly with it not being found in 1944. I'd lead with the key idea, i.e. "The site was discovered in 1969", and then fill in the details about it not being found on earlier photos. Any idea why it wasn't seen in the 1944 photos? Were the 1969 images higher quality? It's also not clear what happened between 1966 and 1969; was there was one set of photos in 1966 and another set in 1969, or were the 1966 photos re-examined three years later using better techniques?
    I can do this if you really think it's necessary, but I like the directly chronological approach, rather than having to step back in time in the second sentence to 1944. To answer your question, the source says there was no sign of earthworks or cropmarks. The article says further down that the earthworks were long gone by the 20th century, and cropmarks are often only visible in very dry conditions, so if the 1944 photos were taken when it wasn't very dry the cropmarks would not have been there. The 1966 photos were taken for the Ordnance Survey and not as part of a search for cropmarks, and nobody noticed the evidence on them. At some point, no later than 1995, someone went back and looked for earlier photos and found the 1966 ones, and realized that the site was identifiable if anyone had paid attention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be outside the scope of WP:FACR, but I wonder if just plain Freston causewayed enclosure would be a better title, per WP:PARENDIS? Looking at Category:Causewayed enclosures I see people have done it both ways, so no strong feeling either way here.
    The sources don't tend to append "causewayed enclosure" to the name, which is why I haven't named the articles I've written that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a group from McMaster University organized ... a pedestrian survey This is in the lead, but I don't see anything in the body that talks about a pedestrian survey. Or is this what you refer to as "fieldwalking"? If so, it would be helpful to non-expert readers (like me!) to either use the same term in both places, or explain the linkage.
    Added "(surveying the site on foot)" after the first use in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freston is about 13 km (8 mi) from the sea; it would have been about 18 km (11 mi) from the sea at the start of the Neolithic. Why did this change by 5km? I'm guessing rising sea levels, but it would be good to explain that.
    The source doesn't say but it's sure to be sea level changes. I can probably find a source that says something about sea levels in the Neolithic, and might be able to use that, but I'm slightly hesitant about possible synth problems. I'll see what I can find and will report back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first look didn't come up with anything I can cite, but this does imply that sea level is the reason -- the North Sea was low enough for Doggerbank to be above water only 2,000 years before the enclosure at Freston was constructed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Good to see this here. I will chip in, though it might be wise to wait until we have a few more reviews (as I left comments on a recent draft): let me know if a good moment comes up, otherwise I'll keep my eye on the page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I think this would be a good time if you have more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and you shall receive...
  • near the village of Freston, in Suffolk, England: since we've got the in, we don't want the preceding comma.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from shortly before 3700 BC until at least 3500 BC: consider from shortly before 3700 until...: the one BC can cover both, especially as there's not yet been an AD 3700.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Freston enclosure was first identified from cropmarks in aerial photographs in 1969: consider first identified in 1969: I think it's neater and more grammatical, and clarifies that the identification was in 1969, not (just) the photographs. Nit-picking, but I don't think we actually say this in the body: we have In 1969 J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years, took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site, but that doesn't actually confirm that anyone noticed that the photographs showed those cropmarks.
    The wording in the source is slightly odd: Dyer says (after mentioning the earlier photographs) "The site is generally accepted as being discovered in 1969 during an aerial reconnaissance flight by St Joseph when the site was first intentionally recorded by photography". I think the most natural way to interpret this is that St Joseph's was looking for sites, saw the cropmarks, and hence took a picture, but the "generally accepted" gives me pause enough to have prevented me making that statement directly in the article. The body does currently say "was not discovered until 1969", which I think does mean it was discovered in 1969, but if you think the source wording is definite enough I could reword. Perhaps "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks, and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time. The site was discovered in 1969 by J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years; he identified it on a reconnaissance flight that year and took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that source definitely puts the identification in 1969, so how about "first identified in 1969, from cropmarks..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in the lead. After thinking about it some more I've made the change I proposed above in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cropmarks show an enclosure with two circuits of ditches, and a palisade that ran between the two ditches: between the two circuits? We imply that there may have been more than one ditch in a circuit (which seems to be true, from the map)
    Done; also in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a link to Survey (archaeology) on "pedestrian survey" and to Geophysical survey (archaeology) on "geophysical survey".
    Both added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other finds included oak charcoal fragments that suggested the palisade had been made of oak: how about oak charcoal fragments, believed to come from the palisade? Seems to be stating the obvious at the moment.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of attacks at some sites provided support for the idea that the enclosures were fortified settlements.: hm -- there's pretty good evidence of attacks at Omaha beach, but I'm not sure that provides any evidence that it was a settlement. Perhaps a problem for the sources rather than the article, as long as those are unequivocal that fortification implies settlement status.
    The section of Whittle et al. that I am citing is an overview of causewayed enclosures in Britain; this particular paragraph starts by talking about the long history of multiple interpretations for them. After going through some of the assertions about them having been settlements, they say "Fortifications and defence, originally inferred from superficial similarity to Iron Age hillforts, returned to the fore in the 1980s with evidence for hostilities at sites such as Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire and Hambledon Hill in Dorset", and they cite the articles in which those suggestions were made. I've been taking this sequence as arguing that the fortifications were of the settlements just discussed, but perhaps that's reading too much into the sequence of presentation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I'm not seeing that from what you've written, but then you're looking at the source and I'm not. Is anything lost from cutting settlements here, and developing the two strands separately? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut it and tweaked a little -- I agree they don't have to be connected. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • used for trading cattle or other goods such as pottery: more importantly, its contents, surely? Again, a sources problem rather than an article one, I suspect.
    This is from later in the same summarizing section that I mentioned just above; I'm attempting to summarize a broad-ranging pageful of speculation (though I see that one of the relevant sentences actually starts on the previous page, so I'll amend the citation to say that). Here the relevant bits are "A role in animal herding, prompted by [various evidence] ... The frequency of pottery and lithics from remote sources, sometimes of finer quality and manufacture than local products, suggested that causewayed enclosures were foci for the exchange, consumption and deposition of significant objects ... [After suggesting that a family might have lived in an enclosure] The territory would provide most of the essential resources, such as ... [some] would be obtained by exchange with other groups ..." I picked cattle and pottery as representative examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you've got is reasonable, though perhaps gives more weight to the pottery than is due: as I read the source quoted, the point is that we can see the pottery and the lithics, and therefore infer that there were also other, similarly-valuable goods being passed around that are no longer archaeologically visible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut the examples and left it as just "trading"; I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as they were built in a single operation: consider as the enclosures were built...: it's been a while since we had the antecedent of they.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance", according to English Heritage.: do EH (or Historic England, as they now are) elaborate on why this would be so?
    All Martin says is "Two large pits recorded between the structure and enclosure ditches could be either Saxon Sunken Featured Buildings (SFBs) or relate to the Neolithic ditches (Hegarty and Newsome 2004, 66). Either date for the building would make it of potentially national importance." Carter quotes Martin, saying "In either instance it can be viewed as a structure ‘of potentially national importance’ (Martin 2007, 1), given the rarity of such buildings; it would also represent one of the largest known examples of either category" and goes on to say how few causewayed enclosures have Neolithic longhouses inside their perimeter.
    Can we add some of this -- seems to be that the point is that either building would make it an important site on its own, since both are very rare? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time.: this is a little clumsy in phrasing, I think. Perhaps Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks; the site is partly visible in a second series of photographs taken in 1966, but was not noticed at the time.?
    Done, but rather than "second", which might imply to the reader that these were also RAF photographs, I've made it clear they were taken by the OS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the geophysics survey: usually on the geophysical survey, though admittedly most archaeologists would say geophys in person.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ditch probably predated the causewayed enclosure and may have been dug next to a long barrow, a form of Neolithic burial mound: is this the same mystery structure that might be an Early Medieval hall?
    No -- is this not clear? The building is in the northeast corner of the enclosure and this ditch runs from south of the trench, which is itself on the south side of the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably an artefact of me reading it in several parts, and slightly losing the track of where I was -- but perhaps there's room to idiot-proof it a bit more? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am struggling a bit to find a way to say this that isn't just "by the way, this thing isn't that other thing I mentioned earlier". I've added more text to the site image caption, mentioning the long barrow as a separate entity from the longhouse. Does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly -- I'm sure most readers will be far more switched-on than me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter title of Andersen 2015 is in title case: other book and journal chapter titles seem to be in sentence case. Is there a logic here?
    No, no logic! Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

With the caveats that I am neither an expert in neolithic structures nor a native speaker, I offer the following comments on prose. (My only somewhat relevant claim here is that I have been twice to Bury Ditches.)

That's all. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • The title looks wrong to me. Freston would normally mean the village rather than the site. Why not Freston causewayed enclosure without the brackets?
    You're the second person to suggest this; I'll move the article, but I'll wait till the FAC is closed to avoid causing a problem with FACbot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A cropmark is an area of a field in which the crops grow differently because of differences in the soil beneath them." This is not quite right as a general definition. Cropmarks often indicate buried walls rather than different soils.
    Added a comment about sunken walls. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a long barrow, a form of early Neolithic burial mound". This is the first use of the term early Neolithic. I think you either need to explain it or describe the site as early Neolithic in the first line of the lead, as you do in the first line of the main text.
    I'm not sure I follow you -- the body is more specific than the lead, after all. A lay reader may baulk at "Neolithic"; I don't want to qualify it further in the lead if I can avoid it, since "early Neolithic" won't help those readers, and just "Neolithic" isn't wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the largest causewayed enclosures known". In Britain or overall? The McMaster site at [51] describes it as "one of the largest Neolithic monuments in Britain".
    The sources only support Britain so I've changed this in the body and the lead; I suspect it is large compared to most of the ones in Europe too, but I don't have the sources to support that and can't remember where I saw it or thought I saw it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neolithic practices began to reach Britain in about 4050 BC". "Neolithic practices" is vague. As you will know, genetic evidence shows that it was Neolithic farmers who migrated to Britain at this time and replaced Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
    I could make it something like "Neolithic practices, such as pottery and farming, began to reach ..." but strictly this isn't in the source, which has "Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its proximity to the mainland, the initial colonisation (‘Earliest Neolithic’) appears to have entered southeast England around 4050 cal BC (Fig. 1). Neolithic subsistence and other practices thereafter moved into south central England (‘Early Neolithic’) by the second half of the 38th century cal BC". Of course this is a reference to the Neolithic "package" of various practices that all appeared at the same time, but I would have to add another reference for that, so long as we think it's not SYNTH to do so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the seafaring groups that crossed from mainland Europe". I have not come across "seafaring groups" in this context before. Do you mean that they were seafarers rather than farmers who migrated to Britain?
    No, it was just intended to say that they crossed by sea, so had to have some seafaring ability. I made it "the groups that crossed by sea from mainland Europe". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks". I thought cropmarks are normally only visible during droughts. Is this correct and could it be why they were not visible then?
    I think cropmarks can occasionally be visible other than in times of drought, but yes, my understanding is that drought is when you get to see them. Dyer doesn't say anything about the 1944 photos other than that the cropmarks are not visible, so I don't think I can say more, but presumably there was not a drought at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saxon sunken-featured buildings". Perhaps Anglo-Saxon is better. Saxon may refer to the Continental people.
    I'd like to stick with "Saxon" as that's how both the sources have it. Looking at Google Scholar it seems "Saxon" is at least as common as "Anglo-Saxon" when discussed these buildings. Perhaps they are also found on the continent so it's a term of art that is not restricted to Britain? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether to abbreviate and convert terms such as metre, e.g. 70 m (230 ft) but two metres. It is a matter of personal preference (I prefer always spelling out) but I think it is better to be consistent.
    Now consistent; I decided to abbreviate all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the final paragraph beginning "Radiocarbon" belongs in the 'Site' section.
    Moved. I'm not entirely sure about this, since the radiocarbon dates depend on the site finds, but I see why you suggest the move, and on balance I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first class archaeological article from Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! And thanks for the review; all responded to above with a couple of questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I don't have much.
  • "sally ports for defenders to emerge from and attack a besieging force.[note 2]" I feel the from in "emerge from" dangles a bit. Maybe "sally ports that defenders could emerge from and ..."
    I see your point; I made it "that defenders could emerge from to ...", which I hope connects the clauses smoothly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is also evidence that the enclosures played a role in funeral rites: food, pottery, and human remains have all been found deliberately deposited in the ditches.[11] The construction of these sites would have required substantial labour for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches, and would probably have been planned for some time in advance, as they were built in a single operation." The sentences of this paragraph don't feel connected, and the second sentence feels more general than the first. I guess I expect a paragraph to start with the general and work its way to the specific.
    The "also evidence" is meant to be a reference to the "Evidence of attacks" in the previous paragraph; I think this sentence was moved to the next paragraph to avoid a short paragraph of one sentence. I've moved it back and have now joined the remaining sentence with the following paragraph. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance"" Given the string of cites that followed, I think it would be helpful to the reader to say who is asserting this.
    The quote is from Martin (2007), who did the geophysical survey for English Heritage; the quote is then given verbatim in Carter et al. (2022). I decided to use the quote because Carter repeats it, so giving it more support, but although he supports it I think I just have to cite Martin as the source. I've done that -- let me know if that's enough or if you think Carter should be mentioned too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; changes made and a couple of notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2024 [52].

Chagatai Khan

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Chagatai, the second son of Genghis Khan and Börte (and the third to be brought to FAC). He lived a fairly good life—probably better than any of his brothers—and was the only one to get a state named after him personally; not even Genghis managed that. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. I hope you enjoy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

image review

[edit]

Support by CMD

[edit]

Surprisingly short article for the founder of a Khanate! Shows you something about Mongol records I suppose.

  • Very interesting to see the Tsagaadai Khan transliteration in the image. I suggest that this nametag is included in the alt text as well, so screenreaders may share this interest.
    • I had an idea that this should be done, but I wasn't entirely sure.
  • Speaking of that transliteration, it's not in the lead note on transcriptions. A quick google seems to indicate it is not unheard of.
    • It is a Mongolian transliteration which has fallen out of use as worldwide scholars interact more and standardised forms have emerged. I could remove Ca'adai for the same reason.
      • Is there a particular reason not to include old prominent transliterations in the note, appropriately noted as outdated?
        • I have added.
  • The lead somewhat begs the question as to who excluded him from succession. It also implies that there was a sort of formal succession. Is this how the sources word it? Assuming the default is passing along to the eldest male, the body also doesn't explicitly explain why he was in contention, ie. why Jochi wasn't, given his legitimacy was apparently accepted.
    • Succession relied both on the thoughts of the previous ruler and the skills/experiences/popularity of the next. All a ruler's primary sons, and even occasionally his brothers, were eligible. As mentioned later, although Ögedei was Genghis's successor, the support of key figures such as Chagatai were essential in ensuring his accession. I have clarified that Genghis excluded Chagatai from succession in the lead; would more detail in the body be helpful?
      • More succession detail in the body would be helpful. Questions that immediately come to mind are what were societal expectations around succession, what happened to Jochi's position, what happened during the two year(?) transition from Genghis to Ögedei.
        • I have added details on these topics.
  • "first son definitely", should this be "definitively"?
    • I think both work, but changed.
  • Do we know the mothers of Balgashi, Sarban, Yesu-Mongke, and Baidar?
  • Do we know how he built (or commanded to be built) and maintained these roads?
    • No to both, sadly. Blame the records.
  • Is it possible to get more clarity on which parts of the narrative exactly Atwood disputes? The way the Siege of Guranj paragraph is written, I came away with the impression the story of Jochi Chagatai disunity being solved by Ögedei was historical fiction, but the next paragraph implies that it was at least partially true.
    • That is the difficulty—even if Atwood is correct in his theory of revisionism/propaganda, it is entirely possible that divisions between Jochi and Chagatai did delay the capture of the city. I have tried to focus a little; let me know if that works.
  • Given the land ruled is described as reaching a river in Transoxiana, "governors of the sedentary lands in Transoxiana" has an unclear geographic scope.
    • I think "settlements" is more understandable, even if it loses a tiny bit of accuracy.
      • I think the more immediate question is, did Chagatai lack control of just the cities in Transoxiana, or within all his territory? (Was his territory synonymous with the concept of Transoxiana?)
        • Just the cities in Transoxiana, which I think the text implies.
  • It should be made clearer that Khorasan was not a sedentary city.
    • Done.
  • "mother of his heir Güyük", I assume this was Ögedei's heir, but are talking explicitly designated heir, presumptive heir, or eventual heir?
    • The latter two; Ögedei did not have an explicitly designated heir.
      • Could the text say "presumptive heir" then? Perhaps earlier succession info would also help contextualise this. Relatedly, what is the "However," in the next sentence for. The word is a chekhov's gun for Ögedei's succession that is never resolved.
        • Edited appropriately.
  • "Yesülün accused one of his stewards", the subject of "his" is unclear, I thought it was Batu.
  • "Chagatai was succeeded" should probably specify succeeded "in central Asia" or similar, given the text already covers succession as senior Genghisid prince.
  • "Although Chagatai's loyalty to nomadic customs meant that he constructed no more than pools for waterfowl, storehouses, and small villages". Didn't he construct a highway system through western China?
    • Clarified all; for the latter, I presume they were military constructions which served well in the short-term but were not necessary for trade or other non-military movements.

Absolute classic move by Ögedei with that cup. The navbox at the bottom says he was the "Khan of Chagatai Khanate", I suppose that's a tricky anachronism to avoid. CMD (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (source and prose review)

[edit]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, my comments:

  • Link to Al Altan (Alaltun) as done for the other Genghisid siblings?
  • "by his father, Balgashi, Sarban": suffix "as well as" after "his father", so we know that these are Chagatai's named sons and not those given little regard.
    • Done both.
  • Could we add some details here on the siege of Otrar, say a small paragraph?
  • When did Chagatai and Ögedei join Genghis at Samarkand, and when did the city surrender? Consider adding?
    • I've added some details on the siege of Otrar, but not that of Samarkand, because the latter was extremely short and Chagatai wasn't that involved in it anyway.
  • How did he utilise the Uighur officials in his realm, as we have mentioned here?
    • Administration, as I believe the article outlines.
  • In the biblio, link to Hodong Kim and Peter Jackson?
    • Done.

That's all from. Will try to do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Will comment within a week or so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "masterful knowledge of Mongol traditions, his strict fidelity to Mongol custom and law" - saying both traditions and custom feels redundant here; they're a bit the same
    • They're actually not, and refer to technically different things that I written articles on yet. I think I'd like to keep the redundancy for when/if I get around to that.
      • If tradition and custom are such distinct concepts wrt the Mongol empire, I might use the Mongol words instead, because for most English-language readers, tradition and custom are so close to the same thing that it's redundant to say both.
        • Fine, I've simplified.
  • "Because Genghis felt..." the third clause in this sentence gets in the way of the overall flow, I think. Maybe split to two sentences, or trim clause 3 down?
    • I've just removed it, it wasn't that useful and you're right it spoiled the flow.
  • I actually have no commentary until Taliqan and Mutukan's death
  • Dates for Taliqan siege and Mutukan's siege and death (even rough estimates would be useful)
    • I've added "summer 1221" for the fall of Taliqan with a new source; Bamiyan is indistinct enough that we don't know.
  • "on the request of" should be "at the request of"
    • Done.
  • "an important element" I think you could trim to "importantly" but I won't fight about it
    • Yeah, was a bit wordy.
  • I'm curious about the image used here - Marco Polo isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. What's the context for him writing about a baptism that never happened?
    • Christians liked to think that other people were Christians idk?
      • Mm...is there any sourcing that discusses Polo visiting Chagatai, just so that it's mentioned in the text? As a reader when I see that caption I want to know more. If there's not, that's fine, it is what it is.
        • No, not really; as with many peoples, he noted down legends and rumours about their histories and lives, some of which were true but most of which were false. This seems just another one.
  • Ögedei managed to get around this restriction by finding a very large cup. I am howling. I love Ogedi. People have never changed, once, in all of history.
    • It's a great anecdote, isn't it?
  • "complained to the khagan" this title isn't mentioned anywhere else in the text
  • "sought to convince Chagatai" did she succeed? "his approval was critical to her becoming regent" the future tense there makes this read a bit ambiguously, I parse it either as "she would need it to become regent" or "she got it and it was one of the big reasons she became regent"
    • Clarified both.

That's really all I have. Another interesting and tightly-written biography. I look forward to the eventual FT for sons of Genghis Khan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He was infamously strict in interpreting the law": As this is an opinion, I think it would probably be best to identify whose it is inline
  • "either killed or enslaved Otrar's entire population": I thought the Christians (and some merchants) were spared?
  • "Such hyperbole is probably far from the truth": again, I think it best for an inline attribution here
  • "whom he relied on": technically "on whom he relied"...

That's my lot. A nice read. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat, I've adjusted all apart from the second point, for which see above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2024 [53].

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about volcanism of a volcanic complex in British Columbia, Canada, that has been erupting episodically for at least the last 7.4 million years. I'm renominating it for FA because there was no consensus for promotion in the last FAC, not to mention there were incomplete reviews. As I've explained in the previous FAC, the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he's the only geologist to have studied the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in detail, not because the article isn't well-researched which is 1c of the featured article criteria. Most volcanoes in Canada are not well-studied due to their remote locations; Canada also doesn't have a lot of volcanologists.

Tagging those who were involved in the previous FAC: Arconning, Gog the Mild, Eewilson, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support by JJE

[edit]

It seems like the article topic is comprehensively covered, maybe one could say something about the research history? Already checked sourcing the last time, so nothing from me to add. I presume that File:Big Raven Formation.png and the other maps weren't copied verbatim from the source? I think with ALT text for maps, we usually try to pass on the information in the map in text form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the maps weren't copied verbatim from the source. Not much to say about the research history. Volcanoguy 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Since I reviewed the other criteria too, I'll file an official support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I hope I can find time to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: A review shouldn't take very long; the article text has not changed much since your pre-FAC review in April. Volcanoguy 03:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that several months ago I performed a pre-FAC reviews at Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex#Pre-FAC review. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Nido eruptions deposited 127 cubic kilometres (30 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Nido Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle" but also "The Spectrum eruptions deposited 119 cubic kilometres (29 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Spectrum Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle". I don't see how both of these can be true
    Corrected. Volcanoguy 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this possibility cannot be confirmed until additional age-related data are provided for The Neck" - this is to a source over 30 years old. Has any of the more modern literature addressed this possibility?
    Not that I know of. Volcanoes in northern British Columbia (which are probably the most remote in BC) can go decades without much studies. Volcanoguy 21:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, Level Mountain northwest of the MEVC has not received much geological work since Hamilton's studies in the 1980s. Volcanoguy 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most studies since Souther (which are relatively small) seem to have focused largely on interactions between ice and lava. Volcanoguy 21:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska" - is this Hidden Falls (Baranof Island, Alaska)?
    Yes, linked. Volcanoguy 20:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice." vs "the only recorded volcano-ice deposits of the Nido Formation occur on Idiji Ridge where molten basalt was quenched against ice and formed tuff breccia in meltwater ponds". Maybe I'm misunderstanding these things, but they don't seem to fit together well
    I've removed the second sentence to avoid confusion. Volcanoguy 21:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From some quick looking for sources, it seems unavoidable that Souther is used this heavily. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GeoWriter

[edit]

Lead

  • "the latter seven rock types"

Only seven rock types are listed, therefore "latter" should be removed.

Corrected; changed to six. Volcanoguy 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your change - retaining "latter" but changing "seven" to "six" is correct. GeoWriter (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau."

How much do you want to keep the word "composite"? I think it is an unnecessary and problematic term here that could confuse readers if e.g. they have been investigating the different types of volcanic landforms. Most sources, including Wikipedia, emphasise that shield volcanoes and composite volcanoes have different features and are not the same type of volcano. Confusingly, "composite volcanoes" are usually assumed to be synonymous with stratovolcanoes; in Wikipedia "composite volcano" redirects to the stratovolcano article. This would probably raise questions in the readers' mind such as "if the Mount Edziza complex includes a composite volcano, how can that volcano be a shield volcano?" and "if the Mt Edziza complex includes a shield volcano, how can that volcano be a composite volcano?" Where will they find the answers to such questions at the moment? Not in this Mount Edziza article. I recommend that it is better to remove the term "composite" from this Mount Edziza article.

Removed "composite". Volcanoguy 17:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption rate and composition

  • "This would make the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene"

"Would" implies either it will happen in the future or it would be true if an (unspecified) condition did not apply. I suggest this should be changed to "This makes the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry eruptive period

  • "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not experience long periods of quiescence"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not have long periods of quiescence"

Done. Volcanoguy 19:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the valleys and lowlands would remain filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which would later be overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Unnecessary use of some type of historical present/future tense. Past tense is much clearer and simpler. I suggest that this should be changed to "but the valleys and lowlands remained filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which later were overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Done. Volcanoguy 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Iskut eruptive period

  • "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nido eruptive period

  • "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Peak eruptive period

  • "exposing bedded tuff and debris that ponded inside a former crater lake"

I suggest that "ponded" should be changed to "accumulated" or "piled up", similar to what has been written for the Pillow Ridge debris.

Done. Volcanoguy 18:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A circular volcanic plug called The Neck formed southeast of Ice Peak on the northern side of Sorcery Ridge during this eruptive period. It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption. This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon."

Is 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the age for the older or younger part of The Neck? Is there an age available for the other part? Why is The Neck thought to be two masses of trachyte rather than two sections of a single mass with differential cooling features of a slow-cooling core and faster-cooling margins?

Source doesn't specify and 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the only age given. Volcanoguy 18:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK about the single age, but as you did not comment on my question about whether or not The Neck is two masses versus one mass (of two differently cooled parts), I checked the relevant section in your cited source for details of The Neck. My understanding of the Neck, from the cited source, is: The Neck comprises two distinct sets of structures: (1) an outer set of concentric rings of fine-grained, foliated trachyte with well-developed centripetal horizontal columnar jointing; (2) an inner set of planar or gently curved tabular bodies of coarse-grained, unfoliated trachyte with less well-developed horizontal columnar jointing. The internal stucture suggests that the The Neck is the end result of some volcanic eruptions. The cited source does not explicitly state what was produced by any single eruption. I found no mention of the outer rings being older and the inner cores being younger, nor any mention that a specific core body is paired with any specific outer ring. My understanding of the cited source is not consistent with your sentence: "It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption." Can you clarify or explain your current wording? GeoWriter (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did some rewording. Volcanoguy 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your revised wording is OK. GeoWriter (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Ridge eruptive period

  • "may have been leftover from"

I think "leftover" as a single word is a noun or adjective e.g "to eat the leftovers from a meal" and "to eat the leftover meal". The verb is "to be left over" i.e. two words. I suggest this should be adjusted accordingly for whichever option you intended.

Done. Volcanoguy 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edziza eruptive period

  • "The lava domes were punctuated by vent-clearing explosions"

Do you really mean "punctuated", or do you mean "punctured" (pierced)?

Source uses "punctuated". I've reworded this sentence a bit maybe it makes more sense now? Volcanoguy 18:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your revised wording is fine. GeoWriter (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The trachyte erupted during this period straddles near the pantelleritic trachyte and comenditic trachyte boundary."

I've not seen the phrase "straddles near (the boundary)" in formal English. I've only seen "straddles the boundary"; "near" seems to be unnecessary - a boundary is straddled if something lies on one side and the other. "Near" seems to be already implied and "straddle" would be inappropriate if there was no nearness to the boundary.

Removed "near". Volcanoguy 20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nanook Dome; lava from this dome flowed down the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes."

Can you clarify why you have used the word "and"? Did lava flow from the summit rim into the summit crater only or did lava flow from the summit rim down the exterior flanks of the mountain and also from the summit rim into the summit crater?

Clarified. Volcanoguy 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the wording to "lava from this dome flowed down the exterior flanks of the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes". I think it would be even clearer if you tweaked "and into the summit crater" to "and also into the summit crater". GeoWriter (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively, the former of which may be the product of subglacial volcanism"

"The latter" is way to refer to the second member in a set of two members but you have used it to refer to one member (or perhaps one subset of two members) of a set of four members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome, western flank, northeastern flank) split into two subsets (domes, flanks) each of two members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome) and (western flank, northeastern flank). Therefore "the latter" is too ambiguous. This should be clearer/more explicit. Also, "of which" is unnecessary and should be removed.

Revised. Volcanoguy 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text is now "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively; Triangle Dome may be the product of subglacial volcanism. A trachyte flow from the latter dome travelled around the base of the older Pyramid Dome into the head of Pyramid Creek." Your change that fixed the previous point has caused the ambiguity about "the latter" to spread further along the paragraph. Your second mention of Triangle Dome now makes this the latter dome introducing what I think is an error - it implies that the flow around the base of Pyramid Dome has come from Triangle Dome, which I think is an error. I think the flow actually comes from Glacier Dome, so I suggest that you should change "the latter" to "Glacier Dome". I know it's a lot of mentions of the word "dome" but I think the clarity would be greatly helped in this case. GeoWriter (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fixed. Volcanoguy 15:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Lake eruptive period

  • "Tadekho Hill, a cinder cone 4 kilometres (2.5 miles) to the south, formed on top of a 180-metre-high (590-foot) remnant of Spectrum trachyte. Lava from Tadekho Hill spread onto the surrounding plateau surface to form a small shield volcano.

Can you clarify how lava erupted from a cinder cone can form a shield volcano?

Removed. Volcanoguy 18:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during a massive lava eruption" (at Source Hill)

Can you quantify "massive"?

I don't understand this question. Are you asking what "massive" means in this context or how "massive" the eruption was? Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Massive lava eruption" could mean either (1) a very large eruption or (2) eruption of lava that has a homogeneous texture when solidified. So, which do you mean in this case? (Most readers will assume that "massive" means "very large", hence my previous question - how big is very large?) If you mean "very large", I suggest you could reword to "during a massive eruption of lava" or "during a very large eruption of lava" to avoid any possible confusion. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "during a massive eruption of lava". The source doesn't make it clear how massive the Source Hill eruption was unfortunately. Volcanoguy 16:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Snowshoe Lava Field'

  • "massive lava flows"

Can you quantify "massive"?

No, the source doesn't quantify how "massive" the lava flows are. Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source states "a massive effusion of basaltic lava". Therefore, I suggest that, in this case, "massive lava flows" should be changed to "very large lava flows" to avoid anyone thinking it could have the alternative rock texture meaning. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kana Cone and Walkout Creek centres

  • "Several pulses of lava took place"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Several episodes of lava eruption occurred".

Done except I used "effusion" instead of "eruption"; using "eruption" twice in the same sentence doesn't sound right. Volcanoguy 19:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Track Member

  • "Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice"

The error range is ±6000, which is ±600%. The -6000 part of that is so enormous that it makes the date expressed in this specific format a nonsensical and meaningless date in the distant future. It is not worth quoting from the cited source in this format. The error range apparently spans c. 5000 BCE to 7000 CE, which implies that the rock may not have even formed yet but it will form sometime before 7000 CE. An absurdity. Absolute dating error ranges should be meaningful, not just be numbers in an mathematical equation or in a graph. An alternative way to report the age of this particular rock unit is something along the lines of "probably 6000 to 1000 years Before Present" (source: Wilson, A.M. and Kelman, M.C. (2021) "Assessing the relative threats from Canadian volcanoes", Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8790, https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/ (spreadsheet appendix, table A1, row 307, Sheep Track Pumice (Member)) ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/of_8790.pdf ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/tables_A1-A2_1-4%20FINAL_Jan%204%202021.xlsx).

What if I reworded it to "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted around 950 CE."? Volcanoguy 20:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could put more emphasis on the uncertainty of the dating, with phrasing along the lines of "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted in the last 7000 years, most likely around 950 CE." GeoWriter (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples

  • "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska is dated to 10,000 years old; this suggests that the MEVC was being exploited as an obsidian source soon after ice sheets of the Last Glacial Period retreated."

Please clarify, because these two sentences seem to be a non sequitur - the conclusion in the second sentence does not seem to logically follow from the evidence in the first sentence.

If "10,000 years old" refers only to the age of the obsidian's eruption (and not when part of the obsidian fragment was exposed to sunglight/air as a result of tooling by people - see: obsidian hydration dating), then I think its age suggests nothing about how soon after its eruption it was exploited.

"10,000 years old" refers to an obsidian hydration date. Volcanoguy 20:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added the hydration dating method to the article's text. Fine. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Note f - "Volcaniclastic rocks are broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Volcaniclastic rocks are not clasts, they are rocks consisting of clasts. I suggest changing to "Volcaniclastic rocks are rocks composed of broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Done. Volcanoguy 18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— GeoWriter (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 20:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My responses to unresolved points are at each of the relevant subsections of my previous comments. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceranthor

[edit]
Lead
  • "The Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada, has a long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years" - Why not keep it simple and rephrase as "Volcanism in the MEVC in BC, Canada spans more than 7 million years?
    There's nothing wrong with the current wording, not to mention your proposed rewording doesn't make it clear what MEVC and BC mean; see WP:ACRONYM. Volcanoguy 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to literally do the acronyms, but rather than full version. And I think the current phrasing is rather tautological, no ("long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years")? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed "long" from this sentence if that solves anything. If the sentence were to be reworded to "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada spans more than 7 million years", "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex" would have bold text since it's the title of the article and then "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" won't be able to be linked per MOS:BOLDLINK since it is the only sentence in the introduction where it's spelled out. I think "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" should be linked in the introduction since this article is covering volcanism of that complex. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I can't start off with the title of the article because according to MOS:BOLDLINK links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead. Volcanoguy 20:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It occurred during five cycles of magmatic activity, each producing less volcanic material than the previous one" - rephrase as "It included five cycles"; occurred is awkward here to my ear
    Magmatic activity isn't limited to volcanism which is only the surface expression of magmatism. Volcanoguy 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but the suggestion was related to the word choice, "occurred." ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "It has taken place during five cycles" if that solves anything. To say the volcanism "included" five cycles of magmatic activity isn't really correct since volcanic activity is only the surface expression of magmatic activity. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The approximately 1,000-square-kilometre (400-square-mile) volcanic plateau forming the base of the MEVC owes its origin" - would rephrase as a little informal; maybe better as "originated from the successive eruptions"
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fifth magmatic cycle began at least 20,000 years ago and may be continuing to the present;" - better as "may be ongoing"
    Done. Volcanoguy 17:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "This volcanic province is the most volcanically active area in Canada, having experienced at least three eruptions in the last 500 years" - wordy; what about "undergoing at least three eruptions" or just "with at least three eruptions"?
    The only word I swapped was "experienced" with "undergone"; past tense here since the eruptions occurred in the past. Volcanoguy 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption rate and composition
  • Looks solid.
Magmatic cycles
  • " Lost Peak consists of volcanic ejecta that was deposited in both subaerial and subaqueous environments; the subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice" - Not familiar with the word ponded
    Changed to "formed". Volcanoguy 19:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon.[95][99]" - -in-diameter should be hyphenated, but I think this would flow better if reworded to "The volcanic conduit, roughly 300 meters in diameter, has a potassium-argon date...
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cause of this variation in thickness may have been due to changes in viscosity as volcanic gases escaped the erupting magma.[22]" - Can cut out "the cause of"
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pyroclastic rocks erupted during Kakiddi time are exposed on the eastern flank of Mount Edziza; they are in the form of scoria and blocky explosion breccia.[111]" - for more active voice, how about "taking the form of ..."
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Klastline River was forced to establish a new route" - Not sure I like the diction here as it makes it seem like the river has agency. Suggest rephrasing
    Rephrase it to what? Volcanoguy 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about "The dam formed a new route for the Klastline River along the northern valley wall where it still flows to this day"? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last two sections look fine.

Will likely support once these comments are addressed. Well-written, comprehensive article. ceranthor 00:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Replies? Volcanoguy 19:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: Replied to your last two comments. Volcanoguy 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for addressing my minor comments. ceranthor 01:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eewilson – source review

[edit]

I have compared the sources to see if there were any changes since the last review, and they were minimal. I did the majority of the source review in July. All of the issues I found were resolved then, so everything from my previous source review still stands. Good job. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2024 [54].

John Gould Stephenson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gould Stephenson might just be the most obscure Librarian of Congress; he was a political appointee with no real experience with libraries, spent most of his time in office serving in the Union Army, and is mostly known for his appointee of the far more important Ainsworth Rand Spofford as assistant librarian during his tenure. Despite all this, he managed to lead an interesting (if poorly-documented at some points) life. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll comment later. Steelkamp (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I implemented all of these! Ty very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I aim to complete this review by the end of the week. I will have some more comments, which will take some time. Steelkamp (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some instances of "Librarian of Congress" that go against MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • "he attended education at" -> "he was educated at"
  • "He moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election. He pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." -> "Stephenson moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election, and pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." This avoids there being three sentences in a row that begin with the same word, and makes it so that Stephenson is mentioned by name more than once in the entire paragraph.
    • Good, but now there are a bunch of terms that are no longer linked which probably should be.
  • Cincinatti can be linked.
  • "Lincoln appointed him" -> "Lincoln appointed Stephenson".
  • "He died on November 11, 1883, after several months of illness" -> "He died after several months of illness" as the date is redundant to the first sentence of the lead.
  • "J. G. Stephenson". Use a non-breaking space between the J and G as per MOS:INITIALS.
  • "additionally serving variously as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff." -> "additionally serving as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff."
  • "He was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates" -> "Stephenson was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates"
  • Does Patriarch have to have a capital P?
    • Fixed. - G
  • Chicago can be linked.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "beginning within a few weeks of the election". Is this a few weeks before or after the election?
    • Clarified. - G
  • "In March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane also wrote to Lincoln in support" -> "in March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane wrote to Lincoln in support".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Stephenson arrived in Washington". Should this be Washington, D.C.? Also, it can be linked.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Dole, Lincoln's Commissioner of Indian Affairs, described meeting with Lincoln to urge Stephenson's appointment." This sentence should end with a colon instead.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "His longtime ally and associate" -> "Meehan's longtime ally and associate"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "and asked Caleb B. Smith if Stephenson had resigned." Why did Lincoln think that Stephenson had resigned?
    • Unfortunately, the sources don't elaborate on Lincoln's worry. If I had to guess, he had just heard that large numbers of staff had left and wondered if this included Stephenson. - G
  • Is the 19th Indiana Regiment and the 19th Indiana Infantry the same thing?
    • Ooh, yeps. Clarified. - G
  • "Stephenson began to spend extended periods in military service soon after his appointment as Librarian of Congress." Maybe add that this was due to the Civil War.
    • Clarified. - G
  • "He is recorded as a resident of Washington". Is this still Washington, D.C.? It should be clarified.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "where he stated he was discharged without a given cause." -> "where he was discharged without a given cause."
    • Fixed. - G
  • "he entered employment" -> "Stephenson entered employment".
    • Fixed. - G

Those are the only comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

Committing to a review; should have a few comments by end of today! I'll have a more full-bodied review posted tomorrow after work. joeyquism (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a few things I've noted. As with most of my reviews, many comments are nit; feel free to refuse any as you wish.

Lead

  • "he attended education at Dartmouth" - I'll admit, I haven't seen this wording used before; perhaps this could do without "education at"?
  • "nascent" - while I would personally be comfortable using this word in regular conversation, I would opt for "newly-formed" in the lead.
  • "Stephenson begun" - should this be "began"?
  • "He served in various positions as a clerk" - would "law clerk" or "judicial clerk" be accurate here?

Early life and career

  • "He initially pursued further education at Dartmouth Medical School, before transferring" - I don't think there should be a comma between "School" and "before"

Will finish tomorrow. Work demands I be there early tomorrow, so I've gotta clock out earlier than I wanted. I'll strike this out later. joeyquism (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments are listed below. I'll admit I'm in a reviewing slump, so forgive me if any of these seem silly.

  • "(becoming a Patriarch of the local Sons of Temperance chapter)" - Any particular reason why this phrase is in parentheses?
    • No clue why, removed this. - G
  • "A February 1860 notice in the Wabash Express attempted to clarify a controversial political statement from him, printing "J. G. Stephenson did not say that all men were created free and equal. He held just what the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence held, namely, 'that all men are created equal.'"" - Is there any more context to this sentence? I understand that the paragraph it belongs to is laying out the beginning of his political career, but I feel like this particular sentence could benefit from a little more outlining - i.e. is there more background to what prompted him to give such a statement?
    • Not really with the source... I realized it's kinda nonsensical; it probably is him trying to couch abolitionist sentiments, but since the author doesnt expand on this point, I'll just remove it. - G

Librarian of Congress

  • "While the number of other candidates for the position is unknown, at least three people wrote to Lincoln asking for Hezekiah Lord Hosmer to be appointed as librarian." - This seems extraneous?
    • Yeah, reduced this. - G
  • "Stephenson himself arrived in Washington..." - Not sure if "himself" is needed, as there's no prior mention of anyone else arriving in Washington
    • Removed. - G
  • "Although publicly apolitical, Meehan himself faced rumors of southern sympathies." - Also not sure of "himself" here; should "southern" be capitalized as well?
  • "Stephenson was infuriated by the presence of the War Department's bakeries in the Capitol basement" - Wikilinking "bakeries" might be overlinking
    • Removed. - G
  • Rest looks great.

Later life and death

  • Just out of curiousity, is there any more background on why there's such a large gap between the suspected years Stephenson joined the Bureau of Pensions? Nothing here I can see in need of fixing otherwise; just wondering about this sentence.
    • No clue! The two sources give conflicting dates and neither seems clearly correct. - g
@Joeyquism: Forgot to say I corrected these! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good on the fixes! Sorry for getting back to you past the time I promised; life's been getting the best of me lately. Will have some more comments down and a finished review tonight. joeyquism (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: Left just a few more comments above; everything seems to be in great shape otherwise. Just a few minor things that may or may not need addressing and I'll likely come back to support. joeyquism (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by IntentionallyDense

[edit]

I will be doing a source review for this article. I do this in a table format to keep things organized. I will update the table as I go and ping the nominator when done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review
Section Status Sources I couldn't access Comments
Early life and career Done None "On March 1, 1828, John Gould Stephenson was born in Lancaster, New Hampshire, to Reuben and Mary King Stephenson (née Baker), the fourth of eight children."

Not seeing "née Baker" on page 77 of the source but I may be missing something. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Reuben Stephenson was a merchant who operated a general store in Lancaster"

Not seeing the general store part in either sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"where he was described as an "efficient speaker" by Indiana politician William P. Dole"

I do see the quote in both sources but not that it was said by William P. Dole. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its in the footnote (tho I guess I should also list the page the footnotes are on)
Librarian of Congress Done None The first paragraph under "Appointment" is sourced by Carter 1976, pp. 79–80. I don't think anything in this paragraph comes from page 79 so I think you could change this to just p. 80. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. - G

Same thing with the first half of the second paragraph in this section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. - G

"The incumbent librarian, John Silva Meehan, had held the position since 1829." Not seeing the 1829 part in the two pages you listed here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and death Done None Is there a reason why ref33 does not have a page number? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: I have finished my source review. Overall sourcing is great but I like to nitpick so I've brought up some tiny things that I noticed. Of course, there are things I could have missed, and I'll be honest I was a bit less thorough with the second half of the article because my source checks were coming back clean every time. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I did the source review for this article and didn't find any major issues which led me to support this article for FA status. All text is put into the writer's own words. Sources are properly cited in an organized and consistent way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll read the article and write something here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why include "practiced physic & surgery for ten years" as a quotation and who said it?
    • I don't know why I included the quote; removed that. - G
  • he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: I recommend rewording to avoid having "became" and "becoming" together like that in the same sentence.
    • Reworded. - G
  • he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: How is "patriarch" being used here?
    • It's a rank within the chapter, but I realized that it doesn't need to be mentioned and is kinda confusing. -G
  • where he was described: Since there are three men mentioned in the sentence, I think it is worth replacing this "he" with "stephenson".
    • Done. - G
  • He actively campaigned: Is "actively" necessary?
    • Guess not. - G
  • that he had spent: Removing "had" would change this from past perfecr tense to simple past tense, which sounds more appropriate to me.
    • fixed. - G
  • political appointment as the librarian of Congress using connections: Seems like there should be a comma after "Congress".
    • Done. - G
  • The Meehan image caption should have an uncapitalized "librarian", I think.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Why are the ellipses in the block quote in brackets?
    • Quoting from the source, as I don't have access to the original document; presumably used to indicate that a section has been skipped. - G
      • According to MOS:ELLIPSIS, putting square brackets around an ellipsis is what you do to distinguish that ellipsis as a stand-in for omitted text versus another ellipsis in the same quote that is is part of the quote. In this quote, both ellipses are used in the standard omitted-text-way, so including the brackets is against the MOS. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting! Removed that then. - G
  • Wikilink Union (American Civil War)?
    • Good idea. - G
  • Meehan calmly accepted his dismissal, and left his duties at the end of May. I don't think that comma is necessary.
    • Fixed. - G
  • deemed as low-quality books: The "as" doesn't seem necessary.
    • Removed. - G
  • defended his actions against the Joint Committee: I think "against" should be "to", if I'm reading this sentence correctly.
    • Fixed. - G
  • I think was "[because] his conviction would make more sense as was because "his conviction
    • Fixed. - G

I'll read more and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more comments, having read through the rest of the article:

  • The first time Spofford is mentioned, he is named without anything saying who he is. The second time he comes up he is introduced to the reader as a journalist. I think it should be the other way around.
    • Spofford is a good source on Meehan here because he was a librarian of congress, but it's important to note that he was a journalist to explain why he was in Washington and met Stephenson; so I gave context to the first instance. - G
  • Who said "intimated an offer"?
    • I don't know why I quoted this, paraphrased. - G
  • Do we know why Stephenson left Washington for 2 months in 1861?
    • To care for soldiers; elaborated. -G
  • Resignation section: I had to read the 2nd and 3rd sentences a few times. I now have the impression that Spofford and Lanman were both vying for Stephenson's position, but I think this could be reworded to make that more clear. At first reading, I was asking, "Spofford was soliciting endorsements for what?".
    • Reworded. - G
  • Charles Lanman, the former librarian: Not a big deal, but "the" doesn't seem necessary here.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Stephenson announced his resignation from his post as Librarian of Congress on December 22, 1864,: I don't think you need to include "from his post as Librarian of Congress". That's already clear.
    • Good point, clarified. - G
  • Can you find any more detail on what war speculations that Stephenson was allegedly up to? If not, is there a general contextual sentence you could add about the kind of war speculation that was common at the time or that people were being accused of at the time?
    • Sadly, there's just no further information in any of the sources, and I feel it'd be getting too far off track to bring in sources about civil war speculation that don't mention him. - G
  • Librarian Keyes Metcalf described him ... describing his appointment: That's one too many described/describing.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Because we're mostly talking about Stephenson's librarian contemporaries, I would like to see Metcalf introduced as "Twentieth-century librarian Keyes Metcalf" or something like that so it is clear we're talking about an expert opinion with historical perspective.
    Dugan Murphy Ope! Forgot about that one. Resolved. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find two instances in which "Library" is capitalized as a standalone word and many more times when it is not capitalized. I think you could go either way, but you need to go either way consistently. I think uncapitalized seems more appropriate to me.
    • Lower-cased it, except in one point where its in a quote.
  • in a 1871 edition of Boyd's Directory, as well as in two: The "as well as" would read better as "and".
    • Done. - G
  • where he was discharged without a given cause: I think "where" should be "when"; and how about "stated cause" instead of "given cause"?
    • Done. - G
  • he approached a physician due to persistent insomnia: "Approached" seems an odd word choice. How about: "he saw a physician for persistent insomnia"?
    • Good idea. - G
  • How did Stephenson serve as a naval surgeon in an army unit?
  • attended college at Dartmouth Medical College and Castleton Medical College: "college at" seems extraneous.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Why not Wikilink Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, and colonel in the lead?
    • Done. - G
  • The sentence in the lead that starts "He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln" is a bit unwieldy. I recommend rewording, possibly splitting.
    • Done. - G
  • Believing that the library: "that" is extraneous.
    • Fixed. - G
  • several months of illness: This statement in the lead is not sufficiently supported by the body. You should reword one or the other, making sure to stay true to what the sources say.
    • Oops, my bad there. - G
  • I don't suppose there are any other images of Stephenson you can add to the article?
    • Sadly not. - G
  • The Library of Congress would occupy: That would read better if you replaced "would occupy" with "occupied".
    • Done. - G
  • Why does the gravestone pic need citations?
    • No clue, removed. - G
  • This article is included in the "American abolitionists" category, but I don't see anything in the article to support that.
    • Removed, no clue how that got there. - G

In summary: This looks like a great article and is generally well-written. The coverage seems reasonably comprehensive, acknowledging where scholarship cannot confirm parts of Stephenson's life, but also not going into too much detail on any one aspect of his life. The language is neutral and the article seems stable. Earwig thinks plagiarism is unlikely. The lead does a good job of summarizing the body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shushugah

[edit]
  • Replace the hyphen in 1800-1864 with en-dash 1800–1864
    • Done. - G
  • was buried is grammatically correct, but implies that his body was relocated elsewhere later on. He is still buried there right?
    • It's describing the physical act of the funeral burying him, not just stating that he's underground. - G
  • Considering the Secretary of War does not exist anymore, it would be interesting to wiki-link it. A way to ensure it isn't continuous sea of blue would be to phrase it as Alexander Ramsey, the Secretary of War
  • Good idea, done. - G
  • influence the Kentucky delegation -> who are they and why is this not elaborated?
    • This isn't elaborated on much in the source, sadly; sorta based off what a couple politicians said in later accounts. It's just the Kentucky delegation to the RNC, but it'd be redundant to state that again. - G
  • This alarmed the... -> clarify that the change of staff, not specifically retention of Meehan's son triggered alarm
    • Done. - G
  • as a flue for the baking operation had been built into the flue of the library's furnace. -> awkwardly phrased, remove redundancy of flue
    • Hard to describe a flue being built into another one without saying it twice, but I tried to make the sentence scan better. - G
  • Rep. should be lengthened to Representative
    • Good idea, fixed. - G
  • wiki links representative and senator in congressional representative and senator
    • Done. - G
  • had indicated an intention to resign -> indicated his intention to resign
  • have stayed in Washington, -> Washington D.C.,
    • Fixed both of these. - G

Thank you for a delightful and wonderful historical biography on an obscure librarian of congress! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • No identifier for Salamanca, 1942?
    • Fixed. - G
  • "He briefly served as an acting naval surgeon to the 19th Indiana Infantry in 1861", Why would he serve as a naval surgeon to an infantry unit
    • I have no clue whatsoever; the source directly quotes him stating that he was a "naval surgeon". - G
  • "he briefly served as acting naval surgeon of the 19th Indiana in 1861." "19th Indiana", could the name of the unit be given in full.
    • Fixed. - G

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [55].

Meurig ab Arthfael

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meurig ab Arthfael was a king in south-east Wales in the ninth century, but the extent of his territory is disputed by historians. Although little is known of him, he is mentioned in Asser's life of Alfred the Great, and he is described as one of the few kings who tried to protect the church against lawlessness and abuse of power. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, though the second could have a better alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Expanded alt text a bit. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee

[edit]

The article appears to be in a good condition. It is a little short but I assume not much information is available about this individual's life. I would suggest adding a Template:Subject bar at the end with links to Portal:Middle Ages, Portal:Wales and Portal:Monarchy.--Llewee (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Llewee. I think I will leave this pending comments from other editors. I have never added portal bars and it has never previously been suggested to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I'm not totally sold on the prose, as yet. I appreciate there's not masses of information about Meurig and much is unsound, but there are a few bits where the grammar isn't quite right, and/or the flow doesn't quite, well, flow as neatly as I would like -- it's slightly tough going to get through and I'm not sure I fully understand what's being said.

The usual pointers and nitpicks below:

  • Note 1: I would advise adding that ab/ap are both contractions of mab ('son'), and that the consonant/vowel rule is only mostly true -- see here p. 8, with note).
  • Hywel ap Rhys, King of Glywysing: this came up in previous FACs -- the MoS is tricky here, but I'd advise decapitalising for consistency.
  • Two charters state that he ordered all churches were to be free from obligations to laymen: I found this difficult to parse -- better as "he freed all churches from their obligations..."?
  • in the view of the historian Wendy Davies, he was one of the few kings who attempted to guarantee ecclesiastical immunity: "kings" is a big crowd -- can we narrow this down to Welsh kings, medieval kings, British kings...?
  • from widespread lawlessness and arbitrary use of power: this implies that his kingdom had widespread lawlessness and arbitrary use of power; is that correct?
  • Historians disagree about his death date. Some ... think that the Meurig whose death is recorded in 849 is also possible: the grammar has gone a bit wonky here.
  • later Morgannwg and then Glamorgan: when is later here -- are these terms that postdate the subject of this article by a long way?
  • I should have written "or", not "and then". Morgannwg is a term which has been used as a post-Roman name for the area, but it is not recorded before the eleventh century and historians now think that it is named after a late tenth century king. Glamorgan appears to be an anglicisation of the Welsh name, although I cannot find this spelled out specifically. It is used by historians for all periods, even though it is also based on the late tenth century king. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, they are undated, and it is not always clear which Meurig is being referred to.: does they refer to all the charters, or just the possibly-genuine ones? I think the second/third clause might be clearer if it stepped back and said more explicitly that there are several people called Meurig named in the charters.
  • The n of e.g. n. 27 needs a space after it, just like the p. when it stands for "page".
  • two independent sources: independent of what? Not of the Book of Llandaff, since one of them is a charter from it, though we only indirectly say that.
  • We need a date for Asser, I think.
  • Almost nothing is known of history in south-east Wales immediately before his time as his reign follows a gap in the Llandaff charters of some fifty years: so the Llandaff charters are the only way we know anything about Welsh history? That sounds surprising, put mildly, and I'm sure would put some archaeologists' noses out of joint.
  • Changed "history" to "kings". I am not sure that archaeologists' noses would be put out of joint - they probably would not be able to say anything specific about south-east Wales between 800 and 850. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • cording to a Harleian genealogy: I think we need to give the reader some idea of what they're working with here.
  • Charles-Edwards suggests that he and his brother Rhys ab Arthfael probably ruled Glywysing successively: as written, it sounds as though C-E has been moonlighting as an early medieval warlord.
  • You could consider dropping the patronymic from names where the sentence explicitly sets them up as the son of someone, such as Meurig ab Arthfael and his sons, Brochfael ap Meurig and Ffernfael ap Meurig,.
Patronymics are, strictly, disambiguators rather than part of a full name (they're not surnames in the modern sense), so wouldn't routinely be included in contexts where there's no ambiguity. It's not wrong to do so, it's just redundant -- though this is hardly a major issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OED defines patronymic as "A name derived from that of a father or male ancestor, esp. by addition of an affix indicating such descent; a family name. Also: an affix used to form such a name." I take this to mean that it is part of the full name, and it is correct to give the full name at first mention of a person. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we mean "the Church" as in the big institution headquartered in Rome, I would capitalise, to distinguish from when we're talking about the stone building in the village.
  • I do not mean the church in Rome. The grants are to bishops, and I thought of saying so, but this could mean to them personally, whereas they are ot them as representatives of their dioceses. "church" seems to me to convey the grants' nature, but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not thinking of "the church" as a single institution (though I must admit I'm not sure I see the distinction you're drawing here), we shouldn't use a singular noun for it -- "to bishops" works, or alternatively you could do some other phrasing to the effect that he placed lands under ecclesiastical control? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: did you see this one? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the names in the "Charters" section italicised?
  • OK. So we don't italicise foreign personal names. How about place names? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question isn't what sort of word it is, but whether it's the same word in English. In most of these cases, the toponym isn't specifically English or Welsh -- it's just the name of the place. Compare:
    • Paris is the capital city of France
    • El Dorado is a mythical place in South America.
    • Corpus Christi is a city in Texas
    • In front of Wellington's line was the farmhouse of La Haye Sainte
    Barring an exception where MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies, in general, we don't italicise any of these. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little wary of how hard we dive into charters after the warning that most of them might be fraudulent. Do we have a particular reason to trust the authenticity of the ones mentioned here?
  • From the "Charters" section, the tone gets a bit more insiderish than I think we want here -- it's the sort of writing you would expect from an academic in the field to other academics, but not really the right stuff for a general encyclopaedia whose writers claim no scholarly authority. For instance, (Little Dewchurch?) -- we would do better to replace the question mark with an explanation of what it's doing there -- maybe "conjectured to be the village of..."? Similarly the Annales Cambriae for 873, recte 874): recte isn't quite right here, as we normally use it when correcting scribal errors -- do we mean the entry for 874, which is written under the number 873? If so, I'd give it in text as 874, and footnote the detail -- most readers won't be very interested in it, quite frankly, and we lose less by relegating it to the notes than we do by making them all read Latin.
  • "the claims of the relative chronology of the witness sequence are such as to suggest that Meurig ab Arthfael, the King Meurig of grants 169b-171b, 199bii (214?), 216b, 225 died in 874 rather than 849": not sure I see the reason for a long quote here -- why not just "Davies argues that Meurig died in 874, rather than 849, on the basis of [a slightly clearer explanation of what he claims to have seen in the charters]"?
  • The royal line descended from Meurig appears to have ended with Brochfael: remind the reader of when he died?
  • Check the abbreviation of AD in the title of Bartrum 1993.
  • What's the need for the Lloyd citation -- it seems to appear only once, and to be triple-cited with two much more recent works?

UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing I've noticed on a second read: is Cum Mouric definitely that, and not Cwm Mouric (Mouric's Valley)? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • "it was divided between Glywysing (Glamorgan)" It's unclear at this point what the parenthesis means in this context. A bit clearer in the article body, but not much.
  • " (later Morgannwg or Glamorgan[4])" Later what? Renamed? A successor kingdom?
  • Link ecclesiastical?
  • "may be the Meurig whose died" Who died?
  • "and in the view of the historian Wendy Davies". You present one modern historian in the intro, could be nice for context if this was done for the people mentioned in the article body too.
  • Link Welsh and Wales in article body too?

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I don't understand what Sims-Williams means by "amount to the same thing"; the two theories seem different to me.
    • He does not explain, but I take him to mean that in his view there is no real difference between a kingdom with a king and sub-kings and two kingdoms with one king having superior status. The problem seems to be that Davies says that there was only one kingdom, but she also refers to the rulers of the (later small) Gwent as kings, so she must see them as sub-kings, but she does not spell this out. I could clarify that Davies sees the eastern kings as sub-kings, though this verges on SYNTH as she does not say so. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's best to leave it as is if you can't find text in source that lets you clarify it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Brochfael and Ffernfael are Meurig's sons is mentioned three times in two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of "Kingship"; this could be compressed.
    Could we do something like this: "Confirmation that Meurig and his sons, Brochfael and Ffernfael, ruled in the ninth century is provided by their notice in two independent sources. Asser in his biography of Alfred the Great of 893 mentions "Brochfael and Ffernfael (sons of Meurig and kings of Gwent)", and charter 199bii[b] is a grant by King Meurig ab Arthfael, giving his sons' names as witnesses"? I agree the material needs to be there -- I just think we could phrase it in a way that sounds less repetitive. We've given Meurig's patronymic at the start of the paragraph, and the quote from Asser gives it again; and it's not needed for the sons because we explicitly say they are his sons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to a Harleian genealogy (Old Welsh genealogy preserved": suggest either "(Old Welsh genealogy ..." or "(an Old Welsh genealogy ...".
    Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his cousins, Meurig's sons, had an inferior status as kings of Gwent": it seems this interpretation requires us to follow Charles-Edwards' argument that old Gwent was divided; presumably Davies would not agree with this description? If so, shouldn't the conditionality be apparent to the reader?
  • "he cannot have been wholly successful as charters continued to grant churches in the tenth and eleventh centuries": looks like a word is missing? Or else I don't understand the intended meaning. He granted land to the churches, perhaps? And I don't really see how this is connected to the previous sentence.
    • Changed to "kings continued to grant churches". Does this clarify? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From my (passing) familiarity with AS charters, I thought that typically the grant would be of land for the church, and that's how I recall the sources talking about them. If these were in fact grants of land I would make that clearer; if not, what exactly did they grant? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welsh practice was different. The grants were of churches and attached land to bishops. In at least some cases they were restoration of churches previously misappropriated by kings. I have dropped Davies's comment that Meurig protected ecclesiastical immunity and replaced it with one where she expressed herself more clearly, saying he attempted to free all ecclesiastical property from lay control. Does this work? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        So a charter granting a church might take a church from one owner and give it to another? I was assuming these were grants that enabled the creation of new churches, but I now see why these grants would be evidence of continued interference in ecclesiastical affairs. Could we make the second part of the sentences something like "kings continued to make grants that assigned churches to new owners ..." or whatever the sources will support? That was what I wasn't clear on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change necessarily needed, but I'd be curious to know how Charles-Edwards argues that Meurig died in 849 given the existence of the charters with later dates.
  • Any reason not to promote note [c] to the body of the article? It seems relevant enough.
    • It is very speculative and not mentioned by later historians. It depends on someone mentioned in an early genealogy really being someone who lived later and was son of one king and father of another, with no evidence but the names. Promoting it to the main text would seem to me UNDUE. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to strike my point here, since I think it's a stylistic choice, but I disagree. I think the choice of whether to put material in a footnote or the body is about whether it directly addresses the topic of the article, or is off-topic (as the explanation of a technical term might be). This seems very relevant to Meurig. If it's UNDUE, it shouldn't be in the article; or at least if it's speculative we should qualify it as something like "One historian suggests ..." or give the historian's name. I hadn't followed the link to our article on Bartrum, but I see he's a genealogist. Do we have support for this being work respected by the academics in this field? Genealogy is rife with unreliable sources, but I know there are some good sources amongst the chaff. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bartrum was a respected scholar who is cited by historians. I have added the description of him in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography as a "scholar of Welsh genealogy". I moved his comment to a note as I was concerned that in the main text it would appear to be a mainstream theory, and I have moved it back and added historians views on Nowy's ancestry to make clear that Bartrum is not accepted on this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I wonder why "The Book of Llandaff as a Historical Source. " has no citations on Google Scholar, and does Dictionary of Welsh Biography. need an ISBN or OCLC? Otherwise, nothing that jumps out to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar at [56] states that The Book of Llandaff as a Historical Source was awarded the Francis Jones Prize in Welsh History 2019 by Jesus College Oxford and shows 15 citations. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography is now online only, and like the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does not have an isbn. Thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, Google Scholar is not a good measure of impact and citation in the humanities: it's particularly poor in Classics, for example. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better measure of impact and citations, for the humanities? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, unfortunately. I struggled a lot with this when writing Journal of Roman Archaeology: it's a really major publication in its field, as the name would suggest, but it was quite tricky to find actual proof of that. You could search its title in Google Books, JSTOR etc to find it in bibliographies of other works -- from memory, it comes up a lot when you look into this area. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Late to the table, I'm afraid. Didn't spot the listing in the FAC queue. But an advantage of turning up late is that the heavy lifting has all been done by those imprudent enough to turn up early. I have no comments to make on the article as it now stands: it's a good read and the content – as far as my non-existent expertise goes – seems thorough and well documented. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. My spell-check will recover from the ordeal fairly quickly, I hope. Tim riley talk 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. Luckily the government has not yet brought in a law against cruelty to spellchecks. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [57].

The Motherland Calls

[edit]
Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Motherland Calls is, without a doubt, the quintessential post-Soviet Russian statue. Dedicated to the Soviet soldiers that died in the Battle of Stalingrad, it depicts Mother Russia holding a sword aloft, calling out to the Soviet people to take up arms and fight against the enemy, and stands at a mammoth height of 85 meters (279 ft). Despite its cultural importance, it has faced its fair share of disrepair and poor maintenance in the many years following its dedication, and has been the subject of a number of incidents, some of which are, in my opinion, a bit funny (albeit unfortunate) to read about.

Took this to GA on July 30 - courtesy pings to Jaguarnik and Vacant0, who both assisted in the review. This is also my first non-music FAC!

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "although post-renovation critiques and new structural issues have since persisted": "persisted" doesn't seem like the right word, since it implies the issues previously existed, but we say the structural issues are new and the critiques date from after the renovation.
    • Changed to "arisen".
  • "was historicised as the turning point in the war": I don't know what "historicised" is intended to convey here.
    • Contextualized more in the given sentence. I more so meant to say that Soviet history textbooks were referring to the battle as the turning point in the war.
  • "the first museum honoring the Great Patriotic War had been established as early as March 1943": I think "was established" would work better; we haven't got a later time frame from which we're looking back at this point in the paragraph.
    • Changed to "was established"
  • "Vuchetich started petitioning for the commission to design the monument in the early 1950s": as written this says he wanted the commission to do the design. I suspect we want something like "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission for permission [or "authorization"] to design the monument in the early 1950s", depending on what the source will support.
    • The source states that "Vuchetich began actively lobbying to secure what was arguably the USSR's most prized commission: the appointment to design a monument commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad", so the way it's written seems correct to me. If I'm missing something, please let me know and I'll fix it.
      The problem is that it's easy to misread the current wording as saying that Vuchetich was petitioning the commission with a request "for the commission to design the monument", when the intended meaning is that he's petitioning the commision to appoint him to design it. Can we do "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission to appoint him design the monument in the early 1950s"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see what's going on here - my usage of the word "commission" is as in "order to do something" rather than "group of people". I get the confusion here; I've changed it to "petitioning high-ranking Soviet officials for permission" so as to disambiguate and condense the sentence. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took heavy inspiration from": "heavy" doesn't seem like the right word here. Perhaps "much of their inspiration"?
    • Yeah, that sounds better. Done.
  • Some of the details in the first paragraph of "Design and style" seem to belong in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex rather than here, as they're not about this statue. Obviously some summary is necessary, but there's quite a bit of detail here that doesn't seem necessary for this article.
    • I agree with you there, although I will say that I did try my best at cutting down the details when I was initially writing the article. If you have any suggestions as to what I should cut, please let me know - either way, I'll get to condensing this tonight.
      This is an example of what I was thinking, thought to be honest I think more could be cut. I self-reverted so take from that anything you want -- also I didn't check that I was preserving sourcing in the appropriate places so if you do use that edit please check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vuchetich refused this proposition": not very natural phrasing; and did Vuchetich have the authority to refuse unilaterally? Or would it be more accurate to say he disagreed, or persuaded them otherwise?
    • I think it would be more accurate to say "objected to the proposition", as that would be more true to the source material. The degree of his authority is never explicitly mentioned in the Palmer source, but there are mentions of him being able to boss around the Volgograd oblast government executives and even some of the Politburo members, so I think it's safe to assume (in general, not for the purposes of this article) that Vuchetich was the big man in charge of the project.
  • "the already-excessive budget": "excessive" is a value judgement we shouldn't make in Wikipedia's voice. Do you mean that the budget was large and it grew larger, or specifically that the budget had already been overrun and that this increased the overrun?
    • This is what the source says:

The project's expenses were spiraling out of control. In early October 1960 a revised estimate ordered by the Council of Ministers set the price of the memorial complex at 48.2 million rubles, nearly 9 million rubles (22 percent) over its initial budget... The matter did not end here. When a subsequent audit in mid-1961 produced an even higher figure, the Council of Ministers was forced to make a dramatic decision. All of the complex's sculptural elements would now be constructed entirely of concrete... the revised estimates to complete the project stood at 53.9 million rubles, a 30-percent increase over the amount originally budgeted in 1958. Resigned to this reality, on September 6, 1961, the Council of Ministers approved the new amount. Ironically, however, even as some state officials moved to curtail rapidly rising expenses a problematic and costly new requirement was imposed on the design. The height of the main monument was nearly doubled from its original 100 feet to just over 170 feet (30 meters to 52 meters).

From what I can discern, the budget had already been overrun multiple times, and the height increase had only served to exacerbate those costs. I'll come up with a better way to word/contextualize this if needed.
How about "a decision that further increased the project's cost, which had already substantially overrun its budget"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Done. joeyquism (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning the height of the Statue of Liberty since it's relevant at that point.
  • "After rejections from the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund and the Volgogradgidrostroi": I don't understand this -- these two groups were approached to lead the construction, and they said no? And what is the Volgogradgidrostroi?
    • Your assumption here is mostly correct - the Sculptural Group was initially tasked with construction and later asked to be relieved of its construction duty and Volgogradgidrostroi was asked to take over. The latter then "expressed reservation" about the project, after which Nikitin was appointed to head construction. Volgogradgidrostroi is a construction firm. I've since revised to "After the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund requested to be relieved of their construction duties and the construction firm Volgogradgidrostroi expressed reservations about taking over the project, structural engineer Nikolai Nikitin was appointed to lead the construction efforts." A bit wordy, but a lot more accurate. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout 1963, Nikitin's design team meticulously planned the construction process for the monument, finalizing their designs by August": if they were done by August the planning did not last throughout 1963. And I don't think you can say "meticulously planned" over a period of time; it's a statement about a completed process.
  • The second paragraph of the "Construction" subsection seems to repeat itself a little -- we get "the need to ensure the foundation's ... soil stability", then "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" and then "was essential to prevent structural instability", within three sentences. The drainage is mentioned more than once too.
    • If I recall correctly, "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" was something that was not there prior to the GA review. That being said, I like its placement there, as not everyone would expect to know why mellite clays are something of concern. I'll remove "soil" before stability, and I've removed "Addressing these concerns was essential to prevent structural instability and ensure proper drainage on the hill", as the first part is redundant and the drainage issues are addressed later. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statue ... would utilize" and "The statue's structure would feature": why "would" rather than just "used" and "featured"? If this refers to plans that did not come to pass, I'd go with something like "was intended to". There are several other uses of "would" in the paragraph; I think they would all be better structured as statements of intention -- for example "A radio transmitter was installed in the statue's head in order to transmit data on ...".
  • "that was previously developed": suggest "that had been developed".
  • "between 25–60 centimetres (9.8–23.6 in)": see MOS:RANGE: "Do not mix en dashes with between or from".
  • "yet challenges persisted": I think this can be cut -- the following paragraph takes us back to May 1966, to describe the issues with the sword, so the reader doesn't know what this refers to.
  • "and the Pantheon, which had replaced the Panorama due to issues with its own foundation": as written "its own foundation" refers to the Pantheon's foundation, but I think you mean the Panorama's foundation.
  • Why do we get the details of the problems with the Pantheon's glass? This seems like it belongs with in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex, though since it was a risk to the opening date I can see some mention is needed.
    • Removed "resulting in a checkerboard-like appearance of alternating light and dark sections. Under immense pressure to complete the project, workers had not pooled the tiles to ensure uniformity but had applied them as they arrived", as this seems to be more extraneous to me. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "describing its purpose as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders": I think this is imprecise. The statue's purpose is to act as a tribute; the tribute is the statue, not the statue's purpose.
    • I'll get back to this. Not sure how to word it right now, but I'll come up with something later. No need for assistance; I feel like I'd be asking too much of you if I requested it. Thank you for your prior help on wording! joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Revised to "describing the statue as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders". I'll admit, I'm still a bit confused by what you mean here, so if this isn't what you were looking for please let me know! joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That looks fine. I wasn't very clear, I admit; what I meant to say was that there's a difference between the statue and the statue's purpose. The original wording was that the purpose was a tribute, but purposes aren't things, they're intentions. A purpose can't be a tribute; the statue can be a tribute, though. The statue's purpose is to be a tribute; the statue is a tribute. Anyway, it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were to be treated with a waterproofing agent once a year": this describes an intention, but if this happened we should say so.
  • "its height had deviated an additional 60 millimetres (2.4 in) from its original axis": a height doesn't have an axis. Do you mean that the statue was tilting, enough so that the top of the statue presumably the tip of the sword) had moved 60 mm to one side?
  • "was subsiding as a result of rising water levels": I don't know if the sources will let you say more, but this seems odd -- there can't be much hydrology at the top of a hill.
    • I was initially confused by this too, though unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate on it much at all. If I can find a way around this, I'll revise, though I feel like I have to leave it as it so as to stay true to the source. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Estimated costs to repair the structural issues required over 7 million USD": the estimated costs didn't require this much money; they were this much money; or say that the repairs required this much.
  • "previous attempts to allocate government funds for restoration had been undermined by misappropriation": does the source give any time period for this? It seems out of chronological order where it is now, because of the "had been".
    • Unfortunately, there isn't any given time period - the source states that funds that were allocated for repairs had been stolen "in the past", with no further elaboration on when that was. joeyquism (talk)
  • I think "piezometric network" needs a few words of inline explanation; a typical reader of an article about a statue won't know what this is about.
  • "after the end of the 2018 FIFA World Cup": suggest "which was held in Russia" to make it clear to the reader why this is relevant.
  • Is the article in British English or American English? I see "mythologised" and "historicised", but several instances of "meter" rather than "metre".
    • It's supposed to be in British English; I am not British, so this is an oversight. Only chose British English because I didn't think American English would have been appropriate given the current tension between the US and Russia - a bit of a silly decision on my part. Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pedestal's slabs permanently excluded": I don't understand this.
  • "his comments received backlash": I don't think you can use "backlash" as a mass noun in this way.
  • Can we get a word or two to explain who Navalny is?
    • Changed to "Russian opposition leader" as that's what the source labels him. Still not entirely sure of the rules about corroboration of titles and other defining information about people and events - for example, does labelling him as a "political activist" require sourcing? joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Cruz criticized for including a picture of the sculpture? What was the basis for the criticism?
    • Cruz was criticized for including an image of a statue commemorating Soviet victory on the cover of a book about "how the US legal system isn't right wing enough yet". It's redundant and not succinct by any means, but "United States Senator Ted Cruz faced criticism for featuring an image of the sculpture, which commemorates Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad, on the cover of his book Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System, which critiques the perceived lack of right-wing influence in the U.S. legal system" is what I have written right now. Let me know if this works, or if it needs more work. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the video games are worth mentioning, unless a source about the statue (not primarily about the video games) mentions the connection.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Mike Christie. I'll get to these in the next few days or so - I've addressed a few of them already. joeyquism (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most points struck; a couple left -- and no worries about being slow to respond; real life usually has to take priority. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I believe I've addressed the rest of the points now. Seems like there should just a few more replies left as I've left some comments open for queries. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: I just noticed that there's an exclamation point in the Russian title. Can I just confirm that it is definitely not in the English version? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian sources overwhelmingly include the exclamation mark, whereas most English sources including Palmer 2009 - the most cited English source in the article - omit it. The Scotsman, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Newsweek, The Independent, and the New York Times also omit the exclamation mark; the only exception to this seems to be UNESCO. Granted, this means that the English name formatting on wiki will be solely based on the frequency of a certain stylization, though I am personally comfortable with this. Let me know your thoughts on the matter. joeyquism (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems fine to me.

Support. Happy to support; I think this is worth the star. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wonderful review and your support! joeyquism (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:The Motherland Calls detail - Volgograd, October 2018.jpg: Fair use with quality rationale.
  • File:Berlin Treptow Ehrenmal 07.jpg: Good to use with attribution.
  • File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg: CC0
  • File:Héroes de la batalla de Stalingrado.jpg: CC attribution 4.0 (the russian military CC-licenses its photos? fascinating)
  • File:The Motherland Calls, 2019.jpg: CC attribution 4.0
  • File:Родина Мать в городе Маньчжурия.jpg: CC-BY-SA-4.0
  • File:Coat of Arms of Volgograd oblast small.svg: PD
  • File:1973 CPA 4208.jpg: PD
  • File:RR5217-0042R.jpg: PD

@Joeyquism: All images seem high quality and useful for the article. However, many lack alt-text. Once that is resolved, I'm all good to support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Generalissima, just sticking my nose in to say that alt text isn't actually part of the FAC criteria -- it's come up a couple of times and there's never been consensus to add it. Not to say you shouldn't suggest it -- I always add it when an image reviewer reminds me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I am so used to Nikkimaria's suggestions to add it I forgot those are just suggestions. Support on image review then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Regardless, I'll get to adding alt text sometime soon. joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah heck, looks like you need another prose review; I'll give it a lookover.
  • Lede is very solid.
  • Is there any estimate on how old the Mamayev Kurgan? It might be good to add "ancient" or some other adjective to note that it wasn't a burial mound from the battle.
  • I think the sentence ending with Stand To the Death! doesn't need the period after the exclamation point.
  • The second paragraph in Design and Construction is massive, I think you might want to split it down the middle.
  • Ditto with the third paragraph of Construction, the second paragraph of Work and Completion, and the third and fourth paragraphs of Post-dedication; this will make it easier to read.

@Joeyquism: Otherwise, don't see any outstanding issues. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed everything here! Thank you so much for the prose review :) let me know if anything else comes to your attention! joeyquism (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Support on the prose review too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave a review in the following days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 25 is missing pages.
  • Ref 62 and 63 (Riabov et al.) are missing pages.
  • The lede already mentions twice the fact that it was completed in October 1967. I think that it's better to mention the fact only once, it's up to you to change it however you want. If you end up keeping the latter sentence, then I have a recommendation: "Despite these obstacles, the memorial was completed in October 1967 for the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution" – I think that it's enough just to mention the year, because the latter part already implies that it was completed during the 50th anniversary.
  • The article has certainly been improved since the last time I took a look at it. These are the issues that I've stumbled up on. I'm positive that it meets the FA criteria now, so you have my support. Good job! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all of these. Thank you for the review and support! joeyquism (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll additionally perform a source review, considering that the article already received an image review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No issues with reference formatting.
  • Listed references are reliable.
  • Missing pages were already addressed in my review above.
  • Spotcheck
    • Background: Ref 1, 4, 8, 9–all verify the cited content.
    • Design and construction: Ref 11, 18, 19, 22, 28, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39–all verify the cited content.
    • Post-dedication: Ref 41, 45, 46, 51, 54, 61, 65, 68–all verify the cited content.
    • Depictions: Ref 71, 73–all verify the cited content.
  • Looks good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your source review :) joeyquism (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I will read the article and leave some comments here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dugan Murphy, thanks for taking a look! Very much looking forward to your review. joeyquism (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read very much yet, but here's what I got so far:

  • I see "honor" twice in the article, but the tag at the top says the article is in British English, so those should both be "honour".
  • honoring the Great Patriotic War: I think it's worth including a short phrase to define that term in that sentence so readers unfamiliar with it don't have to click on it to understand what it refers to. Something like "honoring what they refer to as the Great Patriotic War" or something like that. Mind you, that may make the sentence unwieldy enough to necessitate splitting it into two.
  • whom he had previously collaborated with should be "with whom he had previously collaborated".
  • Maybe it's because I'm from Maine, but Wikilinking granite doesn't seem necessary.
  • The entrance to the monument was planned to feature a triumphal arch that led: This needs to be reworded in one of two ways. One: "The entrance to the monument was planned to feature a triumphal arch that would have led". Two: "The original plan for the monument featured a triumphal arch that led". Then you would need to follow either format for the rest of the paragraph.
  • into a granite staircase should be "to a granite staircase".
  • that Vuchetich specialised in should be "in which Vuchetich specialised".

I'll read more and leave more comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more:

I'll write more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the rest of my comments:

  • I don't think these words need a Wikilink: scaffolding, bankruptcy, image editing, video game developer, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, nipple, coat of arms, postage stamp, postcard, sculpture, concrete, plaza/town square, pedestal, shawl, wing, sword, granite.
    • Not sure why I wikilinked most of these - rookie mistake perhaps? Most of these have since been removed, with some exceptions being sculpture (I feel as if the lead should have important defining terms wikilinked), concrete (following same idea here), plaza, and pedestal. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Bastrykin should be introduced as "investigative committee chairman Bastrykin" or something like that.
  • The sentence that starts The statue was originally planned is too long and should be split up.
  • The construction of The Motherland Calls: The first "the" is extraneous.
  • I think the only thing that's missing from the lead section is a summary of the "Depictions" section. This could be one sentence at the end that doesn't need to mention any specific depiction examples, but summarizes the breadth of depictions the statue has inspired.
  • The infobox doesn't say much. Are there parameters to include the statue's main material and height? Those seem to be crucial, basic facts that a reader may want to access at a glance at the top of the article.
  • "Labor" should be "labour", per British English.

Overall, I'd say this is a well-written, neutral-sounding article that appears to comprehensively cover the topic without going into undue detail about any one aspect. With the one exception I mentioned above, I think the lead does a great job of summarizing the body. The most persistent issue with the article is overlinking, which I consider a pretty minor issue. Earwig indicates plagiarism is unlikely. Given the American/British English discrepancies this American found, I wonder if a native speaker of British English would find more. Not that I'm so concerned about that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dugan Murphy - thanks so much for your review (and for pointing out my inconsistency in adhering to British English convention - I am also an American). I've been quite busy with work lately, so I'll begin addressing your comments on Friday night; should be finished by the weekend. joeyquism (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, @Dugan Murphy; I should have addressed all your comments above, with some minor tweaks to be done soon. Thank you for the review, and hope you've been having a wonderful weekend! joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice improvements! Note my responses above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: Thank you for the quick response! Replies are above. joeyquism (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I see only one minor lingering issue. See my comment above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has been addressed! joeyquism (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. I don't see any other issues with this article worth raising here, so I would like to add my support to this nomination for the reasons I stated in my summary above. In other news, I have my own FAC nomination here that needs more comments from reviewers. Do you have time to look it over? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! I'll give your FAC a look in the next week or so; I've been rather busy as of late. joeyquism (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by query

[edit]
SC
  • Comments coming shortly - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the article is tagged as "Use British English"—and it mostly is—but the text has a lot of AmEng spellings: romanized (romanised), Defense (Defence), molds (moulds), valor (valour), analyzing (analysing) and rubles (roubles) are all in there (some of them more than once).
    • Apologies for this - I'm an American, so these things just tend to slip through the cracks for me. Perhaps a poor decision on my part, though strangely enough I felt as if it'd be more appropriate to write this article in a European variation of English. These have since been fixed. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was later changed in 1961": you don't need both later and 1961, so either "was later changed" or "was changed in 1961" would work.
  • "The project faced numerous challenges, including the assembly of the statue's framework and its intricate features, which were compounded by the statue's size": this doesn't quite work grammatically. Maybe something along the lines of "The project faced numerous challenges, including with the assembly of the statue's framework and its intricate features; these problems were compounded by the statue's size" (or similar) would work?
  • "taller than the 46 metres (151 ft) tall Statue of Liberty" -> taller than the 46 metre (151 ft) Statue of Liberty"
  • "thorough investigation ... thoroughly investigate": maybe a little tweak to avid the close repetition?
  • "it remains the tallest statue in Europe": this needs an "as at 2024"
  • "structural integrity of the structure": repetition
    • Changed to "However, by 2009, concerns had been raised about its structural integrity", with "its" being the antecedent for the statue, as it had been mentioned in the previous sentence. Let me know if this works. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just me nit-picking in what is otherwise a commendable article and a highly enjoyable read. - SchroCat (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, SchroCat - comments have been addressed above. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [58].

Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known song by Taylor Swift, who is an indie artist. Any and all comments would be much appreciated :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(i wouldn't say "little-known", it has 1.6 billion views on YouTube, but that's irrelevant) 750h+ 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was sarcasm. AryKun (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irony? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The following sentence is not grammatically correct: (A pop song with hip hop beats and keyboards, the lyrics are about betrayal by a close friend.) It is describing the lyrics as "a pop song ..." and not the song itself so it would need to be revised.
  • Since Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar are identified with their nationalities, shouldn't the same be done for Max Martin and Shellback (i.e. saying "the Swedish producers" as opposed to just "the producers"). It would be best to be consistent.
  • Apologies in advance if I am just overlooking this, but I was curious about this part, (demonstrated a new aspect of Swift's artistry), and I could not really locate it in the "Critical reception" section. Could you clarify where this is supported? I see positive reviews describing "Bad Blood" as a 1989 highlight, but I do not see any larger consensus to support the "new aspect" discussed in the lead.
  • I am uncertain about the following in the lead, (featured among the best songs of 2015 on lists by NME and PopMatters). Are these two specific lists notable enough to highlight in the lead?
  • For this part, (consisting of many singers, actresses, and fashion models), I would cut "many" as it comes across more as a filler word. I can understand that it is likely there to convey just how many people are crammed into the video, but I think that readers can understand that without the "some".
  • Shouldn't the Ryan Adams cover be mentioned in the lead as it does have its own section?
  • Apologies for not catching this in previous FACs, but I have a comment about this part, (Taylor Swift had identified as a country musician). The source describes Swift as "the country/pop star", but I do not see where it says that Swift herself identified as a country singer until releasing Red. I think a stronger source will be needed to support this information unless I am overlooking something in the current citation.
  • It may be beneficial to cut back on some of the quotes in the "Critical reception" section. The information itself is very good, but certain parts feel quite quote-heavy. That being said, I could just be over-thinking this so feel free to disagree with me.
  • I am a bit confused by the WP:FUR for File:Bad blood taylor video.png. The rationale points out that it is "a single look in a very fashion-oriented video", but is fashion really one of the main reason for its inclusion? While looking at the caption and the section, I'd think the screenshot is more so about the "squad" and action movie vibes.
  • For this part, (consisting of female singers and fashion models), shouldn't it include "actresses" to both match the lead and better represent the video (as people like Ellen Pompeo are neither a singer nor a model).
  • I remember that the video for "Bitch I'm Madonna" received a lot of comparisons to the one for "Bad Blood". I think that information would be beneficial here as it would show the impact that this particular video had.
  • The article currently includes a parody version from How It Should Have Ended , which is only supported by a single citation. Why is this cover more notable than the other ones that I mentioned above, which are all supported by reliable, third-party citations? WP:SONGTRIVIA states the use of a song can be mentioned if it "is discussed by a reliable source". For each of the citations that I included above, the cover versions are the main subject of the articles. What are you defining as "notable" in the context of this FAC? If a cover version needs to be covered by multiple citations or have further support to be deemed notable, then that would call into question the inclusion of the How It Should Have Ended parody version (which again is only supported by a single citation). The criteria for inclusion is unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I'm not saying to not include them, I'm saying I'll look into them case by case to see what to include and what not. Ippantekina (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (and that he wanted to sing the songs from his perspective), I would avoid sing / songs in the same sentence.
  • I am a bit uncertain about this sentence: (Swift expressed her attitude towards Lamar on social media and called the event "surreal and bewildering".) It seems a tad overly wordy and I am not sure about calling this an "event".
  • The article says that Taylor's Version has an identical arrangement to the original and then goes on to discuss the differences so it seems a bit contradictory.
  • This citation is missing the publication date: here.
  • This citation is no longer active: here

For clarity, I am working from this version of the article. I hope that this review is helpful. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article more thoroughly to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope that you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thanks very much for your comments. I likewise hope that you are doing well :) Let me get back to you asap. Ippantekina (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please let me know when you have addressed all of the comments. I also wanted to add that I agree with the below suggestion that the liner notes should be used as citations for the credits and personnel just to clarify to the reader where this information is being supported. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aoba, I've addressed all of your concerns :) Let me know if there are any points that I overlooked. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I noticed one more thing, and I think that should be it for me. The infobox includes both pop and hip hop for the genres and the Category:American hip hop songs is used, but the lead says that the song has "hip hop beats", which is also later used in the article alongside "prominent hip hop styling". The article currently does not support "Bad Blood" being described as a hip hop song as there is not an instance where a critic explicitly says this (as using things like styling and beats is not the same). I would either remove the genre from the infobox and the category or revise the prose (with an appropriate citation) that explicitly refers to this song as hip hop. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba47, thanks for the comment. I concur with your explanation, and I've removed the Hip-hop categorisation from the Infobox and the Categories. Let me know if everything's ok now :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

I will take a look at this one but it's probably best if I wait till all of Aoba's comments are addressed so that I don't duplicate things they said..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: pinging because Aoba has finished their review :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. A bit tied up today but will definitely take a look when I get a chance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, just so you know this is here. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

[edit]

I have an active FAC, so I figured I should review something. Why not thing song?

  • "Critics have retrospectively considered "Bad Blood" one of Swift's worst songs." - I was lukewarm on reviewing this article because I wasn't a big fan of the song, with the repetitive lyrics, which I was pleasantly surprised to see mentioned. No note here, I'm just really glad the lead goes very well with my thoughts on the song. I'm a musician, not the biggest Taylor Swift fan but I think she has some solid bops (just not this one), just for reference of objectivity.
  • "It incorporates surging keyboards" - as a musician I have no idea what a "surging keyboard" is
  • "When Rolling Stone asked him in 2017 whether he was "taking sides in a pop beef", he responded that he was unaware of it." - what does this have to do this with this song?
  • "it marked one of the largest jumps to the top in Billboard chart history" - by the very Wikipedia article linked here, Swift herself had two other songs with bigger leaps, so I'm not sure if this is accurate.
  • "It peaked within the top five on charts of South Africa (two),[48] Lebanon (four),[49] and the United Kingdom (four).[50] The song also reach the top ten in Hungary, Finland and Ireland." - the parenthesis take up just as much time as saying them individually, and #2 is nice, but there aren't any Wikipedia lists for "List of #2 singles". I suggest having the list here including all of the countries as top ten.
  • "the musicologist James E. Perone" - why the "the"?
  • Is it worth mentioning that the Youtube video has more than 1 billion views? I mention this because the article talks about Vevo, but doesn't follow up with the platform that Vevo was probably on.
  • " Judy L. Isaksen and Nahed Eltantawy—scholars in popular culture and journalism, and Hannelore Roth—a scholar in literature argued that Swift's idea of feminism was only applicable to famous and wealthy women. " - great point, but you might need another dash after Hannelore Roth - a scholar in literature.
  • "Roth added that by casting Lamar as the ringleader behind the female squad" - I didn't realize until this moment that Lamar was in the music video. Yes, I see his mention earlier in the long list of people, but that came after this: "The video features an ensemble cast consisting of female singers, actresses, and fashion models who were dubbed by the media as Swift's "squad".[79][80] Each member of the cast chose her character's name." So I thought it was a bunch of females who I weren't aware of. You might want to highlight this better, as opposed to it coming so late in the narrative.
  • " In 2016, "Bad Blood" was nominated for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance and won Best Music Video at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards,[103] and the single was recognized as one of the biggest songs of the year at both the ASCAP Pop Music Awards by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)[104] and the 64th Annual BMI Pop Awards by Broadcast Music, Inc." - this is a lot for one sentence.
  • A quick Google search suggests there have been a lot more covers. It even appeared in a TV show (or two).
  • Could you add a source for the "Credits and personnel" section? If it's the liner notes, is there a ref for that? Same for remix.

All in all, a great read! There were only a few small spots where I wondered "huh what's up with that". Let me know if you have any questions Ippantekina (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hurricane, thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there's anything that I missed. Ippantekina (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks, you got them all! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck from NegativeMP1

[edit]

Forthcoming, will try to have this done over the weekend. λ NegativeMP1 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this. I've started it, though. λ NegativeMP1 17:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the long wait. I've Spotchecked specific uses of about a fifth of the article's references (46), plus a few extra in areas where I felt was needed. I did not check SFNs as I have no method of verifying those. Hopefully that’s satisfactory. Specific checks:

Spotcheck list
  • 2 verifies the text.
  • 6 ditto.
  • 7 ditto.
  • 10 ditto, though is there a reason why it’s marked as requiring a paywall when it does not? Or is there something I’m missing here?
  • 12 doesn’t specifically say that Bad Blood is hip-hop, but discusses it in the context of a paragraph about the album’s hip-hop tracks. So verified. The second use of the source later in the section is also verified.
  • 17 ditto.
  • 18 ditto.
  • 21 ditto.
  • 22 ditto, and I assume good faith in 23 and 24 (which are used to cite the same statement) based on the article titles. But don’t count those towards the spotcheck.
  • 25 ditto.
  • 26 ditto, but as a similar case for 10, unless something weird is going on with my browser this source does not require a paid subscription. I can access it completely for free.
  • 27 does not mention Kendrick Lamar’s remix in the source text. It also, once again, does not require a sub.
  • 30 verified.
  • 31 ditto.
  • 34 ditto.
  • 37 ditto.
  • 43 ditto.
  • 59 ditto.
  • 60 ditto.
  • 67 ditto.
  • 68 ditto.
  • 69 ditto.
  • 74 ditto.
  • 76 ditto.
  • 77 ditto.
  • 78 ditto.
  • 82 ditto.
  • 85 ditto.
  • 92 ditto.
  • 102 ditto.
  • 123 ditto.
  • 128 ditto.
  • 132 ditto.
  • 133 does verify the fact it was a track-by-track cover, but it doesn’t specifically name Bad Blood. I think that’s good enough, but someone else might disagree. The whole Bruce Springsteen thing is verified, though.
  • 141 ditto
  • 183 ditto
  • 195 ditto.
  • 201 ditto.
  • 202 ditto.
  • 203 ditto.
  • 207 ditto.
  • 205 ditto.
  • 212 ditto.
  • 216 ditto.

Generally the sourcing looks good, but there’s some areas that I think need to be addressed, primarily 27 as it failed verification. λ NegativeMP1 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the source review! I've addressed the issues and found a replacement ref for #27. Ippantekina (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks good. Support λ NegativeMP1 16:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image placement seems OK. Does the sample File:Bad Blood.ogg discuss an aspect of the song that drew particular attention? Since this article is mainly about the song, I am not sure that File:Bad blood taylor video.png meets the "significantly enhances the understanding of the article topic" prong of WP:NFCC#8. The ogg file has no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do ogg files require ALT texts? The screenshot of the video provides context for the music video itself -- a significant portion of the article is devoted to that. Ippantekina (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: per {{Listen}} alt text is applicable to audio files that contain videos. In this case I don't think the ogg file requires alt text as it's not a visual file. I believe the music video screenshot adds to the understanding of the "squad" discussed in a prominent section of "Music video". Ippantekina (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that is sufficient to meet the "significant" and "article topic" parts of the rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: You had the same issue with the music video screenshot for You Belong with Me. How would you interpret criterion #8 of NFCC? I'm assuming that you are not thinking of "Music video" (which is a section of the article) as significant enough to be an article topic? What if "Music video" is an important aspect of the article topic, which is true in this case; would that still not suffice? Ippantekina (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that at WP:FFD, significantly enhancing the understanding of an article section often isn't held to be sufficient for a non-free image. Personally I think it's borderline and potential such concerns need to be noted in the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from. I think the video screenshot in this case can be justified: the music video of this song attracted in-depth commentary (the lead does mention this as well) and had a significant impact on the attention/success this song received. Definitely a pass imo. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

What makes The Quietus a reliable source? It seems like we are using mainstream sources and consistent formatting, otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source for Music articles, listed at WP:RSMUSIC. It was also selected by The Independent as one of the best music websites. Ippantekina (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: nudge. Ippantekina (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [59].

Tomb of Kha and Merit

[edit]
Nominator(s): Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the funerary monuments and burial of the ancient Egyptian official Kha and his wife, Merit. Their ruined funerary chapel in Deir el-Medina was known since the early 1800s but their tomb, hidden at the base of the cliffs opposite the chapel, was discovered in 1906, intact after more than 3000 years. The majority of the contents (over 440 items) were awarded to the Italian Archaeological Mission's director, Ernesto Schiaparelli, and are housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy. Being unrobbed, the tomb gives a glimpse of what a well-stocked middle class burial looked like during the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Amenhotep III.

I took this article to GA last year, and through peer review earlier in the year. After picking at it a while, and with the kind mentorship of Iry-hor, I am nominating it for FAC. Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

This is a top-notch article and a delight to read (as I would expect from a protégée of Iry-Hor). These few comments are all I can come up with by way of criticism:

  • The article is evidently in BrE, in which case "modeled" should be "modelled".
  • The work "likely" occurs 19 times in the text, and a few variations such as "probably", "possibly", "may have been" etc would relieve the monotony.
  • Similarly we have seven "due to"s. A few "because of"s or "owing to"s (both, on the whole better in formal English) would help the prose along.
  • "Sem-priest" – a link or explanation would be welcome.
  • "further restoration was carried out in 2002, before being placed on a new padded mount in 2004" – could do with a tweak – what was placed on a new mount was not further restoration, but that which was restored.
  • "the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, France" – as opposed to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Peru? Paris, Outer Mongolia? Paris, Azerbaijan? And I'd be sparing, à la français, with the capital letters, here and in the Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale.
  • "kiosk" – in the UK a kiosk is the booth where you buy your newspapers and cigarettes outside the railway station: a brief explanation of what the term meant to the Ancient Egyptians, as at Philae, would be helpful here.

I hope these few points are helpful, and apologies if my tone is a bit tetchy: it's beastly hot and sticky in London today. Tim riley talk 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments! I have addressed them as best I can ^_^ Merytat3n (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All admirably addressed. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA: it meets every criterion in my view, and I hope we shall be seeing more from the nominator in due course. Tim riley talk 11:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

On first glance, seems a superb article. As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

Kha and Merit
  • "but this probably reflects the use of this king's name long after his reign" is this the general consensus of scholars or the view of one? if the latter, his/her view should be attributed.
Trapani (2012) says: "The prenomen of Thutmosis III (Men-kheper-Re) in effect was often used on scarabs or other objects much later than the Eighteenth Dynasty, signifying that his seal-name had acquired a protective power of its own." She cites C. Adriano, The Cretulae from the Tomb of Kha and their Administrative Signiicance in a Funeral Context, CRIPEL 22 (2001), 109–122, which I don't have access to. However, page 4 of Kathyln M. Cooney's "Scarab" chapter in the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (2008) does back this up: "Even scarab inscriptions with royal names cannot necessarily be dated to the reigns of those rulers, because such names are often inscribed long after a ruler’s death—particularly those of the 4th-Dynasty king Sneferu, the 18th-Dynasty Thutmose III (Jaeger 1982), and the 19th-Dynasty Ramesses II." Added a citation to Cooney for academic robustness. I've also clarified why Kha is unlikely to have been working in Thutmose III's reign. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obtained a bronze pan" couple of things: 1) by "pan", I assume of the cooking variety? 2) "obtained" normally means he asked, whereas the previous sentence indicates it was a gift.
1) swapped to "bowl" 2) swapped to "received" Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a "gold of honour"" ... I'm not entirely sure what this means.
Oh OOPS! Defined (+ common alternative name and translit). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Preparations for his tomb likely began in the reign of Thutmose IV, as his name occurs most frequently as a seal on vessels." The second "his" is made more ambiguous by the fact that we have referred to Kha only as he/his for a few sentences now. Would suggest changing "as his" to "whose".
Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "on the style of his coffins" absolutely no clue whether this "his" refers to Kha or Amenhotep III.
Swapped sentence around to be "Based on the style of his coffins...Kha probably died in the third decade of Amenhotep III's rule" to make it clear. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the juvenilising art style seen on the painted funerary chests" as we previously haven't discussed the funerary chests, we could remove the "the" and clearly define them as in the tomb?
Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merit (also transcribed as Meryt[1])" I believe it's normal practice for the citation to follow the parentheses, but I could be wrong.
It is but if the citation in question refers specifically to the contents of the parentheses, the citation goes inside. In this case, the [1] citation refers to her as Meryt not Merit as the main citation does (although technically Meryt is more correct to the hieros (mryt)). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She seems to have predeceased Kha. Her death was probably unexpected as she is buried in a coffin intended for him." these closely-linked sentences could be combined; if not, "she was buried" seems more natural than "she is buried", although the latter is technically correct...
Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chapel
  • Might be worth adding a clarification for the unlearned, such as I, that the chapel and tomb are separate from each other.
I mention that they are separate in the last paragraph of that section, just before "Decoration" but I can mention it again, at the risk of duplication. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if other reviewers bring it up.
  • "time of European interest in it, during" can be cut
Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the stele now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy" should probably be "a stele"
Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The back wall being damaged during the stele's removal is mentioned twice.
Kept the "second" mention of damage in the decoration section and removed the "first" mention. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tomb
  • This section contains several long paragraphs; I would suggest they be split in half, especially those which comprise individual sections by themselves (MOS:OVERSECTION).
So far I have only split up the large first paragraph in "Discovery and clearance". Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:A TT8 Kha sírja Dejr-el-Medinében.jpeg is a very unhelpful picture+caption. First, are we to assume the yellow dot covers up the location of the tomb? Surely an arrow would be better?
    Second, the latter part of the caption (viz. "visible diagonally to the left of the tomb, partially obscured by the hill") is just confusing. After around five minutes of searching, I think I can see a flat-topped structure, next to some terrace-like walls, on a bearing of 250° from the yellow dot—is that the chapel?
    If so, note that readers will naturally see "obscured by hill" and assume you mean the big ones at the back of the photo, where I spent the first four minutes playing I spy. You could alleviate this problem by saying "closer to the camera" or something.
Yeah, it sucks. Honestly, I will probably just remove the image. I would love to use a simple plan view of the area, such as appears in the general plan of Deir el-Medina in Bruyère's 1925 publication (chapel labelled 8A and tomb 8B, upper centre of image) but alas I believe they are still in copyright as Bruyère only died in 1971. Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be the case. I ran into the same problem with Ai-Khanoum, but in that case others had uploaded their own renditions (presumably allowable per commons:COM:TOO France). If you are any good with a pen or with online software, you could probably do the same thing. If you can't, not a big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do this weekend : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't satisfied with my weekend attempts but it's not strictly necessary, just a nice to have. I can always keep trying : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the discoloured limestone fill was mixed with bone, pottery, and cloth" is this necessary information?
Nope. Removed.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth paragraph duplicates the contents of the ... "Contents" section below. Most of the middle bit could be removed.
Done.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "published the discovery" as in he published an account of the discovery,?
Fixed (and expanded this section a little). Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the discovery" is repeated twice within two phrases.
Reworded.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leading to confusion" resolved or unresolved?
Unresolved, but I have resolved the wording : )Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A cubit rod ... may have been an award from [Amenhotep II]" this uncertainty is at odds with the "Kha and Merit" section, which shows no such lack of surety.
Source checked and surety established.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue. If you have time and the inclination, I have a current FAC I would appreciate comments on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to add anything, AJ? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support nothing really worth quibbling about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ganesha811

[edit]
  • I think a note explaining the meaning of Ꜥ (from KhaꜤ) would be appropriate. In general, in the first section, a note at the first appearance of italicized transliterations linking to the system used or similar would be helpful.
I've addressed this in a roundabout way by adding translit for Kha and Merit's names, putting Kha's alt renderings in a note and adding the ayin link there. Let me know if this is ok. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kha presumably employed his own skilled workmen to execute the decoration - this is interesting and suggests that the chapel was completed or built during his life, which I don't think was mentioned before. Would that have been typical? I think a little more context would be valuable.
Yes, the chapel and tomb (and coffins, and other burial goods) were generally (ideally) completed during the owner's life. I will see if I can dig out anything from a more general source before I add context, but at the very least, Vassilika (2010 pp.8, 10) says that Kha started tomb prep during his life, and may have worked on the chapel and tomb with his own men, or perhaps his sons.Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added : ) Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a rare example of an intact middle class burial from the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty - what does the term middle class mean in context here? A note might be helpful - is anyone non-royal and non-peasant middle class?
Great question. Tentatively yes. The sources seem a little unsure on how exactly to categorise Kha and Merit, and TT8. Vassilika (2010) calls the tomb "the best surviving furnished, non royal tomb" (p.7) and says Kha is middle class and it has been suggested he was the lowest level of the elite (p.10), which Russo also follows, suggesting he integrated into the elite administration at the end of his life (Russo 2012 pp. 63, 78). Based on his coffins, he had access to royal workshops (Vassilika, Russo, Forbes, and Kozloff). Forbes calls Kha "upper-middle class" (pp.107, 113) and "high-status" (p.132). In light of this, I can change "middle class" to "non-royal", which is perhaps the easiest and safest wording : ) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 2017, the tomb's contents have been the subject of the "TT8 Project", a multidisciplinary and non-invasive study of all the objects, the full publication of which is planned for 2024 - has this study been published?
Not as far as I am aware : ( (unless it refers to the trickle of publications on various classes of objects that have come out over the last few years, in which case, perhaps.) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • half-full of fat with the wick burning when the tomb was closed - how was this determined? Do the sources say?
I think they just assume it. Schiaparelli says that (pp.17, 45) "The lamp was still two thirds full of grease. The relatives had left it lit when they closed the tomb and it illuminated the chamber while the wick lasted; it had gone out when this burnt down." Figure 127 of The Intact Tomb of Kha shows the lamp, with its wick and fat or oil. His account has its known flaws so perhaps he was being overly romantic. Weigall, who was also there (and can also exaggerate), says something similar in his 1911 account: "...was a small copper dish, in which were the ashes of incense, and the little stick used for stirring them. One asked oneself in bewilderment whether the ashes here, seemingly not cold, had truly ceased to glow at a time when Rome and Greece were undreamt of, when Assyiria did not exist..." (p.180) Sousa (2019 p.61) also repeats Schiaparelli, saying "...the last visitor, who swept [the floor] before closing the door leaving behind a papyrus-column lamp-stand burning". Vassilika simply says (p.108) that the lamp was found with the half-burnt wick in place.
Tl;dr: the lamp still has oil/fat in it and a burnt wick suggesting that, at the very least, it was used prior to burial, and assume it was left burning inside the tomb. Happy to reword to follow Vassilika (2010) more and Schiaparelli less, and just say lamp had oil/fat and the wick was burnt. Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would make the most sense. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • others were made into various shapes such as triangles, jars or trussed animals, or have grooves or holes that may suggest fertility this is a little grammatically awkward, suggest splitting the sentence.
Done! Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one retrospective comment on Schiaparelli's handling of the discovery, but no detail about how it was received at publication in 1927 other than that it attracted attention. I see he died just the next year. How did this discovery fit into the context of what was known in the 1920s, and how was it viewed over time? The article describes that it was all given to the Museo Egizio, but doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that Schiaparelli was director of that museum, which seems relevant. Are there any modern discussions re: the split where a few items remained in Cairo?
I have added a 1928 review of Schiaparelli's publication and some more about his use of photography. (It is praised for the many images but generally is not up to the standard expected for Egyptological publications of the 1920s.) I have added that Schiaparelli was director in a couple of places. There don't seem to be many modern discussions of the split but I have tried to expand on what is there - general speculation about the type of tomb, the other recent finds, space in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, etc. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • You mention in the infobox that it is a Theban Tomb, but not in the lead. This should be in the lead and the explanation of "TT" (not just a link).
Added to lead as "Theban Tomb 8 or TT8". It is not often spelled out, like the KV numbers used for the Valley of the Kings tombs. Just clarifying here that the linked "Theban tomb" in the infobox is a product of the "theban=yes" field of the Infobox Egyptian tomb template. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty" It would be helpful also to mention here that it was the early New Kingdom.
Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The texts of the chapel were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten and later restored, indicating it was one of the oldest chapels in the village cemetery." Why indication one of the oldest? This needs explanation.
It's a bit of a meh sentence anyway so I have tried to rework it to focus on the damage instead: "The decoration has been damaged over the millennia, deteriorating due to structural decay and human actions; the texts were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten, and scenes were later damaged by modern robbers." Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival and the exhibition has been reworked several times, most recently in 2015, where an entire gallery is dedicated to the tomb of Kha and Merit." This wording is confusing. Maybe "It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival, and an entire gallery is devoted to it. This has been been redesigned several times."
Done Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Given Kha's estimated age at death, it is unlikely that he was a mature professional over 50 years earlier during the rule of Thutmose III." This is unclear. What was his age at death (not stated in the main text at this point) and why would he have had to have been a mature professional, not just a young man, in Thutmose III's reign?
Schiaparelli thought Kha was born in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Thutmose I, and that he spent most of his career (and reached the peak of it) under Thutmose III. As evidence, Schiaparelli points to a box sealed with "Menkheperre", Thutmose III's throne name, and the absence of a royal gift from that king. He thought one definitely existed but there is no evidence for it because it was too precious to be included in the burial. This would put Kha in his mid-80s by the time of his death, which Schiaparelli placed in the early part of Amenhotep III's reign. This, of course, doesn't mesh with examination of Kha's mummy, which estimates he died in his 60s.
To be honest the entire two sentences are kind of null information, Schiaparelli is the only one who thinks he's active this early. All the other sources say Amenhotep II-Amenhotep III, and only a few mention the seals (as an aside), or Schiaparelli's opinion. I've turned it into a note but its not crucial and can easily be deleted.Merytat3n (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "juvenilising art style" What art style? Can it be linked?
After Amenhotep III's first jubilee festival in year 30 of his reign, the official art style changed, depicting figures in a "juvenilising" style. Faces were depicted with child-like features, such as over-large almond-shaped eyes, small mouths, and short, slightly upturned noses. As far as wiki is concerned, I don't think there is a page I can link to. It is not mentioned on Amenhotep III's page or art of Ancient Egypt. Instead of explaining, I will just remove "juvenilising" to leave only "art style". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading 'Kha and Merit'. This heading is vague. Maybe "Kha's career and family'.
Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after clearing two thirds of the valley". Presumably the whole valley was not covered - two thirds of the debris?
Tried to clarify as "after clearing debris along two thirds of the valley's length". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical," They are not identical as you say below that they are different sizes, so you need to specify in what respect. Shape? Decoration?
Specified. "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical in form, both being shaped like..." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Given their large size, they were brought into the tomb in sections and reassembled". "Given is an odd word here. Maybe "Due to their large size".
Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Below the collar and hands, a vulture goddess (identified as Nekhbet[139] or Nut[140]) spreads her wings over the torso above horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." This is ungrammatical.
Separated into two sentences. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." "imitate" is a strange word here. Do you mean that the same text is on many mummy wrappings? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe "simulate" or "emulate" would be better. I'll try to explain. On mummies, the shroud is often secured by vertical bands of fabric running vertically down the centre of the body from head to foot (and along the sides of the body), and horizontal bands going across the body at the level of the chest, elbows, hips, knees and ankles. The coffin is shaped like a wrapped mummy and its decoration mimics its appearance, including the bands. On coffins, the bands are often filled with texts but on mummies themselves, they are most often plain (unless you are Tutankhamun and have gold bands with inlaid texts atop of the functional fabric ones). Merytat3n (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to spell this out for clarity. E.g. "As with many other burials, the coffin has horizontal and vertical bands similar to the fabric bindings on mummy wrappings, but with text whereas mummy wrappings are usually plain." This is a bit clumsy and could probably be improved. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "The coffin has vertical and horizontal bands of text whose positions, at centre front and sides, bicep, hip, knee and ankle, reference the plain fabric bindings on mummy wrappings." Merytat3n (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"reference" is not clear in this context. How about "are similar to those of". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, done :) Merytat3n (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chemical analysis of textile samples from their mummies". This is unclear. Maybe "Chemical analysis of samples of textiles covering the mummies".
How about "Chemical analysis of samples of their mummy wrappings"? Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2005 CT examination identified that Kha fractured his first lumbar vertebra, an injury which left it flattened.[165] 2014 X-ray analysis considers this injury to have occurred after his death." This is confusing and ungrammatical. Maybe "The 2005 CT examination showed that the first lumbar vertebra is fractured, leaving it flattened.[165] An X-ray analysis in 2014 suggested that the damage occurred after his death."
Done! Merytat3n (talk)
  • Who is Susanne Binder? You need to say. Ditto Susanne Töpfer and Dennis C. Forbes and Dimitri Laboury.
Specified. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merit's coffin, intended for Kha, is much too large for her". You have said this above.
Removed. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • pectoral - what is this? You should wikilink.
Clarified as "pectoral necklace" and wikilinked pectoral. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This item is not without parallel as there are occasional examples from other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs. However, given the number of similar wooden statuettes known, this practice was likely much more common." You appear to say in the first sentence that they are rare, and in the second that they are common.
They are rarely found in context but many are known, they just have no provenance. Hopefully clarified as "There are occasional examples of such figures found in other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs; their inclusion may have been more common than these finds suggest, as many unprovenanced statuettes are known from museum collections." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the discovery, Gaston Maspero, director of the Antiquities Service". Presumably of the Egyptian service, but you should say so.
Stated. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Image seem to be well-placed. I wonder if the hieroglyphs can be sourced somehow. File:TT8 Plan.jpg needs a translation somewhere; is it explained in-text? File:TT8 Chapel exterior C02053.jpg, File:TT8 chapel interior.jpg, File:Forms of bread from TT8.jpg, File:TT8 burial chamber 01.jpg can probably be licenced as PD-1923 as well. File:Upper wall and ceiling motif MET 30.4.3.jpg, File:Funerary stela of Kha.jpg should give a licence (PD-old) for the motif too, and I am not sure I see the licence on the source page ... the metmuseum seems to be inconsistent in that regard. A fair many images have naked URLs on the file page, which makes it difficult to repair them if they break. File:Ay receiving the Gold of Honor.jpg also ought to have a licence for the motif (PD-old). Source-wise: Some ISBNs are with hyphens and others without; likewise, retrieval dates and accessibility icons are inconsistently applied. "Backdirt: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology" is not, to my knowledge, the name of the journal. Otherwise, the sources seem reliable and suitable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The little [1] immediately below the hieroglyphs is the source for them but it is hard to see. I have moved it to the text at the bottom of the hiero box where is displays as "Kha and Merit[1] in hieroglyphs".
TT8 plan now translated in caption. I've also added what the numbers refer to (wall scenes).
PD-old licenses added to the images.
Adding hyphens to ISBNs that didn't have them and checked all ISBNs valid.
Removed all urls that weren't free access or free registration and added access dates to the ones that didn't have them.
Fixed journal name.
Thanks! Merytat3n (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

[edit]

Of this version: * 5 OK, wonder if we should source the "New Kingdom" bit too. Also pretty sure that Deir el-Medina isn't the contemporary name.

If we do source that the Eighteenth Dynasty is part of the New Kingdom, would Rice 1999 p. xivii, where he says Eighteenth D. is part of the New Kingdom, or p.I, where he lists the dynasties and their larger periods, be ok?
The contemporary name for Deir el-Medina was simply "The Village" (pA dmi) (citing UCLA Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt). (Wiki's Deir el-Medina page currently cites Lesko (1994) p.7 who says the ancient name was "the Place of Truth", but on p.119 that its inhabitants always called it "The Village"). I can change it to "the workmen's village known today as Deir el-Medina". Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do that rename. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 While this supports that Iuy is the father's name, I have to wonder if #14 explicitly says that nothing is known otherwise. A source not discussing a topic doesn't mean that said topic wasn't covered anywhere.
[15] (Russo 2012 p.67) says: "The name of Kha's father, Awy, is quoted four times on the papyrus with chapters of the Book of the Dead (Suppl. no. 8438 Fondazione Museo Antichità Egizie, Turin), with three different spellings. Nothing else is known about his title and position in the central administration and at Deir el-Medina."
This is also supported by Vassilika (2010 p.76) who says: "Schiaparelli noted the rare mention of Kha's father Aui (4 times), the absence of his mother, and deduced that Kha was a man of modest background, without inherited titles, who was perhaps self made." Biannuci et al (2015) say the same thing. In La Tomba di Kha e Merit (2018 pp. 85-86), Ferraris devotes only one line to Kha's father, saying the only other thing we know about Iuy - that he was dead when Kha's papyrus was written: "Il papiro è inoltre l’unica fonte a restituire il nome del padre di Kha, Auy/Iuy, che è indicato con il solo titolo di “giusto di voce”, intendendo che questi è già deceduto al momento della redazione del Libro dei Morti." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 It says that Schiaparelli assumed Kha was a centenarian, not in his 80es.
Fixed Merytat3n (talk)
  • 23 OK
  • 42 OK
  • 43 Where does it say chapel?
I'm assuming I confused Meskell saying "However, in the Eighteenth Dynasty only a handful of tombs at Deir el Medina appear to have substantive superstructures [chapels]" for saying TT8 was one of a few surviving Eighteenth Dynasty chapels. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 OK
  • 56 Can I have a copy of this page?
Sure, it is short enough that I can also quote it here. Russo 2012 p.22: "It has yet to be established with certainty when Kha's chapel was decorated. The stylistic study undertaken by Cherpion of TT 340 and TT 354 suggests similarities between TT 354 (anonymous) and TT 8. In her view, some parts of TT 8 were decorated at the end of Thutmosis IV's reign, while others were completed early in the reign of Amenhotep III. Kozloff supposed that the decoration of Kha's chapel was most likely completed after the burial chambers of Nakht (TT 52), Menna (TT 69) and TT 226, probably in the second half of Amenhotep III's reign." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 64 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Got it, but I am not sure what this supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is basically an extra (English language) source for the back wall decoration, especially the jackals, bouquet, and priest in leopard skin offering to Neferhebef and Taiunes as Porter & Moss are very brief, and I'm machine translating Vandier d'Abbadie. The other English sources I have used don't mention it much as they are focused more on the tomb - Sousa (2019) only mentions the decoration very briefly, Forbes (1998) only shows photos of the decoration, and Vassilika (2010) doesn't mention the decoration at all. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 68 Where is the grave robbing and stele removal mentioned?
Oh sorry, stele removal is actually mentioned on p.4. Robbery is describing the removal of the stele but may be too strong a word. Happy to delete that sentence and just leave the "The back wall was damaged..." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to replace it, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 79 Supports some of the content, but can I have a copy of #78?
Sure. Looking at the source, I see it is only pp.16-17, not pp.15-17. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I must ask if #90 supports the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 90 Sousa 2019 pp.63, 89. Dunno why I'm citing p.63, which is talking about the form of the chapel, removed. But relevant part of p.89: "This circumstance became a most fortunate one, as a rock landslide eventually covered and sealed the burial shaft in antiquity, protecting it from tomb robbers until it was discovered in 1906." (Before this sentence, Sousa suggests Kha originally built his chapel where the tomb is situated and later rebuilt it in its current location. No other source that I have read suggests this so I haven't gone into it.) Merytat3n (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 95 I was about to ask for a copy of this page, but it seems like #74 alone supports everything or am I missing anything?
It mostly does, and [94] and [95] say very similar things. I just wanted to have more than one source for a statement like that seeing as, when I checked #74's source (Smith 1992), I couldn't find it saying anything that specific about TT8. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 105 Can I have a copy of this page?
Sure (2 pages). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is "He worked on the western bank of Thebes, presumably the Deir el-Medina area, and the gift was in recognition of Kha's high status at the height of his career"? Also, it seems like there is disagreement about which Sitamun the finding refers to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russo (2012) p.47, last sentence of third paragraph from the bottom and first sentence of second paragraph from the bottom: "It seems likely that Userhat practiced his priestly duties at Deir el-Medina or in the Ramesseum area. Userhat was a contemporary of Kha and presented him with the tribute as an acknowledgement of his importance, most likely when Kha was was at the top of his career."
With regards to Sitamun, although Russo goes on, on page 47, to discuss all the opinions by various scholars of which Sitamun it might be, I have followed Russo in what they say first, on p.46: "The most probable is that Sitamun was one of Ahmose's daughters, and a sister of Amenhotep I, known from other sources." Merytat3n (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should qualify it in the article, if even Russo doesn't say "The only candidate is this Sitamun" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've couched it as "in this case most likely referring to the daughter of Ahmose I". Merytat3n (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 114 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #115 too.
Sure (2 pages each). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • 117 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #116 too.
Sure, these are both multiple pages. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mention inlay nor that multicoloured glass was rare. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
117 (Vassilika 2010) p.45, 48: "The front [continued on p.48] panel is decorated with black and white rectangles within a diamond patterned border imitating bone and ebony intarsia [inlay] work." (last 2 words on p.45 and first sentence of p.48)
P.50, top of the page: "...an alabastron, is actually of blue glass, which was a relatively new and rare material." The next sentence, which is about the kohl tube, and mentions both glass vessels are multicoloured ("also of blue glass and likewise with a zig-zagged yellow and white trailed decoration".) Merytat3n (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #51 too.
Sure. I can quote #51 in full here too (Vassilika 2010 p.10): "Given Kha's station as Director of the Royal Works, and given the amount of furniture in his tomb that was derived from life, it is unlikely that he had a permanent abode in the village of little houses at Deir el-Medina, where the tomb builders lived (perhaps only during specific projects in this period) at the expense of the royal purse, but that he lodged there only when he was working."
Relevant parts of #119 (Russo 2012 p.65): "At the present stage it is not possible to establish if Kha lived in one of the small residences in the settlement. The fact that he was buried in the western necropolis implies a strong link with the community area nearby... It is intriguing to consider the possibility that Kha had a residence outside the settlement." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't discuss the function of furniture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, in note G, [119] and [51] are primarily sourcing of the discussion of if Kha and Merit lived in the village full time or not. I assume by function you mean the types of furniture (stools, chair, beds, etc), which are all mentioned by [120] (Schiaparelli 2008 pp.37-40) and [121] (Forbes 1998 pp.88-92) at the bottom of the paragraph. Merytat3n (talk) Merytat3n (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 121 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #120 too.
Sure, these are multiple pages each. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, while bunching references up like that improves readability, it kinda makes verifying them hard. In particular I can't find the papyrus and senet thing. It doesn't say that the bed was outside the tomb for space reasons or that the sons gave offerings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case, shall I return to my instincts and cite everything in this section (and food and drink) individually? (Take that uni lecturer who told me a decade ago that I used too many citations and listed every single one they thought was unnecessary XD)
Looks like "papyrus" is a mistake on my part - Forbes (1998) p.90 says they are made of rushwork and one has a papyrus tray. Schiaparelli says they are made of cane, as does Vassilika. Slatted table holding senet (game) board is Forbes (1998) p. 90, end of the third paragraph: "When found it was holding a game board (described below), which may have been its practical use, in any case." Bed outside tomb for space reasons is another mistake on my part, Forbes (1998) mentions it on p.144. Schiaparelli (2008) p.40, right column, about halfway down, mentions the depictions of the sons (well, children really but most often the son(s), Merit only appears once) giving offerings: "in one of the scenes, a daughter presents a libation jar and a son offers a flower, while only the son appears in the other two scenes, again in the act of offering a lotus". Merytat3n (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 137 OK
  • 170 It says the custom of earrings began around his time, not that he was one of the first Egyptian men to wear them.
He is one of the earliest known examples though, which is what the source says: "Kha is one of the earliest known examples of an Egyptian man wearing large ear-rings [35,42]." The earliest known depiction of ancient Egyptian men wearing earrings is from the tomb of Tekty, TT15, from the very start of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The next is Sennefer (TT96), who is approx contemporary with Kha. (Eaton-Krauss, M. (1998). Four Notes on the Early Eighteenth Dynasty. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 84(1), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/030751339808400118)
  • 177 Can I have a copy of this page?
Sure, I will also quote the relevant sentence here (Forbes 1998 p.75): "Despite all of this padding, the body sloped to its left, no doubt having shifted somewhat during transport to (or from) the tomb".
To be honest, I have been thinking about removing this line or altering it, even though 3 sources mention it. Schiaparelli says this about her position (p.22): "After raising the lid, Merit's mummy appeared like a vision, her head and part of the chest covered with a fine gilded mask and the head and body leaning slightly to the left, in the arms of the Goddess Nut, painted on the inside of the box". Vassilika says (p.38) "According to Schiaparelli, Merit was found lying on her left side (although early pictures show her flat on her back) as if embraced by the goddess [Nut]." Fig. 30 of Schiaparelli's publication indeed shows her flat on her back in the centre of her coffin, but her mask has fallen to her left. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to remove the sentence : ) Thanks for your patience! Merytat3n (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of (full) pages requested here so I have interpreted your request for copies of pages literally and photographed them (badly), named them all with their footnote number and source publication, and put them in a Google Drive. I hope this is what you wanted. I can email the link if this suits? Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid that the Google Drive file is protected in some fashion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should work now : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, any progress here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why things are struck through right now. The only question is whether Merytat3n wants to remove the sentence I counted under 177. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks Jo-Jo. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Gardiner and Weigall needs an OCLC (458905002).
  • As does Ranke (5339823).
  • Sousa - no known publisher location?
  • "Vandier d'Abbadie, Jeanne Marie Thérèse". Why are the author names not given in the usual format? And add the OCLC. (23426988).
  • OCLC needed for Weigall, 1911. (656123535}
  • "tomb of Kha and Merit". Should that not be an upper case T?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merytat3n? FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, FrB.TG, I missed this somehow.
  • Thanks for letting me know about OCLCs and generously providing them. I've added them.
  • I've resolved the publisher location for Sousa.
  • For Vandier d'Abbadie, I'm not sure what you mean by the names not being given in the usual format. As far as I understand, Vandier d'Abbadie are her last names. (I have changed the citation style to be "cite book" instead of "cite journal" though, which I think may be the more correct format.)
  • Sources seem to use a lower case t in "tomb of Kha and Merit" unless it is the title of the work so I have followed them. Merytat3n (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [60].

Palo (religion)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Afro-Cuban religion revolving around spirits that are housed in cauldrons and fed with blood. Much of the tradition derives from the Kongo religion of Central Africa, so there is much here to interest Africanists as well as those intrigued by religions of the Americas. This has been a Good Article since August 2023 and I am now hoping to bring it to FA status, having already done so for two other Afro-Caribbean religion articles, Santería and Rastafari. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest editing captions for grammar
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:WLA_metmuseum_Power_Figure_Male_Nkisi.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured?
  • In this case, the creator of the original nkisi being photographed will probably never be known; nor will the exact date when it was made, although it is dated to between 1800 and 1950. The object is nevertheless on display in a public museum and the photograph has been issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we don't have access to the copyright status of the original object (as the creator is now de facto anonymous), could we maybe use a picture of a nkisi from a museum in a different country that does have freedom of panorama for non-buildings? Could we use this (File:Nkisi-Songye (British Museum).jpg) image from the UK, for instance? Or this one (File:Nkisi figure, Congo, DR Congo, early 20th century - Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum - Cologne, Germany.jpg) from Germany? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Goetia_seals.jpg: are these taken directly from the Lesser Key, or are they original works?
  • The explanation given by the original uploader claims that they are their own original illustrations, but looking closely, the fact that there are numbers right by them suggests that this is actually a scan from a printed edition of the Lesser Key, which will probably be late 19th or early-to-mid 20th-century in date. I think the safest bet is just to get rid of this image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fétiche_du_Bas-Congo.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • I've changed the licensing on this one; as it was published in Belgium in the first decade of the 20th century, we should be able to use the following: "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed this image from the article; while the photograph is late 19th-century in origin, I am unsure when it was first published, which raises issues when trying to determine its copyright status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the two images in question. It's a shame to lose them, but there's just no way of ascertaining who the creators of the objects photographed were, and thus when they died. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless there's substantial progress in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for the right moment to review this one, will it postpone it being archived if I begin soon? FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the nomination seems to have been "saved" by three reviews beginning before I got the time, but feel free to ping me if it somehow stalls. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FunkMonk the nomination has picked up more reviews but it would only be improved by additional commentary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl any update on addressing the comments provided by reviewers below? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I've just logged in and will address those comments now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

I already started on this a few days ago. Very difficult for me to find any issues here (it is an excellent and very solid work as always), but here is what I got so far, more soon:

  • link "orthodoxy"?
  • meaning "a person who works a nganga" – Nganga is mentioned here for the first time in the main text, not sure if this needs a short gloss?
  • From reading the article it seems to me that this religion has more connections to forests than similar African diasporic religions, maybe because the Bakongo originally depended on the African rainforest? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is possible, although even among certain West African groups like the Fon, initiatory rituals will take place in the forest (Timothy Landry's book discusses this), so the Bakongo were not alone in regarding the forest as a place ideally suited for spirit contact. Moreover, even in more West African-derived diasporic traditions, such as Santería and Candomblé, there is some importance placed on going into the forest to collect healing plants. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: human skull and bones displayed in the Museo de Orishas in Havana. Human remains are included in the nganga of Palo. – Does this particular specimen on display have any connections with Palo? If so, could these be pointed out?
    • Unfortunately I'm not sure exactly what this specimen actually represents. I chose it because we lack good photographs at Wikimedia Commons to illustrate this article (we could really do with a photo of an actual nganga), so have had to use less relevant imagery. Do you think this image should be removed? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • judíasto – space missing
  • When a new nganga is created for a padre or madre, – I couldn't follow here; "padre" and "madre" are mentioned here for the first time but are not explained. Maybe they can be avoided here (maybe replace with "senior practitioner")?
  • and draw marks on their body, often in cascarilla – what does this mean? Cascarilla is a plant? What is "draw in cascarilla"?
  • Practitioners kneel before the ngangas in greeting; they often greet it – should "it" be "them" so that the plural matches?
  • they often greet it with the words "Salaam alaakem, malkem salaam." – Can this be translated?
    • Dodson doesn't give a translation in his text, unfortunately, which is the only reliable source I have found to support this statement. It seems obvious that the phrase comes from the Arabic greeting that means "peace be upon you", but I am unsure if Palo practitioners (very few of whom are likely to speak Arabic) would use it to convey the same exact meaning. It may be that they are simply repeating a phrase that bears ritual significance but for which the original connotations (perhaps brought over by enslaved African Muslims) has been lost. If the latter scenario is the case, a comparison could be made with the term nganga, which means something quite different in Palo from what it meant to Kikongo speakers in Central Africa. To try and deal with the situation, what I have done here is added a link to the Wikipedia article on As-salamu alaykum. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • does its keeper's bidding, the latter sometimes threaten it, – "threatens"?
  • In "Beliefs", there is this sentence: Senior practitioners may have multiple ngangas, some of which they have inherited from their own teachers. In "Practises", this is stated: At their initiation ceremony to the level of padre or madre, a palero/palera will often be given their own nganga. – This now sounds as if most paleros don't have their own nganga? That's not what I imagined after reading the "beliefs" section. Maybe this could be shortly mentioned in the "beliefs" section too.
    • I've added the following to the Beliefs section: "A practitioner may receive a nganga only once they have reached a certain level of seniority in the tradition,". Hopefully that makes things clearer at an earlier stage in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some practitioners are content to remain at this level and do not pursue further initiation to reach the level of padre or madre. – This contradicts the earlier statement that initiation into padre or madre is "rare". Should it be "Most practitioners are content to remain at this level"?
  • When the tata or yayi or a house is close to death, – How can a house be dead?
  • After this leader's death, other senior initiates often have the option – Is this indeed only referring to the death of the new leader, and does not apply when the original leader dies?
  • it is also expected that sacrifices one the ngangas cumplimiento – please check grammar
  • Is there any membership fee for being part of a house? Or how do the leaders sustain themselves?
    • I suspect that there is a fee for initiation, as this is common in African diasporic traditions. House leaders may also offer ritual services to clients, again something common in related religions. It is also possible that they will have employment separate from their ritual tasks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A practitioner may later experience a second rayamiento, enabling them to become a full-ranking initiate of the praise house and thus create their own nganga. – Does this mean becoming "padre" or "madre" (terms that were used earlier)?
  • the Cuban anthropologist Lydia Cabrera studied made a study of Palo – remove one "study"
  • Palo is found all over Cuba, although is particularly strong in the island's eastern provinces. – "it" missing?
  • @Midnightblueowl: That's all from me. Fascinating article, and I expect to support this soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • It may be worth saying that ramas is Spanish for "branches".
  • paleros if male, paleras in female
  • A similarly pejorative term embraced by some adherents is brujo (witch) - I think "witch" is generally only used to refer to women, whereas brujo is a masculine term.
  • which has its origins among the secret male societies practiced among the Efik-Ibibio. - Maybe it would read more clearly if "which has its origins among the secret male societies and is practiced among the Efik-Ibibio".
  • it is sometimes said that they have "cruzar palo con cha" - That doesn't quite work, because cruzar is the infinitive, not the participle as in "crossed".
  • I have amended the sentence to the following: "When an individual practises both Santería and Palo, it is sometimes said that they "cruzar palo con cha" ("cross Palo with Ocha")." Do you think that works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. So both they have "cruzado palo con cha" and they "cruzan palo con cha" would work, but not the way you have it now. If you want to avaoid that issue, rearranging the sentence might work: "Cruzar palo con cha" ("cross Palo with Ocha") is a phrase used to indicate that an individual practises both Santería and Palo or something along those lines. Besides, why is it Ocha in the English translation? Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anthropologist Todd Ramón Ochoa, an initiate of Palo Briyumba, described Nsambi - I think "describes" would be better.
  • Mama canata is the only term in which the second word is spelled in lowercase. Is this due to anything in particular?
  • with Kerestetzi observing that one of Palo's central features was its belief - Again, I think "is" would be more suitable. There are other instances of this.
  • rinconcito ("little corners") - rinconcito is singular.
  • Is casuela spelt like that in the sources?
  • it is the divine itself[...] - A space is missing there.
  • Sometimes, the bones of a criminal or mad person are deliberately sought - Why? It feels a bit counterintuitive, doesn't it?
  • I'll need to double check if Ochoa actually offers an explanation; it would probably be out of a perception that these individuals are more dangerous and thus more useful in carrying out attacks on enemies etc, if that is what the palero or palera requires. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first time I read it, it felt a bit counterintuitive, so I think it would be better to explain a little further if the source allows it. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've checked the source (Ochoa) and it is apparent that these bones are used only for the un-baptised ngangas. That being the case, I've moved the sentence in question to the paragraph discussing those; I think it works much better there. Unfortunately, Ochoa still doesn't give an explicit reason why these bones would be favoured. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is trata the word used in the sources?
  • attempts to "cool" and settle them - Why use quotation marks for cool? There's more than one instance of this.
  • I've added marks to indicate that these concepts of coolness and hotness are not literal references to temperature. It's a conceptual idea, stemming from West African traditional worldviews, with 'heat' as something that is associated with action, violence, motion, etc, and 'coolness' as conversely linked with peace, calm, etc. ;We could really do with a distinct article on this particular concept. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cerré el pacto" literally means "I sealed the deal".
  • The human remains included in them is - Are?
  • it is said to be nacer - "it is said to nacer" would work, as it is in the infinitive.
  • that the power of nganga cristianas are - Is?
  • Havana is not linked anywhere.
  • I've added a wikinink in at the first mention.
  • Munanso congo form familias de religion - I guess this will depend on the sources, but in standard Spanish religion is spelt with a tilde, religión.
  • mayordomo is Spanish for "steward" or "butler", in case you may want to add that.
  • Drawings called firmas, their name derived from the Spanish for "signature" - firmas is literally signatures, so can that be really said to be "derived"?
  • firmas's - firmas being plural, I guess it should be either "firmas'" or "firma's".
  • The creation of these drawings are - Is?
  • Is cumplimiento in the sources?
  • Animal sacrifice is thus a key part of Palo ritual, where it is known by the Spanish language term matanza - Maybe it ought to be said that matanza doesn't mean sacrifice.
  • in the el Cuarto de religión - in el cuarto de religión, given that el already means "the". And I don't see why "Cuarto" has to be uppercase in any of the two instances.
  • Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Students are instructed in Palo through stories, songs, and the recollections of elders; they will also watch their elders and seek to decipher the latter's riddles - What does "latter" refer to there?
  • "muertos oscuros entities" reads a bit weird. Maybe a comma after the parenthesis would do the trick.
  • It's nación in the singular but naciones, without the tilde, in the plural, not naciónes.
  • If Esteban Montejo is the one you are referring to, you can link the article.
  • cofradias should be cofradías.
  • placing their victim's bones in Palo cauldrons - If there were 14 people killed, then "victims'", no?

That's my lot. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Alavense - it's been excellent to have someone with a good grasp of Spanish take a look at this article. As you can probably tell, my Spanish is not good at all. I've responded to all of your comments, although in a few cases I will have to consult Ochoa's book, which I should be able to do in a few days time. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your responses, Midnightblueowl. I've replied to a few above. Excellent work! Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alavense. I think I have now addressed all of your concerns. I appreciate the time you have spent on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the excellent work on this, it was an engaging read. I think you should just use the English pact and get rid of trata, as you say, and remove cumplimiento. The rest is looking great, so I'm going to go ahead and support already. Thank you very much and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "It arose amid a process of syncretism": shouldn't this be "via" or "through", rather than "amid"?
    • This is a bit of a tricky one. There are various scholarly debates on the validity of syncretism as a concept, although the term has long been heavily used in the study of African diasporic religions. My concern about "through" or "via" is that it might imply a simplistic idea that Palo = Kongo religion + Catholicism. The reality is more complex like that; Palo is a new religion that drew upon both Kongo religion and (to a lesser extent) Catholicism, but also made noted innovations of its own. My use of "amid" was an attempt to reflect that Palo emerges from the interaction of these religious traditions but is not just a product of one being stuck on to the other. Do you think there is a better way of phrasing this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If there's some hesitancy about using the word "syncretism", it might be better to drop it, but it sounds like the sources use it enough that we need to reflect that. One thing that bothers me about the current formulation in the lead is that it doesn't have the nuances that you provide in your answer to me here; it reads as if "amid" is a poor word choice for "via", because it's not clear what it else it could mean for something to arise amid a process. Could you add some of that nuance to the statement in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A key ingredient are sticks, called palos, which are selected from specific species of tree": suggest "Sticks, called palos, are key ingredients; palos are selected from specific species of tree" to avoid the awkward singular subject with plural verb.
  • "Soil from various locations is added, for instance from a graveyard, hospital, prison, and a market, as may water from": this sort of parallel constructions requires "is ... is" or "may ... may" if the verb is to be avoided, but the sense here won't allow that. How about "Soil from various locations is added, for instance from a graveyard, hospital, prison, and a market, and water may also be added, from sources such as ..."
  • "the more significant they are often regarded": suggest "the more significant they are often considered to be".
  • "The senior practitioner creating the nganga may ask a madre or padre to assist them, something considered a great privilege": this comes before we have said what madre and padre refer to.
  • "will divine to ensure that everything is going okay": "okay" is a bit colloquial for encyclopedic tone; how about "going well"?
  • "the tata or yayi may not tell the padre/madre": do you mean they are not permitted to tell, or it is possible that they will not tell? I think the latter but it's not clear. If I'm right, how about "may choose not to tell"?
  • "Styles of drumming that have been transmitted within Palo include the ritmas congos and influencias bantu." Without either an explanation of the styles or a translation of the words this doesn't really tell the reader anything.
    • I've reworded the sentence to the following: "Various styles of drumming have been transmitted within Palo, including the ritmas congos ("Congo rhythms") and influencias bantu ("Bantu influences")." While I think that this sits better in the paragraph, it perhaps does not really respond to your main point. We could remove the sentence altogether, although readers with a particular interest in ethnomusicology or drumming may find this material interesting; I suppose it possible that one day we might have articles on these particular drumming styles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I think that's fine -- the reader has at least a tidbit of information about the styles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On arriving in Cuba, many enslaved Bakongo people would have brought their traditional religions with them": suggest "Many of the enslaved Bakongo people who arrived in Cuba would have brought their traditional religions with them" - there's no connection to the moment of arrival.
  • "The histories of these objects in Cuba is unclear": number mismatch between "histories" and "is".
  • Have any estimates been made of the number of adherents, in Cuba or elsewhere?
    • Not that I've seen, unfortunately. That would be just the sort of information that I would want in the Demographics section; the situation is a little better for Santería, but generally we lack good numerical estimates for African diasporic religions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this is in great shape and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The last couple of replies above look fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reliability-wise, I decided to inspect Ochoa 2010 and Espírito Santo, Diana; Kerestetzi, Katerina; Panagiotopoulos, Anastasios (2013) a bit more closely because they seem to be the most used sources here. On the former this review seems approbatory although it notes it was written by a practicioner? This one is more neutral but doesn't raise many questions about reliability. This one I can see only piecemeal. Todd Ramón Ochoa doesn't have much of a footprint but barring impersonation it seems like they have good credentials. On the latter, not much about the paper itself but the authors seem to have written a number of articles around this field. TLDR nothing that jumps out as unreliable. I notice though that of the sources, they seem to be pretty US-centric. Source formatting seems consistent and nothing jumps out to me as unsuitable, although I wonder if the few news media sources could be replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The US-centrism of the sources is probably reflective of the topic in general. This is a North American religion and I've only used English-language sources; it's inevitable that most of the scholarly literature in that language is therefore going to be American. Regarding Ochoa, it is true that he is a practitioner, although that should not undermine his work as a source, given that he is also a professional anthropologist and his study has been published by a respected academic press. Scholars who are simultaneously practitioners are a common feature in religious studies (the entire field of theology comprises nothing but practitioner-scholars) and in a case like Palo, which is an initiatory tradition, an initiate/practitioner is the only person who is going to be in a position capable of collecting much of the pertinent information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my impression is that this religion is originally Cuban, where to my understanding the main language is Spanish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But English sources will have more distance to the topic, and could therefore be more neutral, so relying on them is not necessarily bad, no? Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but in practice I think completeness would suffer a lot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this stand source-wise, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Midnightblueowl? FrB.TG (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly OK although I must wonder if the Spanish literature has been thoroughly reviewed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by SilverTiger

[edit]

This is a terrible, no-good idea, since I'm dealing with both depression and a hurricane headed for my city, but if I were a reasonable person I wouldn't be editing Wikipedia. So let's get this started.

  • Overall: the lede badly needs an image or sidebar of some kind. The article as a whole needs more images and stuff to relieve the dense prose.
  • A lede image would be great, but we just don't have anything appropriate over at Wikimedia Commons. There are images of ngangas circulating online, but on the whole there are not a lot given that this is a fairly closed, initiatory religion. Barring a Palo practitioner photographing their nganga or other elements of their ritual practice, the only other images we could potentially use would be some of the ritual drawings used in the religion. Perhaps we could replicate some of those for usage at the article? Do we have any editors who are good at that and willing to do it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What English variant is this written in? Just asking for clarity and to check for consistency.
Lede
  • It arose amid a process of syncretism between.. This is clunky wording. I suggest rephrasing, perhaps to "It originated from a syncretism of..."
  • Is there somewhere to link initiatory religion?
  • I'm not sure if there's a reasonable way to fix this, but I initially thought the creator deity was called "Nsambi or Sambia", rather than what you meant, "Nsambi, also called Sambia"

To be continued... SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read the article, SilverTiger12. I hope the hurricane did not prove too destructive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hurricane has not yet arrived; thus far the only casualties are the grocery stores' shelves. As for this article, it has proved a fascinating read. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Gog, and yes.
  • Definitions section- this is fantastic. I skimmed it on my first read-through and half the rest of the article didn't make sense. I read it closely the second go and everything was crystal clear. My only quibble is that I'd like to know how to pronounce these words.
  • Beliefs:
    • "In Palo, veneration is directed towards both ancestors and to spirits of the natural world,"
    • You give examples of bad things nganga can supposedly do (madness, misfortune, disaster, death) but no examples of the good they can do.
    • By this point, I'm wishing you'd explained more about the different branches of Palo earlier on because right now all I know is that there are different branches.
  • It's often tricky knowing where in a Wikipedia article to bring in information on the internal variation of a religion. On the one hand we need to reflect the religion's internal diversity; on the other we don't want to put the cart before the horses, hence why our section on denominations comes near the end of our FA-rated article on Rastafari, for instance. Are there particular instances in this article where you feel that information on the ramas could be moved? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of feel like some stuff in the Definitions section might work. But even just more information about them and their differences in the Denominations section would be good, plus some history stuff in the History section. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the sources currently available at the moment just don't give the level of additional detail on the ramas that we could use here. Hopefully more information will become apparent in future and can be integrated into the article at the points you mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denominations - same issue. You mention that there are different ones but don't describe what makes them different except for Kimbisa.
  • Unfortunately, the academic literature currently available doesn't really give a lot of information on the differences between the varying denominations/ramas. I've pretty much summarised everything on the subject that I could find in that scholarly literature. Fingers crossed, further research will come to light in forthcoming decades that can be utilised in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And please link El Espiritismo Cruzao?

I've also made some minor changes while reading through. The prose is largely good and I found little to nitpick about. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further thoughts, SilverTiger12. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As all my concerns have been addressed, support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "Although teaching the existence of a creator divinity, commonly called Nsambi, Palo regards this entity as being uninvolved in human affairs and thus focuses its attention on the spirits of the dead." Why "thus"? I don't see how one requires the other. Perhaps delete, or replace with 'instead'?
  • "On Congo Cults of Bantu Origin in Cuba" needs an identifier. (The OCLC is 4657598041.)
  • "Central to Palo is the nganga, a vessel usually made from an iron cauldron." You say "made from". How is the cauldron altered to cause this to be the case?
  • The cauldron itself is the material container for various objects that collectively become the nganga spirit-vessel, but the cauldron is not physically altered itself. Do you think the wording should be adapted here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • mpungu, nganga etc. Foreign language words should use lang templates, not just italics. See MOS:NONENGITALIC.
  • The trouble in this instance is that the ritual language generally used in Palo, often called Palo Kikongo, doesn't seem to be recognised by the {{lang}} template. We have the same issue with the FA-rated Santería article, with that religion's ritual language, Lucumí, also not being recognised by the system. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "permitted on the island by the Spanish colonial government". Suggest "the island" → 'Cuba'; assuming this is the case.
If I might drive-by the drive-by, I'm not seeing where but also incorporated ideas from Roman Catholicism, the only religion legally permitted on the island by the Spanish colonial government in the lead is mentioned in the main article text. Also, in the sentence before that, you talk about enslaved Bakongo people. I get that "enslaved" is the preferred usage, but later on you have Bakongo slaves. I would pick one form and stick with it. RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth paragraph in the Background sub-section starts with "In Spanish Cuba, Catholicism was the only religion that could be legally practiced" and at various points in the article we discuss the Catholic influence on Palo, as with the discussion of "baptism". I have also followed your suggestion and changed the latter example of "Bakongo slaves" to "enslaved Bakongo people." Thanks for your thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Gog. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2024 [61].

KARE (TV)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a type, it's major-market, often network-affiliated TV stations with unusual histories. After a radio detour, I'm back at it, and channel 11 in Minneapolis is one of them. You'll get: the story of two stations on one channel, consolidated by Consolidated; how the Minnesota Twins came along to save the station after it lost its network affiliation; how then-WTCN-TV went from successful independent to NBC affiliate with a disastrous "new news" that the ratings showed to be "about as popular as the measles" (not my words); and how Gannett took the station apart and rebuilt it to viewer acclaim in the 1980s and 1990s.

User:Premeditated Chaos provided a deep GA review in March 2024 in preparation for an eventual FAC (thank you!). This is the second-longest article by references and prose size I've sent to FAC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "announced it would take over WCCO radio, merge it with channel 4, and divest WTCN radio" - how do you merge a radio station and a TV station? Is this meaning to turn it into a single corporate entity?
  • "WMIN and WTCN—each seeking to avoid a lengthy comparative hearing—proposed to share time on channel 11" - I might have missed something, but the WTCNs mentioned above are a radio station and a TV station that was no longer known by the WTCN name, neither of which have been previously mentioned as wanting channel 11
    • The answers on these are related. In 1947, channel 4 went on as WTCN-TV and the sister to WTCN radio. The owner of those two stations, in 1952, bought WCCO, a radio institution in Minnesota (especially in those days). This meant that channel 4 became WCCO-TV and that WTCN had to be sold off. The new owners of WTCN were the ones that wanted channel 11, having already filed for it.
      • Okay, I think I get it now. I had read "at which time channel 4 changed from WTCN-TV to WCCO-TV" as a call sign change, rather than WCCO-TV moving from wherever it had been to channel four, and then WTCN not having a home. (I think I was trying to interpret it in the manner of the KTXR/KWTO-FM changeover that occurred in my home radio market a few years ago). Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modern radio station format and frequency swaps are not like this case at all, but I can see why if that was your benchmark you were confused.
    Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Note A about Captain 11 particularly relevant to this topic at hand?
    • I wrote KELO-TV to GA as well, and the program takes up more oxygen there than you'd think. The footnote is intended to reinforce the connection (and since I had already done the research on the South Dakota side). I'd like to keep it.
  • Should Casey Jones be linked?

Ready for the NewsCenter 11 section. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Tonight aired on KMSP until it was returned to WTCN in its original timeslot." - not finding this in the cited source
    • Turns out this addition by MrSchimpf was actually wrong! I've added two references here.
  • Is there a reason why the text list of transmittors excludes K35KH-D, which is shown on the map as a second transmittor in Jackson?
    • Almost certainly because an error was in there somewhere. Nathan Obral did the map for me, and this article must have listed two transmitters. RabbitEars says that translator rebroadcasts KSAX-TV. Unless two transmitter sites in a translator system share the same COL, which can happen (e.g. Elko, NV), the listing of two translators for a station in an area is almost always wrong in practice. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Fixed the other two errors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review from PMC

[edit]

Since I did prose commentary for the GA, I'll do a source review here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go!

  • What makes Northpine a high-quality RS?
    • If Northpine is kept, usage should be made consistent - ref 2 has Northpine.com, but ref 183 has Northpine straight up
  • Same question for RabbitEars
    • See my comments in GA reviews at Talk:KLKN/GA1 and Talk:KASA-TV/GA1. The former has my replies to both sites. If you'd rather see Northpine bypassed, the replacements would be an FCC order and a since-unfortunately but understandably-replaced reception guide. (Tegna sites do not archive)
  • The vast majority of sources don't have the work linked, except for the following sites/works: FCC, Seattle Times, WaPo, MinnPost, City Pages, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It doesn't matter which you go with, but it should be consistently linked or consistently not linked
    • Decided to link on first use of any publication.
  • Similarly, location inclusion is inconsistent - Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star all have it whenever they're used, and LA Times does, but some other papers don't
    • Ref 94, 97, 101, 113, 129, 130, 133, 136, 142, 158, 159, 161, 165, 166, 171, 172, 175, 177, 184, and 192 are missing location
    • Removed all locations.
  • Ref 49 doesn't specify the work
    • Oops. It's Variety.
  • Some inconsistency in Star Tribune/Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Ref 120 uses Star Tribune, but that was 83, so before the rename if I'm reading right. 132 and 138 also predate the rename.
    • Repaired 83, 132, 138. (Any 2024 and on references, as of last month, should be Minnesota Star Tribune, but none of them exist yet.)
  • Why does ref 126 include a publisher when no other newspaper includes this?
    • That is an agency, not a publisher. Knight-Ridder syndicated this article to the newspaper.
  • Ref 159 lacks publisher info
    • Fixed.

Since I already did a source check in the GAN and found no significant concerns, I'm not going to repeat it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

OK I'll review. Steelkamp (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:

  • "KARE 11 (pronounced "Care")" -> "KARE 11 (pronounced "care")" as sentence case should be used.

Lead:

  • "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins, " -> "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins baseball team, ".
  • "This continued under two successive owners, Chris-Craft Industries and Metromedia." -> "This continued under two successive owners: Chris-Craft Industries and Metromedia."
  • "to its Washington, D.C. station." -> "to its Washington, D.C., station." as per MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • "ballyhooed" is too informal for Wikipedia I reckon.
  • There's nothing on the 1990s or post 2000 history in the lead.
  • Why is "St. Paul" used rather than "Saint Paul", which seems to be the city's official name according to Saint Paul, Minnesota?
    • This potato will need more time. I don't have Chicago Manual of Style access to the section that discusses this. AP Style, which while not influential on Wikipedia in most cases is used by most US news outlets, suggests "St." in all cases. If someone has CMOS access, please help.
    • @Steelkamp: I have obtained CMOS access. The relevant section is 10.35 (covering Fort, Mount, and Saint) and reads as follows: Generic terms as elements of geographic names are usually spelled out in formal prose (and in mailing addresses) but can be abbreviated where space is at a premium or to reflect predominant usage (as in the last two examples below). The last two examples mentioned are Saint (St.) Louis (usually St. Louis); Saint (St.) Paul (usually St. Paul). I believe that Chicago, as a major influence on MOS, should be applied here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early years:

  • "At 2 p.m." As per MOS:TIME, a non-breaking space should be placed before the p.m. There are a bunch of other places in the article where this should be done.
    • I usually avoid doing this by script as the script likes changing "p.m." to "pm" and is exceedingly inconsistent about it.
  • What does master antenna mean?
    • Elaborated a bit in the article. An antenna setup designed to broadcast multiple stations.
  • "At that time, Consolidated consolidated". I hate to be the fun police, but can a different word be used here other than consolidated?
  • "minor-league baseball" -> "minor league baseball".

As an independent station:

  • "WTCN had the only TV news staff in the market without a professional meteorologist." This reads like unusual wording to me. I suggest rewording to "WTCN had the only TV news team in the market without a professional meteorologist.".

Affiliating with NBC

  • "and sportscaster Bob Kurtz[b].[83]" I think MOS:CITEPUNCT applies to footnotes as well, so the footnote should be placed after the full stop

Gannett purchase and news overhaul:

  • Chicago is linked here but it can be linked higher up under "Chris-Craft ownership" and also in the lead. Also, I notice that Portland, Oregon is not linked at all. There's also Los Angeles and New York, but those fall under MOS:OVERLINK, although I am generally in favour of linking cities and wouldn't be opposed if those two were linked.
  • "the station added as many as 40 new staff members[115] to add to the 40 that it had at the time of purchase" -> "the station added as many as 40 new staff members[115] in addition to the 40 that it had at the time of purchase".
  • "new news vehicles and cameras." -> "new cameras and news vehicles."
  • "The station's newscasts were retitled News 11." Could a date for this change be added. Otherwise, its not clear how long the "11 News" name lasted.
  • Is "Sky 11" the name of the helicopter?
  • "It was the first time a tornado had been filmed from creation to dissipation." I'm confused by this. Wasn't the tornado already created when the helicopter arrived there?
    • Reworded for clarity — the sources seem to say that is not the case.
  • "Star Tribune" can be linked earlier. Also, is the Star Tribune the same newspaper as the Minneapolis Tribune, mentioned earlier. Can that be linked as well?
    • Fixed.
  • "and pushed KARE back to second." I may have missed this, but when did KARE become first?
    • You missed it Magers—the anchor commonly credited with helping KARE remain number one in late evening news
      • I was referring to when KARE became first before it was pushed back to second. Steelkamp (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, earlier. Yes, you did indeed miss it, Steelkamp. The July 1987 sweeps period brought another historic achievement for KARE: it finished first at 10 p.m., with an audience share of 29 percent. This momentum was sustained through late 1987 and early 1988, even as an expansion to the Twin Cities market gave WCCO an edge in counting viewers in Alexandria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-2000:

  • No comments.

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Generalissima

[edit]

Mark me down for one. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, sorry for the delay.
  • Lede is solid. I would merge the first two paragraphs, but that is purely stylistic preference on my end.
  • Early years also extremely solid.
  • "catapulted" might be a bit too metaphorical and puffy. Maybe just "brought"?
  • NBC and Gannett portions solid.
  • Post-2000 also good.

Yeah, not a lot here to change! Apologies for the delay, Sammi Brie. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably stick with the existing lead structure, simply because it is closer to most topic pages, @Generalissima. Made the other change. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! All looks good to me; support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "It was originally shared by two stations: WMIN-TV in St. Paul and WTCN-TV in Minneapolis, which alternated presenting local programs and shared an affiliation with ABC." Suggest "It was originally shared by WMIN-TV in St. Paul and WTCN-TV in Minneapolis: the two stations were each affiliated with ABC and alternated presenting local programs."
  • "that broadcast the Minnesota Twins baseball team": suggest "games" rather than "team" -- I know this is standard terminology but for non-US readers I think this is more natural, and it should be fine for US readers too.
  • "More recently": this is a tricky thing to do with the "as of" requirement, but maybe "as of 2024, the station has been a second-place finisher in local news for almost a decade", or whatever the relevant dates and periods are. I had a look in the body for the material that supports this and didn't spot it, but I haven't read through carefully yet -- can you just confirm it is indeed in the body?
    • Tweaked to match added "as of".
  • No change necessarily needed, but I'm curious about the sharing arrangement, alternating broadcasts. Is this unusual? Is it unusual enough for the rarity to be commented on in the article?
    • Yes. This isn't like the UK which had really long-running "split broadcasts" (think London ITV), and I suspect to many readers only familiar with modern-day TV it would be hard to explain. Shared-time broadcasting was typically proposed by applicants to get them to air faster.
      There were only a handful of shared-time stations, and their time as such was limited to months or a couple of years before one party sold out: KOOL-TV and KOY-TV, Phoenix; KSBW-TV and KMBY-TV, Salinas/Monterey; KMBC-TV and WHB-TV, Kansas City. There was one longer-running case among these, WHEC-TV and WVET-TV, Rochester, New York, which lasted eight years. There were two later shared-time TV stations: WILX-TV and WMSB, Onondaga, Michigan (1959–1972), which involved an educational and a commercial station, and one in Chicago in the 1980s, WPWR-TV and WBBS-TV (the latter of which is currently covered in WXFT-DT), where the operations did not merge in the end (WBBS was basically undermined by a changing Spanish-language TV market). In each case, the level of integration of the operations was varied. In Phoenix, the channel 10 stations basically operated out of separate wings of the same studio. The channel 11s of the Twin Cities were literally across a river from each other (WMIN-TV was in St. Paul).
      Do you have sources that would allow you to say "This was an unusual arrangement"? No problem if not but worth adding if you do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Alas, no. The closest I can come is a fan page: [62]. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transmitter and antenna was the only physical facility shared by the stations": number mismatch between subject and verb. "were" would mismatch with "facility", though, so perhaps "The transmitter and antenna were the only resources shared by the stations"?
  • "films had to be airmailed to and from sister station KELO-TV in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, before air": I think "before air" is redundant and could be cut.
  • "Captain 11" seems worth a redlink, or a link to a section in the related existing article about the cloned show -- though a bit of googling seems to indicate a separate article could be justified.
    • Turns out Captain 11 is an article, and I think it merits it, too. I've placed this blue link in the footnote because it's about the Sioux Falls version, which is the one that meets the GNG.
  • "made for an attractive purchase because it was hampered by its shared status": I'm not sure I follow -- the shared status meant the price was low?
    • Yes, that's how I read that.

More to come; done through the "Early years" section. It might be tomorrow or Monday before I can get back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "These reports proved true": needs rephrasing; the reports in the previous sentence aren't reports that ABC was considering moving to KMSP-TV; they are reports that channel 11 wanted a protection clause.
    • Rephrased.
  • What is "studio wrestling"?
    • Wrestling. In a television studio.
      I did think it was probably that, but it seemed an odd thing to mention and I wondered if there were some odd variety of wrestling I'd never heard of. I'd drop "studio" unless you feel it's important, in which case something like "by adding wrestling (live from the channel 11 studio) and college sports ..." would avoid my misunderstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In lieu of the collapsed candelabra": just checking that "candelabra" is a standard term in the industry -- presumably for a multi-station mast? I've never heard it used in this way, but if this is industry usage that's fine (though if there's a glossary somewhere that could be linked that would be good).
  • "barely registered as a news source in the community, though it was just behind KMSP-TV in total viewers": I don't understand this -- what does "registered" refer to if not viewership?
    • Reworded.
  • "she was dismissed because she was not a degreed meteorologist, and though she was technically a freelancer, her duties for WTCN prevented her from immediately seeking similar employment in the market": the source doesn't mention degrees -- I agree that's probably what is being referred to, but they don't say so. Also, I think the second-half is a misreading: she's saying she was unable to work at other stations in the past while she was employed, not after she lost her job.
  • "and Gil Amundson (himself relieved of news director duties) too weak a leader": I don't understand the parenthesis -- if he'd been relieved of the leadership role, why is he being described as the leader?
    • Reworded.
  • "the station placed fourth out of three newscasts (and KMSP)": odd phrasing -- KMSP did have a news operation, or so we say a paragraph or two earlier, so why not just make this "last of the four local newscasts"?
    • They were not airing news at 6 but an entertainment show. Reworded.
  • "Burns was the last of the original three news presenters to remain with WTCN": suggest "leave" rather than "remain" as more straightforward.
    • Good idea.
  • "changing the name from NewsCenter 11 to 11 News" and "The station's newscasts were retitled News 11": I assume one of these is in error?
    • Nope! The 11 News title was so short-lived that there is little visual proof of it, so here is a 30-second promo. It was basically a band-aid on the outgoing WTCN news presentation and set until the top-to-bottom revamp (as News 11) debuted in September.
      Fair enough, but since I can imagine other readers will wonder too, how about making this "The station's newscasts were retitled again, from 11 News to News 11."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued its domination of households 25–54": I think this has to be "adults" or "viewers", not "households"; households don't have ages.
    • Changed (though "households" in this way can be common phrasing in advertising and marketing).
  • The paragraph starting "The 1990s were a decade of strength for KARE news" cites a 1992 and 1996 story about specific sweeps results, not general statements about the whole decade. I see the 1996 source does indicate KARE had had strong results for a while. Perhaps just make this "the early 1990s", unless you have sources about the sweeps for the later years of the decade?
    • Found an additional source.
  • "The competition was spousal": I think you could cut this: the rest of the sentence makes the point.
    • Done.
  • "While KARE has been competitive since": suggest starting this with "While, as of 2022, ...".
    • Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Resolved all the issues and responded to your question on shared-time. It's my eventual goal to do the remaining stations for GA grade (the Rochester one is going to be the toughest and most voluminous). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most struck above; a couple of follow up comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Final rewording on Toni Hughes, wrestling, and 11 News. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Roger Aswumb file returns an "Access denied" error but I'm going to assume good faith here and assume it's a problem on my end (location). Promoting. FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2024 [63].

Starship Troopers (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic. Last nomination had no participation, pinging Bneu2013 who expressed an interest in reviewing prior to its closure. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaesOfereode

[edit]

I can't believe no one reviewed it last time given the love this movie has accrued over the years, especially compared to its negative release. I've never seen this movie, nor read the book, so feel free to push back on anything I misunderstand or critique improperly. Beginning with prose:

Lede
  • science fiction action film – WP:SEAOFBLUE. Recommend de-linking action film.
  • Johnny Rico and his friends – More comrades than friends, no?
  • an alien species of Arachnids – Consider an alien species called Arachnids, since they aren't arachnids. Optional, link alien species?
  • Despite these efforts development was slow, with studios hesitant [...] – Comma after efforts.
Plot
  • highly evolved – Hyphen
  • mobile infantryman – Is this somehow different than a regular infantryman?
  • Carl Jenkins joins Military Intelligence – Why "military intelligence" capitalized here but not anywhere else in the whole article?
  • while Isabelle "Dizzy" Flores, who is in love with Rico, deliberately transfers to his squad – Consider endashes here to break up the commas.
  • Carmen eventually ends her relationship with Rico
  • for fellow pilot Zander Barcalow → for a fellow pilot, Zander Barcalow
  • Rico impresses drill sergeant Zim → Rico impresses the drill sergeant, Zim or Rico impresses his drill sergeant, Zim – If this is a rank, capitalize. But don't mix caps as drill Sergeant.
  • However, a mistake during – A mistake or Rico's mistake?
  • Rico quits but – Comma after quits.
  • leading to thousands of casualties – Human casualties? Both sides?
  • lieutenant Jean Rasczak – Capitalize lieutenant.
  • "Roughnecks" – I don't think this needs quotations, unless they have another official name in the movie (e.g., 151st Armed Batallion, etc.).
  • Rico's valor in battle earns him the rank of Corporal, particularly after he defeats a gigantic "Tanker Bug" on Tango Urilla, and he develops a romantic relationship with Dizzy. → After Rico defeats a gigantic "Tanker Bug" on Tango Urilla, he is elevated to the rank of corporal for his valor and begins a romantic relationship with Dizzy. – In its current form, it is structurally ambiguous (i.e., that he earned his rank both from his valor on the battlefield and from his relationship with Dizzy). Perhaps a goofy rationale, but I think this sentence flows better anyway.
  • rank of Corporal – Decapitalize Corporal.
  • distress signal on Planet P – What is Planet P? Human-owned? Unclaimed?
  • but not before Dizzy is mortally wounded and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak. – How is Dizzy wounded? Surely, if Rico kills Rasczak (as a mercy), he is mortally wounded too, no? Consider Dizzy and Rasczak are mortally wounded and, after Dizzy succumbs to her wounds, Rico mercy kills a mutilated Rasczak. instead.
    • Reviewer comment - IIRC, Rico kills Rasczak before Dizzy is both mortally wounded and dies. Both are fatally wounded by two separate arachnids. Rico is not wounded, and shoots Rasczak after Rasczak asks him to do so. The best I remember, there is a scene earlier in the film where Rasczak mercy kills another character, and explains that he would expect others to do the same to him. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group returns to the fleet assembled in orbit above P, where Dizzy is eulogized. – But Rasczak isn't? Odd.
  • an intelligent Arachnid strategically directing the others – If this is a hive-mind, consider saying so and linking as appropriate.
  • Arachnids, and the escape – Change and the to but an.
  • the Brain Bug, and the – Remove comma.
Cast
  • I'd do away with the colon structure here and replace it with a comma. If you keep the colon or not, all those a's and an's should be lowercase.
  • Not much else to critique here, but you're missing Timothy Omundson's role as a psychic in the movie. It may be worth mentioning since he later played Carlton Lassiter in the show Psych, who is a curmudgeonly detective who doubts the psychic ability of the show's lead, and the show poked fun at Omundson's role reversal a few times IIRC.
Production
  • Link jingoistic. Consider linking xenophobia and war film.
  • TriStar executives determined that to move forward – Soft recommendation to put a comma after that.
  • comic-book–style – I think it's just comic book–style
  • filming locations but rejected – Comma before but.
  • Link Hell's Half Acre (Wyoming) as first mention. Link buttes.
  • an hours drive → an hour's drive or an hour drive
  • the Nazi propaganda films Triumph of the Will – WP:SEAOFBLUE. Consider removing "films" from the pipe to fix.
  • for the adience → for the audience
  • like a Vietnam war veteran → like a Vietnam War veteran – Odd piping choice bordering on an Easter egg.
  • Clancy Brown portrays Sgt. Zim – Spell out Sergeant like you've done with the rest of the ranks.
  • twelve days of military training from Dale Dye – Last name only here.
  • not in the Infantry cast – Decapitalize. Comm after cast.
  • Link heatstroke.
  • On the crew's flight to Los Angeles on June 29 – Comma after the date.
  • stunts for the scene apart – Either comma after apart or delete the comma in somersaults,.
  • A separate nude scene was written for Richards but she refused to take part – Comma after Richards.
  • The fight between Rico and Zander was mainly performed by their actors – What does this mean? Their stunt doubles? If so, clarify and link as appropriate.
  • Soft push, but back of a gigantic, moving, fiberglass doesn't really need any commas, does it?
  • his ribs over the 3 1⁄2 days of filming → his ribs over the three and a half days of filming
  • Only one take was done, and they were told that if someone tripped to pick them up and keep moving. – Grammatically fine (if you remove the comma after done), but I had to double-take to get the meaning. Consider Only one take was done and they were told that if someone tripped, they should pick them up and keep moving.
  • only slightly over schedule – Any idea by how much?
  • Davison wanted to use other studios but it was – Comma after studios.
  • Poledouris' → Poledouris's, per MOS:'S
Release
  • Everything looks good here.
Reception
  • Turan and Berardinelli – Who? You link Kenneth Turan later in the paragraph. Flip the link/full name usage. Same with Berardinelli.
  • Berardinelli said that at its best – Comma after that.
  • Starship Troopers' → Starship Troopers's, per MOS:'S and use {{'s}} after the italics.
  • others, such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Ebert, wrote – Strongly encourage endashes here.
Post-release
  • Starship Troopers' – Ut supra, passim.
  • connect with either both critics or and audiences
  • science-fiction adventure – Dehyphenate.
  • Link neo-Nazism.
Themes and analysis
  • Period needed at the end of the photos' caption.
  • director's own war experiences – I don't believe Verhoeven was a combatant, so director's own wartime experiences is better, I think.
  • Mobile Infantry – Hasn't been capitalized, probably shouldn't be capitalized here either. Two instances.
  • Perhaps link Aryan ideal of beauty to Aryanism or something similar.
  • seduce the audience into joining [Starship Troopers'] society ... but then ask, 'What are you really joining up for?'" – Starship Troopers's, per MOS:'S and use {{'s}}; use {{'"}} for the quotation.
  • Link progressive politics and gender norms.
  • asking "would you like to know more?" → asking: "Would you like to know more?"
  • many rights are reserved only for citizens, those who have served in the military → many rights are reserved only for citizens comprising only those who have served in the military
  • Voting is presented as an act of force, of supreme authority, a right that must be taken instead of given → Voting is presented as an act of force and supreme authority, a right that must be taken instead of given
  • As Rasczak tells his students, "violence → As Rasczak tells his students: "Violence
  • Strzelczyk – Who? You only cite her full name in the next paragraph, so that should be switched up. Also, when she is introduced, the academic.
  • Author Leighton Grist → The author Leighton Grist
  • Soft suggestion to link "full-scale war" with total war.
  • inhuman, and strategic – No comma.
  • Writer Lloyd Farley → The writer Lloyd Farley
  • Arachnids are not significantly different to, and are justified in exterminating humanity – No comma.
Legacy
  • science-fiction action – Dehyphenate.
  • its critiques of right-wing militarism, the military–industrial complex, reactionary violence and American jingoism, made it seem ahead of its time – Move the comma from after jingoism to after violence.
  • Link police brutality. Soft suggestion to link dehumanization.
  • someone going 'Rico!'" – Use {{'"}}
  • as a strong female → as a strong female character
Sequels and remake
  • Nothing to critique here.

And that's about all I got. Overall, this is a monster page full of excellent information that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. The biggest issues are comma usage and pretty obvious examples of moving parts of the page around, but both are simple fixes. Hopefully someone with more love for this movie (or the book) will be able to step in for any gaps, if there are any. I learned a lot about the movie and virtually everything on the page was either interesting to me or will be interesting to someone else. I look forward to seeing this on the main page sometime in the near future. A few fixes (mostly commas!) and I'll be happy to throw my support behind the article based on prose. You've done excellent work on this page, I'm sorry this didn't get the review it should have on its first volley here, and I hope you will bring this kind of quality work to FAC again. Cheers, ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThaesOfereode, thanks for your kind words, yes I think no reviews at all is probably worse than bad reviews as it just wastes time and takes time before you can try again, so I appreciate your early involvement.
I have done most of the notes above minus the following which I've provided some explanations for, so let me know if my answers suffice or you need more clarity.
  • mobile infantryman – Is this somehow different than a regular infantryman? Not as far as I'm aware, it's just the in-universe term for them
  • but not before Dizzy is mortally wounded and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak. – How is Dizzy wounded? Surely, if Rico kills Rasczak (as a mercy), he is mortally wounded too, no? Consider Dizzy and Rasczak are mortally wounded and, after Dizzy succumbs to her wounds, Rico mercy kills a mutilated Rasczak. instead. - So I have changed this around a bit to "but not before Dizzy is fatally impaled by an Arachnid and Rico mercy kills the mutilated Rasczak." That might just sound the same tbh. In the context of the film I don't believe the implication is that Racszak is mortally wounded, he's heavily disfigured and basically incapacitated with no legs in the middle of a battle so Rico follows his earlier advice and puts him out of his misery before the bugs can get to him since there's no option to extract him at that point and he's almost literally dead weight. Dizzy on the other hand is impaled through the torso and dies on the shuttle while professing her love for Rico.
  • The group returns to the fleet assembled in orbit above P, where Dizzy is eulogized. – But Rasczak isn't? Odd. - Rico gives the eulogy so I think it's just more personal, plus they have her body so they can hold a funeral while Racszak is still on Planet P. To this day!
  • an intelligent Arachnid strategically directing the others – If this is a hive-mind, consider saying so and linking as appropriate. - Unless this is established in later films I don't believe it's a hive mind, there's no discussion for how the bugs communicate, they screech for example, but the Brain Bug is just like a human commander but smarter as far as I'm aware from the in-film context.
  • only slightly over schedule – Any idea by how much? - Sadly, no
Thanks again ThaesOfereode. Oh, remembered, I linked "xenophobic" but not "war film" since it would fall into the seaofblue trap. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through your replies, all of them seem defensible to me. All other critiques were addressed adequately in the article (or I fixed myself after realizing what I had wrote was a little ambiguous or I should have caught it on the first volley). Support on prose. Best of luck with other reviews! ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much ThaesOfereode! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • I missed this the first time around, but also a favourite of mine. Marking my spot for now, but in the meantime, I see a bunch of seemingly unnecessary duplinks that can be highlighted with this script:[64] FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk, are you waiting for Bneu to complete his review before starting yours or just been busy? Thanks Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had limited time until now, will try to start today. FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Brain Bug consumes Zander's brain, absorbing his knowledge" Perhaps I just don't remember, but when is this implied?
  • "firing of many of its studios executives." Studio? Studio's?
  • "decided to produce test footage to demonstrate their intended visual style and tone" Who made the effects for this? You mention many other details about it, and later you state two different companies did the effects for the movie itself, so could be good to be specific.
  • "Preliminary designs were madefor the capsules" Made for?
  • "removal of the Bounce and "the Drop"" Why is only the latter in quotation marks? You do use quotation marks for the former earlier. Check for consistency throughout, seems to jump around.
  • "who visually embodied the caucasian, blonde, blue-eyed" The sources used don't seem to say "Caucasian", but "Aryan", the two terms are not synonyms (the former is much less specific), so it should use something like "Aryan race" instead.
  • "Brown based his performance on archetypical drill instructors from older American films such as The D.I. (1957) and Full Metal Jacket (1987)" Sounds a bit odd calling a film released ten years earlier as "older", what does the source say?
  • "military training from Dye from April 17, 1996" the from from is repetitive, "under Dye/led by Dye" or similar?
Done all these FunkMonk. Re: the Brain Bug, it's in the scene on...Planet P I believe, they find that general hiding in the cupboard, they talk about how the brain of that one soldier was eaten and the general is freaking out because he knows all kinds of vital information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SPI would lead to production problems" Using/choosing SPI would?
  • "Realizing the wide variety of effects for the spaceship scenes required the efforts of SPI, Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), and Boss Film Studios." This seems to be disjointed from the earlier text that said only SPI was used, but now you mention more companies. If this was due to SPI's problems, that should be mentioned explicitly.
  • "and severely injuring Rachel Campos, a crew member's girlfriend" I wondered if that crewmember was one of the dead ones, turns out it was, could be mentioned ("a dead crew member's").
  • Could we get years for all the retrospective critical opinions as you do for the first one listed?
  • While the article mentions that the film is recognised more today as a warning against fascism, it appears that the opposite is also true, and that some people, at least online, are actually identifying with those values as presented in the film (thereby also misunderstanding it)? Any sources on this?
Done except for the last one. Did you have a particular example in mind? There are several sections in the article noting it's fascist themes are taken literally but I'm not aware of any major examples of people identifying with it? I tried googling but without success so I'm not 100% what I need to search for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been mixing up a few things, but it at least seems that the game Helldivers 2 has renewed interest in the film[65][66][67], perhaps worth a mention? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much FunkMonk, I've incorporated your references as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Bneu2013

[edit]

I also missed this my first time around, and will have my first comments later today. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead
  • Link "action film" in first sentence for consistency with other film FAs.
  • "Earth world government" sounds kind of redundant, although I realize it's not. Maybe "a world government based on Earth that is engaged in interstellar war..." would work better.
  • I would suggest linking "computer-generated" instead of "(CGI)" unless this is a common practice and/or there is consensus for the current form.
  • Link first use of "fascism" in lead.
Plot
  • Citizenship is exclusively earned through federal service, - does anything other than military service constitute "federal service"?
  • "social scientists" is kind of vague, although I'd say leave as is if this is all that the sources infer.
  • Humans, who are now spacefaring, conduct colonization missions throughout the galaxy, bringing them into conflict with a race of highly-evolved insectoid creatures dubbed "Arachnids" or, derisively, "bugs". - humans have been "spacefaring" since the 1950s; I think what you mean is capable of interstellar travel.
  • I don't think "high-school" needs to be hyphenated. I've never seen it hyphenated in the U.S., and since this is an American film, we should use American English conventions, per MOS:S.
  • Since it is specified that Planet P is Arachnid-controlled, you might consider clarifying the same for Tango Urilla.
  • Is it ever explained what the Brain Bug is afraid of?
Cast
  • Military infantry characters include Katrina (Blake Lindsley), Djana'd (Tami-Adrian George),[8][9] Eric Bruskotter as Breckinridge, Matt Levin as Kitten Smith, and Anthony Ruivivar as Shujumi. - is there a reason for the inconsistent use of parentheses in this sentence? I would recommend using the same convention for each actor and character in this sentence.
Thanks for your comments Bneu2013, I have actioned all the above minus your queries:
No, I believe military service is the only way to earn citizenship. There's some implication that Rico's family is rich and can kind of buy their way into certain things under the table, but officially only military service gives you important rights like voting and breeding.
"Social scientists" is how Rasczak refers to them, I assume the inference is socialists. There is an article, Social science which I arrived at after searching "social scientist" so I could maybe add that link. It's not expressly detailed in the film what they did wrong but given the film is a satire of fascism, I believe it means socialism failed.
The Brain Bug is just afraid because it's been caught, it's like any prisoner of war, I guess the twist is it's smart enough to be afraid when the humans treat them like large cockroaches. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me. I'm extremely busy right now, but I will have additional comments tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • Change "Ed Neumeier" to "Edward Neumeier", for consistency and the fact that this appears to be the name he most commonly goes by. Also, since it is linked in the previous paragraph, linking here could be perceived as overlink, but since it is a different section you could probably leave as is. I might get a second opinion on this before changing.
  • Wording of Since RoboCop, Neumeier and his co-writer Michael Miner struggled to develop new story ideas is kind of repetitive, since previous sentence starts with Since the release of RoboCop (1987),.
  • It sounds like Neumeier was more effective at developing new ideas on his own than with Davison, Tippett, Miner, etc. You might want to clarify this.
  • Change "Neumeier's treatment" to "His treatment".
  • Remove comma after "head of production,"
  • Is a date available for when the rights to Starship Troopers were purchased? I'm guessing it was in late 1992 or shortly thereafter.
  • Progress was slow as TriStar regularly replaced executives, including Medavoy, and high cost or risk projects were more closely scrutinized. - I'm guessing this film was considered a high cost and risky project, considering the following paragraph. It wouldn't hurt to specify that here, however, but no need to go into detail here, since that is what the second paragraph is for.
  • By 1994, Tristar remained reluctant to move Starship Troopers into pre-production - was this because of the (then-expected) high budget or some other reason? Did Verhoeven's unrealized projects and the mixed reviews of Basic Instinct also play a factor here?
Done all these Bneu2013 apart from the last one. The source doesn't really specify, it's easy to assume it's for the same reasons as the previous paragraph given it's only a year later but as the source isn't specific I'd just be making an educated guess. As for the rights purchase, again I believe the sources suggest 1992, as per the opening of it's paragraph "By late 1992" and the Sammon source says in the fall of 1992 they approached the studio with the Outpost 7 treatment, then later on says by early 1993 he'd been working on the starship troopers script for 3-4 months, but it depends how you interpet "early". For me that'd be the first 3 months of the year so it would seem the rights were bought in Fall/December 1992, but it's not specific. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll try to finish my review today.
Production (cntd.)
  • He identified elements he considered essential, including the high school opening, boot camp, battles, and the underlying philosophy and sociopolitics, and compensated for the novel's second act by expanding on concepts such as the teenage romance, based on his own experiences of pursuing women with no interest in him. - run-on sentence, suggest splitting in two. Preceding sentence is also borderline run-on.
  • Consider elaborating on what the "Bounce" is; it's not clear if this is for personal mobility or something used by vehicles.
  • Does "Neo-dogs" need to be capitalized?
  • Neumeier completed his third and final draft by early 1995 - no direct mention of the second draft, but I'm guessing the changes described in the previous paragraphs were part of it? When was it finished?
  • I'm guessing it was Neumeier who said The characters of Starship Troopers were "fascists who don't know they're fascists"?
  • Many key crew members were hired in 1996, including Verhoeven's long-time cinematographer Jost Vacano,[58][59] as well as Vic Armstrong (second unit director and stunt coordinator), Mark Goldblatt (editor), John Richardson (special effects supervisor), Basil Poledouris (music composer), Stacey McIntosh (construction coordinator), Karen Higgins (construction foreman), Gregg Goldstone (first assistant director), Kenneth Silverstein (second assistant director), John Blake (makeup artist), Kathy Blondell (hair stylist), William Petrotta (prop master), Robert Galotti (weapons coordinator),[60] production manager Robert Latham Brown, production coordinator Daren Hicks, and assistant production coordinators Janet Campolito and Lisa Hackler. - inconsistent use of parentheses for descriptors; I prefer not using them. Ditto the succeeding sentence.
  • The location was remote, about 45 mi (72 km) or an hour's drive from the Astaire Building or hotels for the cast and crew. It offered other logistical challenges as it was generally undeveloped land, requiring the production to build roads for the trucks carrying necessary gear into the canyons for filming. - a previous sentence says the Astaire Building is in California. Wyoming is not 45 miles from California.
  • Change "which could portray Tango Urilla" to "which was chosen to portray Tango Urilla" or something similar.
  • Apostrophe in "TriStars".
  • but he realized that many of the contemporary stars...
  • Part of she thought she could convey the character's "heart" and vulnerability at being overlooked by Rico because her toughness makes her seem like just another guy sounds like it could be a quote.
  • Comma after "harsh conditions".
  • Did Rupkalvis have a background in the military that made her qualified to help with the training?
  • but she chose to anyway, later remarking
  • The crew returned two weeks later to find that miles of electrical cables, some equipment, and even cars had sunk into the mud. Alternatively, The crew returned two weeks later to find miles of electrical cables, some equipment, and even cars had sunken into the mud.
  • The conditions also caused respiratory and exhaustion issues among the crew, and many were treated for heatstroke after wearing heavy costumes in the 115 °F (46 °C) heat, including Busey, resulting in production pausing for a week—costing $1.5 million a day—while he recovered. - run-on sentence.
  • Suggest adding "television personality" in front of "Rachel Campos".
  • The exam results scene and the prom were both filmed at Kaiser Permanente - I'm guessing this was at Kaiser Permanente's headquarters or another one of their office buildings. Suggest elaborating, since most people probably aren't going to know where this is located.
  • Additional scenes were filmed during this period, including the FedNet propaganda sequences - were these considered pick-up shots?
  • I read somewhere that this film was initially given an NC-17 rating. Since you mention this for Robocop and Total Recall, I would suggest a sentence or two about this in the first post-production paragraph.
  • but Verhoeven wanted the music to offer a realistic background for the character's experiences. - Change to "characters'", since this appears to refer to all of the film's characters.
  • Hey Bneu2013, I have done the above apart from the following:
  • Neumeier completed his third and final draft by early 1995 - no direct mention of the second draft, but I'm guessing the changes described in the previous paragraphs were part of it? When was it finished?
  • The second draft is mentioned ("His contributions to Neumeier's second draft included...") although the sources for the 4th paragraph under writing aren't specific about what is in the 2nd or 3rd drafts. Though I wouldn't expect someone to be going THAT wild in their final draft, you'd expect that to be the clean and refine what you did in your last draft phase. But that's just me guessing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't find anything, then leave as is. Although it would be nice if you could find a date for when the second draft was finished, since we have this for 1 and 3. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional scenes were filmed during this period, including the FedNet propaganda sequences - were these considered pick-up shots?
  • Reading the description of pick-ups, I don't believe so, but I may be wrong. It describes pick ups as additional filming to correct existing scenes, while the Fed Net filming was original content they did not have time to film during the main photography Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources I've read state that pick-up shots are scenes filmed after principal photography has ended, meaning these could be considered such by that definition. But unless any reliable sources refer to these shots as such, describing them as such would constitute original research. However, I'd recommend wording them to explicitly state that they were less important scenes that were not part of principal photography. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many key crew members were hired in 1996, including Verhoeven's long-time cinematographer Jost Vacano,[58][59] as well as Vic Armstrong (second unit director and stunt coordinator), Mark Goldblatt (editor), John Richardson (special effects supervisor), Basil Poledouris (music composer), Stacey McIntosh (construction coordinator), Karen Higgins (construction foreman), Gregg Goldstone (first assistant director), Kenneth Silverstein (second assistant director), John Blake (makeup artist), Kathy Blondell (hair stylist), William Petrotta (prop master), Robert Galotti (weapons coordinator),[60] production manager Robert Latham Brown, production coordinator Daren Hicks, and assistant production coordinators Janet Campolito and Lisa Hackler. - inconsistent use of parentheses for descriptors; I prefer not using them. Ditto the succeeding sentence.
That should work. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of she thought she could convey the character's "heart" and vulnerability at being overlooked by Rico because her toughness makes her seem like just another guy sounds like it could be a quote.
  • I read somewhere that this film was initially given an NC-17 rating. Since you mention this for Robocop and Total Recall, I would suggest a sentence or two about this in the first post-production paragraph.
  • So I don't believe this was given an NC-17 rating, the times had changed a bit since the days of RoboCop and Total Recall. The only mention I can find at all is a 4 second decapitation scene was removed to avoid receiving an NC-17 rating but that this was pre-emptive and it's from a listicle article so not super reliable. I've googled for NC-17, deleted scenes, censorship, etc, relating to the film but not had any results. I can add mention of the scene's removal though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly, what you're saying is it wasn't actually submitted to the MPAA and given an NC-17 rating; they just cut a scene out of suspicion that it would likely get it an NC-17 rating. This was not the case with RoboCop and Total Recall, if I understand. This article actually does seem to imply that it was given an NC-17 rating, although I don't get the impression the authors know that for certain. As such, I would recommend mentioning this, but wording it something like "x scene was removed to avoid an NC-17 rating". On a related note, I do remember two decapitation scenes towards the end of the film, but I'm not sure which version I saw. Was that by any chance a different version than the theatrical with the cut scene? Note that I haven't gotten to the post release section, and am aware this may be discussed there. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would've been too young to see this in cinemas, I think, I can only assume the decapitation refers to the Planet P battle while Rasczak is still alive because one of the flying bugs does outright decapitate someone and it only lasts a few seconds, but I can't find any real discussion about it, even in the books I've got, outside of forum and reddit posts. There's this comparison between the theatrical and Workprint (not a reliable source) which does not show any differences in terms of violent content, but you can see how much they had to change regarding Carmen because the test audiences hated her guts. They basically cut her whole Zander romance.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it does not appear the film was ever given an NC-17 rating, I guess my recommendation stands. Also multiple clips of the scene you are referring to are available on YouTube, and are consistent with what I remember seeing. I doubt these, and what I first saw years ago, are any different than what was shown in the theaters in 1997. So I guess just word it as "scene... was trimmed to avoid an NC-17 rating". Note that I would recommend "trimmed" as opposed to removed, as it is unclear whether or not this was a complete removal of a decapitation scene or a trimming of a decapitation that made it into the final cut (there are indeed two in the scene in question). Bneu2013 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: - thought I might go ahead and let you know I've responded to a few of your replies since my last comments. I'm also working on the release section, and will have comments shortly. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll be looking at these tomorrow now, bed time! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • Not a requirement, but I recommend flipping refs 122 and 21 into their sequential order. Ditto anywhere else.
  • Alan Marshall stated that no one involved in Starship Troopers was happy about delaying an anticipated blockbuster to after the peak theatrical season. - was this widely expected to be a blockbuster?
  • The first trailer for Starship Troopers was released in November 1996, - is a more precise date available, and was this first shown with any specific movie(s) like the second one?
  • grossing approximately $22.1 million from 2,971 theaters, an average of $7,424 per theater. - was this just on the opening day, or weekend?
  • with a total box office gross of about $54.8 million, making it the 33rd highest-grossing film of the year. - based on the following paragraph, this ranking appears to be just for the United States.
Reception
  • Again, not a requirement, but I suggest ordering refs 138, 137, and 139 and 140, 139, and 142, respectively.
  • While Berardinelli and Maslin praised the tension, scale, and impressive visuals of the action sequences, in which Verhoeven revels in the contrast between his characters' earnestness and the violent and gorey imagery,[138][140][143] others—such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Ebert—wrote that the scenes grew tiresome because the alien creatures had no personality, lacking any culture or discernible language, which rendered them idelogically "boring ciphers" inhabiting uninteresting planets. - run-on sentence.


  • Responses to above
  • So I've done all the above bar:
  • Alan Marshall stated that no one involved in Starship Troopers was happy about delaying an anticipated blockbuster to after the peak theatrical season. - was this widely expected to be a blockbuster?
  • I have had a look around and not found many sources saying so and I'm not sure I'd trust them, for instance, Screen Rant calls it a bomb but also compares it's US gross only (about $50 million) to it's $100 million budget. Starship Troopers might have not met expectations but it did make more than its budget, even if that may mean it lost money on marketing or whatever, it'd be hard to say since the distribution costs were shared between Tristar and Touchstone. The only 3 other sources I've found that use the term "box office bomb" are Collider, which mentions it briefly in a listicle and includes a quote from a "user" so I'm not sure how reliable that is, MovieWeb, which unequivocably calls it a box office bomb but doesn't mention any figures so I don't know if it's doing the same as Screen Rant, and The Washington Blade which is a speciality newspaper, I can't say I've heard of it before so I'm not 100% on its reliability, and it doesn't call Starship Troopers a bomb, just a flop. Cutthroat Island is usually something I would describe as an easy bomb, $100 milly budget, $11 milly box office. They also went on to develop multiple sequels to Starship Troopers which isn't usually what happens with a flop. So I'm open to your opinion on this, I'm not sure the sourcing I can find is strong enough to make a bold claim like it being a bomb, it definitely didn't do gangbusters but I'm not sure it'd be considered a bomb.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources don't describe it as a bomb, then leave as is. Since it sounds like a film is considered a bomb if it's theatrical revenues do not exceed its production cost, then this film would not meet that definition. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-release
  • Cut comma after compact disc (CD) in 1997
Themes and analysis
  • including patriotism, authoritarianism, militarism, colonialism, and xenophobia - shouldn't these be linked?
  • Change comma after "Nazi coat of arms" to a semicolon.
  • a right that must be taken instead of given. - what does "taken" mean here? I'm guessing it doesn't mean "taken away", although someone could mistake it for this.
Legacy
  • Suggest changing The Atlantic and The Verge (2020) to "The Atlantic and The Verge in 2020".
  • Remove comma after "2020 retrospective".
  • Suggest Starship Troopers is now considered a cult classic. Not sure this was true initially.
  • Starship Troopers has continued to generate interest in the decades since its release because of elements which came to reflect future events such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the subsequent actions of the U.S. government and president George W. Bush to convince the American people to surrender certain liberties to enable a war and defeat their enemies. - comma after "events, MOS:DATECOMMA after "2001", and link "George W. Bush. Also suggest changing war to "the subsequent War on Terror".
Sequels and remake
  • Consider adding a sentence at the end of the sequels paragraph summarizing the reception and relative success of the sequels compared to the original.
  • Was the proposed reboot in the early 2010s a film or television series?

@Darkwarriorblake: - I've finished my review. I should be able to support once all of my remaining comments are addressed and I see no other remaining issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bneu2013 Hi, I've done most of these. Xenophobia and GW Bush are already linked earlier in the article. I did look when writing up the article, and I've had another look just now, for information about the sequels. The difficulty is that because they are all straight to video there's no real financials to review, and the most recent two films don't even have enough reviews on Rotten Tomatoes to generate a percentage score. Box Office Mojo doesn't cover the franchise at all, and The Numbers DOES but only has figures for Starship Troopers, not for all the sequels and the figures are so low they can't possibly be accurate. There's no real discussion as far as I can find about the films post Starship Troopers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all I have left to do now should be to just skim over the article to make sure there are no remaining issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly pingminder for Bneu2013, have you had any more thoughts or been busy? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been extremely busy. Unfortunate I'm not as active as I once was. But I've finished my review, and don't see any remaining issues, and am ready to support. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending completion of source review. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Images seem all well-placed. Regarding File:Starship Troopers 1997 film - Klendathu Drop.ogg, is the track of outstanding significance to the film as a whole, instead of just being part of the film? File:Emblem of Italian Blackshirts.svg and File:Heer - decal for helmet 1942.svg need a licence for the symbol. ALT text is OK. Source-wise: What makes #29, #220 and #168 a reliable source? #216 is a bare URL. Some URLs like https://www.denofgeek.com/games/starship-troopers-strategy-game-release-date/, https://www.avclub.com/content/node/24776, https://www.avclub.com/article/a-decade-of-underrated-movies-1486, https://theasc.com/articles/needs-pics-starship-maneuvers, https://theasc.com/articles/pest-control-on-starship-troopers, https://ascmag.com/articles/starship-troopers-interstellar-exterminators, https://www.cbr.com/starship-troopers-unknown/, https://deadspin.com/the-grisly-goofy-starship-troopers-played-dumb-to-make-1741600229 and https://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11532-8-Avalon-Hill-Board-Games-That-Deserve-New-Life.5 should be marked as broken. There are a fair amount of reviewers being cited like Den of Geek, SyFy (not sure here) and Deadspin that don't seem to be that prominent, which makes me wonder about their qualification as "high-quality reliable sources" - there is probably more but that source list is so long that I might have missed some. The books and stuff are reliable sources, however. Formatting seems consistent too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Klendathu Drop track is the basis for the entire rest of the score, so that one piece provides context of tone and theme for the entire film, and it is also discussed in the body text.
  • So I have added public domain tag to the Heer one but the Blackshirt one appears to be a vector image based on the original logo, but it obviously wasn't vector based and clean back then, so I believe the creator owns the copyright. I believe the original design should fall in the public domain and what the editor has created is unique but derivative of the original design. The editor has added their own free-use tag with attribution, so I'm honestly unclear if I am allowed to add a public domain tag to it for the design basis. I've asked for help on the mediawiki village pump but had no luck so far.
  • The CBR, ASC, and Deadspin links all work for me, dunno if there was a temporary issue when you tried. I've marked the other ones and ran the bot to try and tag any dead links.
  • Fixed the bare URL
  • SyFy is what used to be the Sci-Fi Channel, it's been around for 32 years, and Tim Grierson is currently a senior critic for Screen Daily so I believe it's a reliable source. Deadspin is by the same people behind The A.V. Club and, I believe, Kotaku, so I don't believe there should be any concerns relating to it and Tom Breihan is the senior editor of Stereogum. It's another long-lived news source. On a previous FA nomination (I can go find it but please don't make me), it was agreed that Den of Geek is fine when written by site staff only, not contributors. Ryan Lambie was deputy editor of the site, and Matthew Byrd is their games editor with the article he authored being focused on that speciality theme (board game in this case). It does also have a staff and hierarchy page.
  • If those answers are satisfactory, I could just use some feedback regarding the Blackshirts emblem based on my above comments. Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with the images is that it's not clear by which right the uploader holds the copyright. Is this a coats of arms like situation where one distinguishes between blazon and emblazon (sp?)? Regarding the sources, I sometimes feel like I have been overly lenient when reviewing certain kinds of sources. I'll ask Ealdgyth's input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have any luck Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, doesn't seem like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like to do then Jo-Jo Eumerus? I can understand your viewpoint but I don't think you're being lenient in this situation, I have learned from previous nominations to be pretty strict on my sourcing even if it means sacrificing interesting information so I do believe the references are solid. I do take some personal pride in elevating these articles so I do try to avoid shortcuts as I want them to stand as reliable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see how the coordinators handle this. I know it's buck-passing but I don't feel certain enough on these sources to say yes or no explicitly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

I'm doing my part! Very interesting, I have been wondering how the differences between the book and the film came to be. I think the article reads well and there are only two sections which break the flow. With "Box office" it's expected, but the other one is the second paragraph below "Pre-production" listing various crew members. Since more than a dozen of these are never mentioned again it makes me wonder whether they are all due for a mention. With no other concerns for me across these 16 pages I'm happy to pledge right away. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Draken Bowser, Bneu mentioned something similar above so I have removed crew members who don't have an article and moved them to the Special Effects sub-article. This trims the section down considerably. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Paleface Jack

[edit]

I have decided to emerge from my little abode to offer my support on this current nomination. As per usual, the writing and sourcing here is very strong as mentioned above by other reviewers. I do not see any errors or nitpicks to point out. I did alittle looking around and found an additional source though it is not necessary that contains some interviews with Verhoeven called Paul Verhoeven: Interviews editied by Margaret Barton-Fumo. Again, it is not needed but might be useful if you ever need another source to back up what you already have. Cheers!--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paleface Jack, found the book and implemented it where I could Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2024 [68].

Jochi

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jochi was, and remains, the most mysterious of the sons of Genghis Khan (I haven't got around to his sisters yet). The disputed circumstances of his birth, his conflicts with his brothers, his growing independence and estrangement from his father, his early death... all have contributed to a murky image of the man. Hopefully, this article will bring some clarity. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Batu_Khan_on_the_Throne_by_Rashid_al-Din.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Khwarezmian_Empire_1190_-_1220_(AD).PNG needs a source for the data presented

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Religion of Tengrism seems only to be mentioned in the infobox
  • I don't think the 1227 deaths category is strictly appropriate, Category:1220s deaths seems preferable given the uncertainty over the date of his death
    • Adjusted
  • Check the page range on Dafeng & Jianyi - the short citation is to p. 190 but this page is outside of the range given in the long citation
    • Ah, a typo.

I am very much not familiar with the subject matter, so the review is more surface-level than I prefer my reviews to be, but this appears to be an excellent article. From a nonexpert look, the sourcing all appears to be reputable. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, my comments:

  • "one of their number": "members" instead of number?
    • I believe they mean the same thing; what's the improvement?
  • "excluded from succession": prefix a "the" before "succession"?
    • Adjusted.
  • In the infobox, can we list the campaigns Jochi participated in?
  • "badly contradictory": "highly" instead of "badly"?
  • "named Qutlugh Khatun...": "namely" instead of "named"?
  • "reorder his new nation, dividing the nation": "it" instead of "the nation"? The latter is repetitive.
  • "in the expectation": "with" instead of "in"?
  • Link to Christopher Atwood in the body?
    • All done.
  • "triumphant return from battle": do we know which battle this was? Does the SHM reveal this?
    • Clarified.
  • "captured Otrar": link to Otrar Catastrophe?
  • "Upon the city's eventual fall": "after" instead of "upon"? Idk why but the latter seems grammatically incorrect.
  • "take his time hunting": "spend" instead of "take"?
  • "greatly fond of": "very" instead of "greatly"?
    • All done.
  • "Sources for 1225:[46]

Sources for 1227:[47]" -> Add spaces after 1225 and 1227?

    • I don't think that's necessary, but done.
  • "Ulytau Region, Kazakhstan, has...": rephrase to "Ulytau Region in Kazakhstan has..."?
    • Done.
  • Could we add images of the Siege of Gurganj/Gurganj Fort, and the courses of the Irtysh and Angara rivers? I believe these will better illustrate their respective text.
    • We don't have high-quality depictions of the siege. Added a map of the Irtysh.

I'll have to check for comprehensiveness, because I somehow feel something is missing in the article. I don't know what though. Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A support from me on the general text then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I got infobox military person to work as a module so I added it myself to the article. Lmk if you're ok with this addition. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite helpful Matarisvan, really appreciate it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
  • Thinking of doing spot checks for 10 refs, about 20% of total refs. Will try to get these done within this week. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot checks:
    • #5, #51, #45, #38, #37, #32, #28, #21, #9: ok.
    • #41: Source doesn't explicitly say "designed to buttress Ögedei's rule as khan of the empire", it just says "harmonization between the "standard narrative"".
      • Adjusted page numbers.
    On comprehensivess, why don't we have these details:
    • "Jochi also accompanied SÜBE’ETEI BA’TUR’s first campaign against the Qipchaqs (1218–19)", the dates from "Jochi campaigned with Cha’adai and Ögedei in southwest Inner Mongolia (November 1211) and in Hebei and Shanxi (autumn 1213)", and "Chinggis Khan assigned to Jochi KHORAZM and the steppes from the river Chu on west, intending them as a base for the conquest of the Qipchaqs" from Atwood 2004.
      • Added the dates for the Chinese campaigns. The other details are in the article.
    • Dunnell 2023 also confirms: "Discord among Chaghadai, Jochi, and Ögödei prolonged the siege (it lasted at least five months), causing a high Mongol casualty rate. When Urgench finally fell in spring of 1221 after great slaughter, the survivors were driven out, divided up, and dispatched in the usual fashion. Jochi parted ways with his brothers and moved north into the steppes, ostensibly to subdue the Qipchaq tribes."
      • All of this is in the article.
    • Also, we should list the probable Mongol casualties at Gurganj to give context on why Genghis considered it a failure. Matarisvan (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Within the week hopefully. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos gentle poke ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'm only a day out :P

  • "However, during" - ditch however
  • "had begun to" - "began to"
    • Done both.
  • "were considered highly controversial" - were, past tense, as in not anymore?
    • Not really—you won't find any academics arguing passionately for or against Genghis's paternity, and the whole matter is marked down under "we will never know". Back then however ...
  • I think you can ditch both uses of "highly" in this sentence as well
    • Good call.
  • You've told us that the events are controversial and contradictory, but then provided one straight narrative. Whose narrative are we using, and why do we trust that one?
    • That is the accepted narrative, containing elements from both the SHM and Rashid al-Din. I have specified that in text.
  • "this proposal was taken as insulting" I assume because of Mr Jochi's messy parentage?
    • Not entirely—there was also the question of whether Temüjin was important enough to propose that in the first place; included both in text.
  • "He also began" think you can ditch "also" here
    • Done.
  • insert here my usual complaint about breaking the left header with images
    • insert my usual rejoinder that I don't mind it in moderation.
  • "requested him to decide" not sure the grammar works here. "asked him to" would work, or "requested that he decide", but I don't think you can use "requested him"
    • Done the latter.
  • "After the brawling brothers were pulled apart" you've gone from shouting one insult to breaking up a brawl with no intervening mention of the actual brawl occurring.
    • It was a fairly short one, but done.
  • " Jochi's failure to give him his rightful share of the loot" did we establish earlier that Jochi did this? Feels like it comes out of nowhere
    • We did not, but it happened (or didn't, I suppose) following the siege, so it fits better afterwards I think. Rewritten anyway, let me know what you think.
  • "One account states...this account" I know you've got the semi-colon, but you still have "account" twice in one sentence
    • Removed.
  • Suggest subbing in File:Dzhuchi khan mausoleum (cropped).jpg (which I've just made), which trims out a lot of the empty space and the random family to close in on the building
    • Done, and thanks muchly for the crop.

That's all I have. A nice tightly-written little article, great work as usual. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much for the comments Premeditated Chaos, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good to me, I'm a support. (As a side note, if you have any interest in commenting, I have another McQueen collection at FAC) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24

[edit]

Comments:

  • In my mind, it's a bit odd to not include the birth date, c. 1182, in the actual article content. We wouldn't want to send readers back to the lead/infobox :)
    • I think I removed that while editing and forgot to put it back in. Anyway, it's there now.
  • "turbulent adolescence" is a bit vague—maybe "violent" or "warfare-ridden"?
    • Done.
  • Is there any geographical clarifier that could be used for the Merkits? e.g. the northwestern Merkits (not sure where they were)
    • You're correct!—northwest is probably the best estimate. Added.
  • "while the two that did" – to my eyes, makes it sound like they also omitted the events, with the "while" being extranaeous. Maybe "that did include them..." Ignore this if it seems nonsensical
    • No, I think that's perfectly clear and the article lacked the clarity. Good spot.
  • Might be worth restating Jochi's birthplace in the 3rd para of "Birth and paternity". I'm not exactly sure where in the world we are at this point
    • Sorry, "in Jamukha's camp" is all the sources (historical or modern) provide. Somewhere in the Mongol heartland.
  • I'm assuming nothing is known between 1182 and 1203? If there is a source that says this, it would seem worth clarifying, so the reader doesn't think the article is just missing information
    • You're in luck! Added.
  • "After Toghrul's defeat"—do we know when this is?
    • We do.
  • Any dates for the marriages or births? Assuming not for the former, at least
    • Sadly not.
  • Your Genghis Khan article doesn't seem to refer to the title in quotes, like here: "Genghis Khan"
    • It was supposed to; added it there.
  • "After the city's eventual fall"... in ?
    • Added year; estimates for the month do not agree.
  • "Whichever narrative is preferred" — not sure about this phrasing, perhaps "Regardless of the narrative discrepancies". Not a huge deal
    • I prefer your formulation.
  • Nice work overall, the above are small details and nothing essential. My main complaint is an occasional lack of specific dates and locations, but I understand many of these are likely unavailable. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: could I nominate another article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2024 [69].

Edith Roosevelt

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Roosevelt was a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee.

This is the fourth article of my U.S. first ladies project that I'm submitting as a featured article candidate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family,_1903.jpg, File:Edith_and_Ethel_Roosevelt_cph.3b42358.jpg
  • File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631491_(cropped).jpg
  • File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg, File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – These are all from the same source, which doesn't provide that info, and a Google search for each image didn't turn anything up.
    • File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg – Same as the others, but it's from Gilbert Studios, which was apparently owned by commons:Category:C. M. Gilbert. I don't know whether that's enough to call him the author though.
    • File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg – Figured out the author and added to the Commons page
    • File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg – Yeah, that wasn't ideal. I switched the description to the standard format used by the other images, and I swapped the CC tag with a standard PD tag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBUA, just a reminder that Nikkimaria's outstanding comments need addressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, I am unable to verify publication. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, TBUA, can you bring me up to speed on this? If publication can't be verified, have the image tags been altered, or the images removed? Or are we good to go with the image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still have several images present with unverified tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm here from the Discord after TBUA asked on the #commons channel about the images. I'm not sure why it would need something to demonstrate that it's public domain or when it was first published, especially as it came from the Library of Congress IMO, I would assume that the LoC would know what they're doing, but some of the licenses can be changed.
According to this guide by the LoC, "No known restrictions on publication" generally means that a) there was copyright but it wasn't renewed or expired; b) no copyright markings or indications; c) no records or indications of any copyright registration; d) Acquisition paperwork for collection doesn't have evidence of restriction; and e) They were published extensively without any claimed rights by someone. It notes that these do not exclusively mean that it's public domain, but there's no evidence of restrictions in the first place. reppoptalk 20:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
reppop, thank you for the straightforward explanation of what changes might be needed. Since there's been no comment regarding these suggestions, I've implemented them. Also just letting you know that I've moved your comment to the bottom of the discussion because it intersected with the outdent. Pinging the reviewer: Nikkimaria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've added the suggested tags to what was already present, rather than changing the tagging? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you several weeks ago whether the tags would need to be removed/replaced, and you never responded. I am not active participant at Wikimedia Commons and I've basically had to feel my way around in the dark throughout this review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was looking for more detail to answer your question about alternative tagging, but essentially if a tag can't be verified to be correct, it shouldn't be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed all of the publication date tags where only the date of the photo is known. I've also removed the author death tag where the studio is known but the specific author hasn't been proven. This is in addition to the tags I added per reppop's explanation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Nikkimaria. Does the removal of the publication tags work for you? FrB.TG (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from Kavyansh

  • link White House in the lead
  • "came to be her most enduring legacies." — I feel we are stating a widespread scholarly opinion as a fact. I would have written it as "are considered by scholars/historians/authors<whatever deeps appropriate> to be her most enduring legacies."
  • "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making," — Interesting! But do we need this in an encyclopaedic article?

I might add a few more comments, but I won't be supporting or opposing the nomination, primarily because these are just drive-by comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, always appreciated! I've made the first two changes. For my part, I've always liked having a few more personal details to give a better picture of the subject's family life and personal thoughts, but I have no objection to changing how it's presented or just removing it if others agree that it doesn't work as it currently stands. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSinccc

[edit]

MSincccc, I've replied to everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First lady of the United States
  • Rather than hiring a housekeeper, she took personal responsibility for the care of the mansion. I suppose it should be "hiring" instead of "hire".
  • Each Tuesday, Edith organized a meeting with wives of all the cabinet members to run concurrently with cabinet meetings.
  • For two months beginning in April 1903, Theodore ventured off on a trip to the west, and Edith cared for the children on her own, first on a cruise aboard the USS Mayflower and then in the White House. What do you mean by the "White House" here? Was it a vehicle for him to travel to the West?
  • Besides her own children, Edith also ensured to dedicate time to her stepdaughter Alice, who felt neglected by Theodore.
@Thebiguglyalien Till here for now. I will return with further suggestions later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"ensured to dedicate time" doesn't sound right to me, but I've made the other changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien Fine. I do not have any major suggestions for improvement at the time being. Keeping that in mind, I will not hold back my opinion for this article's FAC. Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Outstanding work as usual; as usual, this is nothing but a list of minor nitpicks and I expect to support once these are dealt with or argued away.

  • "until after Theodore was engaged to Alice Hathaway Lee": suggest making this "until after Theodore was engaged to his first wife, Alice Hathaway Lee". I suspect I know more about Teddy than most Americans (I live near Sagamore Hill and have visited it several times) but I still had to click through to remind myself that he did marry Alice.
  • "and got elected governor of New York": suggest "and was elected" as a little more formal in tone.
  • "She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year." A bit repetitive in structure, and I'm not keen on the "then". I also think it would help to have one or two dates in this paragraph. How about inverting the first half: "When Theodore was elected Vice President in March 1901 she became second lady of the United States for six months, and then became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency in September of that year"? Mentioning a year once or twice earlier in that paragraph wouldn't hurt either.
  • "she featured various musical artists at the White House": perhaps "invited to" rather than "featured"?
  • "held a mutual animosity toward his wife Helen Herron Taft": I don't think there's a good verb that you can use in the form "she Xed animosity towards". If you want to keep "animosity", I would suggest "and there was mutual animosity between Edith and Taft's wife, Helen Herron Taft". If you'd rather avoid the passive, maybe "and she and his wife, Helen Herron Taft, strongly disliked each other".
  • "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932—the latter being an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...": this doesn't work syntactically -- "the latter" refers to Hoover himself, not her support for him. Maybe "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932. Her support for the latter was an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...".
  • "Edith's early schooling took place at the Roosevelt home": can we give the location?
    • It says in the previous paragraph that they were in Norwich, Connecticut. I don't want to be redundant, and this is how the source handles it.
  • "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making". I don't think "as" works unless the source is clear that it would not have been a large responsibility without Theodore's attitude, which seems unlikely given the number of children and the expectation of the day that mothers were responsible for day-to-day parenting. Suggest "Managing the family became an increasing responsibility, and she counted her husband as one of the children because of his involvement in the children's trouble-making".
    • I went with "in part because", does that work?
  • "cared for their family friend Cecil Spring Rice during his visits": this makes it sound as if he was an invalid?
  • "Fischer's antique shop": this is mentioned as if it's well-known. Is it a candidate for a redlink?
    • The source makes it seem this way, but I also can't find any sources with a surface level search.
  • "Attending several receptions in 1890, Edith was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist": suggest "She attended several receptions in 1890, and was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist". I assume some of these receptions were not at the White House? If they all were at the White House then that could be made definite with "She attended several receptions at the White House in 1890 with her husband, and was now received as a guest rather than a tourist".
  • "on February 1, 1894, by President Grover Cleveland, where Edith was sat directly next to the president": suggest "on February 1, 1894; Edith was seated directly next to the president, Grover Cleveland". I don't think we need to say Cleveland personally issued the invitation (and he probably didn't, anyway).
    Is "sat" formal AmEng usage? In BrEng it would have to be "seated"; "sat" sounds very odd to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The promise proved to be short-lived." This doesn't sound right to me; promises don't last -- they are kept for a long time or a short time. Perhaps "The promise was not kept for long"?
  • Is the link for Friday Morning Club correct? That article is about a building in Los Angeles.
  • "Edith was uncomfortable with the proposition of Theodore running for Vice President of the United States": I think it would be better to start with the vice presidential opportunity as context rather than assume the reader knows what's coming -- e.g. "In 1900 Theodore was urged by Henry Cabot Lodge and others to accept the vice-presidential role on the Republican national ticket" (stealing from our article on Theodore). Then we can say Edith was uncomfortable with the idea.
  • Our article on Theodore says he actually did issue a public statement that he would not accept the nomination, but here you say he only drafted one -- is one of the articles wrong?
    • Schneider & Schneider (2010) and Morris (1980) both say they drafted it together and then skip straight to him accepting the nomination. Gould (2013) says "Yet, Theodore never went the final step of saying he would decline the vice presidency if it were offered to him."
  • I don't doubt your adherence to the sources, but Cleveland's reassurance to Edith seems odd as it doesn't seem to address any of the concerns listed -- it's as if Cleveland was reassuring her that Theodore could cope.
    • It's possible that I didn't convey it very well, but it tracks in my mind. She was worried for his safety and about how much he was doing, and Cleveland assured her that he could handle all of it.
      But the list of her concerns doesn't include "how much he was doing", which is what Cleveland's reassurance seems to be mostly aimed at. Can we add that to her list of concerns? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For her sitting room, Edith used an oval library adjacent to the president's office". Was this the Yellow Oval Room?
    • It's possible, but I don't want to assume, especially since the White House has been redone a few times.
  • "Edith seemed to regret how her role as first lady": suggest "that" rather than "how".
  • "with new obligations that brought her displeasure: suggest simplifying, e.g. "that she disliked".
  • "commenting on how it ruined the grass": suggest "saying that it". I think "how" in these constructions is more useful when the intended meaning is "the manner in which" rather than just "that".
  • "Because of a lack of historical records": does this really add anything?
  • I don't understand the account of her interactions with Frances Metcalfe Wolcott. If the Wolcotts were divorced and stayed so, in what way did she "help ... fix her marriage"?
  • "the handkerchiefs were scrutinized and criticized": I don't know that more details are worth including, but I am curious as to what the criticisms were -- poor fashion choices?
    • The source doesn't give much. It quotes one person as saying they were "tacky" and mentions one women's group in Texas that liked Varina Davis's handkerchief better.
  • "Edith featured the famous German composer Engelbert Humperdinck when he visited the United States": what does "featured" mean here?
  • "She exerted her influence over journalists, such as occasions when she wore the same dress multiple times but convinced the reporters to describe it differently": suggest "She exerted her influence over journalists: for example, when she wore the same dress on multiple occasions, she convinced the reporters to describe it differently each time."
  • "Edith and Helen had developed a rivalry over the years, both distrusting each other and the other's husband. This rivalry contributed to a rivalry between Theodore and William in the following years." Repetition of "rivalry"; can we eliminate at least one?
  • Suggest linking Richard Derby Jr to Ethel Roosevelt Derby#Marriage and family, to satisfy the curiosity of readers who wonder via which child Richard was a grandchild.
  • "Then in 1927, Edith ferried across the Paraná River in Argentina until she reached the Iguazu Falls in Brazil". I don't think "then" is necessary; and this phrasing makes it sound as if she piloted the ferry. Could we say "took a ferry" or even just "crossed"? I had to look at the linked article on the falls to understand why the sentence is constructed this way -- is the intended meaning something like "she took a ferry across the Paraná River in order to reach the Iguazu Falls"? If so I would suggest that phrasing, with "on the border between Argentina and Brazil" at the end to simplify the first half of the sentence.
  • "By this time, Edith began having": either "had begun to have" or "was beginning to have", or cut "By this time".
  • "Knowing that her health would not let her travel as frequently": suggest "Knowing that her health would no longer let her travel frequently".
  • "as it had been thoroughly furnished": surely "refurnished"?
  • "and her allowance of racist songs to be performed at the White House to suggest strong anti-black views": suggest "and the fact that she allowed racist songs to be performed".
  • Steinmetz is in the list of references but does not appear to have been used.
  • Not a FAC requirement but you might add "|ref=none" to the further reading citation templates to avoid harv errors for those who have them enabled.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I've made changes for each point except for the ones I've replied to above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most points struck; a couple of minor queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, agree that "seated" makes more sense. And I went back to the source and looked to see what concern it raised immediately before Cleveland's comment, so that should be fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

A nice piece of work. Reads well and looks very comprehensive. I tried my best to nitpick and managed a few. Please ignore as you wish, especially since I am not a native speaker.

  • Edith Carow began a romance with Theodore Roosevelt --> the body text is more neutral about who took the initiative
    • I don't read this as her taking initiative, just that he was the person she was with when it happened.
  • she participated in New York social life --> just wondering if a 's would be better
  • but she preserved only one of these letters --> the but makes it sound there is an intriguing story here
    • I'm not sure what you mean.
      • Sorry for not being clear. Let me try again: Why is the word "but" here? This to me hints at something of a controversy among historians whether they were or were not in contact. If there is some kind of controversy, this should be explained. If none such is the case, I wonder what the value of adding "but she preserved only one of these letters" is.
  • because they could not count on a mayor's salary --> sorry I don't understand count: could it be that NYC's finances were shaky or something?
  • in Albany --> link?
  • incredibly thin --> not sure I would use incredibly, I think "very thin" sounds more like WP's tone
  • subsequently had lunch with the McKinleys --> I had to look up who had won the 1900 election. Would be nice to tell the reader at some stage, so that this lunch is understood to be with the top cheeses
  • he would experience as presidency --> president?
  • former president Cleveland --> we have a P in President McKinley, which is definitely good, but is it former president Cleveland or former President. I'm not sure, I suspect you are.
    • In this case I'm not sure if "former president" is a common noun descriptor and "Cleveland" is the object, or if "former" is a modifier and "President Cleveland" is the object. MOS:JOBTITLE has never been intuitive to me.
      • MOS:JOBTITLE does not seem to help. If I had to guess, I'd go for former president Cleveland
  • Edith was confident in Theodore's chances for his reelection --> when was this?
  • moved back in to --> moved back into
  • by Caroline Harrison --> by former first lady Caroline Harrison
    • Done, but the JOBTITLE issue might also be relevant here.
  • Republican Party --> link?
  • been granted the right to vote --> link perhaps to Women's suffrage in the United States
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt --> should be linked. I realise this may generate a sea of blue, so perhaps a little rejigging of words is possible?
  • "Everything she did was for the happiness of others". --> "Everything she did was for the happiness of others."
  • nineteenth century --> earlier we have 19th

That looks to be it. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon I've replied to a few above, and I made the suggested changes for all of the others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. The only quibble I have left is the odd "but" in "but she preserved only one of these letters". However, that does not stop my support. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Carl Sferrazza Anthony isn't linked even though Betty Boyd Caroli is. Likewise, the two citations to scri.siena.edu are inconsistently formatted. With the exception of Morris, Sylvia it seems like we are using prominent authors and biographers as sources. I wonder if there are other sources (academic publications that aren't books etc) that could be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for the feedback! I believe I've fixed these issues. To get a quick sense of what else might exist, I did a Google Scholar search for "Edith Roosevelt" (with quotes) and nothing about her came up except sources already in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that leaves only Morris, Sylvia - is she a high-quality reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I believe so. The publisher of the book appears reputable, and she's also published with Random House as a biographer. I found her Wikipedia article while checking this, so I linked it in the reference as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, just to make sure everything is addressed, I'm good to go on sourcing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [70].

Battle of Lake Providence

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long-term goal to get all of the articles related to the Vicksburg campaign to featured article status, in the manner of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Guadalcanal Campaign. Hopefully this will become the fourth FA of the direct project, after Battle of Grand Gulf, Battle of Raymond, and Battle of Helena, with Grant's Canal and Duckport Canal as supporting FAs. This isn't the meatiest article of the group, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be. This winter, when I have more time on my hands, I hope to tackle some of the bigger ones. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from CMD

[edit]

Thanks for the read. The comments below are part clarificatory questions, rather than being a point by point list of needed actions.

  • Is there a pattern behind the name abbreviations of Hugh T. Reid, Paul O. Hébert, and E. Kirby Smith? Just convention among historians?
  • "Bartlett's force crossed Bayou Macon two days late" does not come with context as to what the expected time was. Coordination with the other prongs? Same in the body.
    • This is addressed in the body - "Major General John George Walker's troops reached Richmond on June 6, and Taylor planned a three-pronged strike for the next day: Confederate troops were to attack Milliken's Bend, Young's Point, and Lake Providence". I've added to the lead a statement that the attacks were scheduled to take place on June 7. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Confederate were forced to halt" in the lead doesn't seem to align with "Bartlett halted his cavalry at the bridge in order to allow the infantry to catch up" in the body, with the latter implying it was a choice rather than something forced.
  • Without going into a huge amount of detail, could Background provide a bit more context as to the situation in Louisiana at this time? The Union forces are described as attacking Vicksburg from Louisiana, which is to the west, and Confederate forces also come from the west, including apparently taking over Richmond.
  • What sort of place is "Caledonia"? The article seems to append ", STATE" to towns and cities, which made me curious what Caledonia was, and I was unable to find it in a quick search (outside of this unhelpful mention in civil war coverage).
    • After quite a bit of searching, I turned up this which calls it a "post-hamlet" as of 1902, but there's no way of knowing if this was a post-hamlet in 1863. The only detail I can find about Caledonia in the various sources related to this battle are references that it had a brick kiln and "Negro quarters". I've delinked it, as there's essentially no chance that an article on this place could be developed. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map in "Battle" is not too helpful, but perhaps better than nothing. The caption could use some expansion, "Walker's operations in support of Vicksburg" makes me assume it would show Milliken's Bend and Young's Point, which are described as the three operational prongs, but instead it shows Richmond (and Vicksburg of course).
  • What was the "Union outpost at Bunch's Bend", just a few troops smaller than a picket?
    • Winters has "Bartlett crossed Bayou Macon and moved over to Bunch's Bend on the Mississippi, capturing the Federal outpost at that point". Bearss does not mention this, nor does Reid or the NPS source. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Confederates reached the wrecked bridge", does this mean the infantry, given Bartlett was already there?
  • Would it be possible to explicitly mention the shooting engagement was across the Bayou Tensas?

Best, CMD (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, on a fresh reread, I think the article meets the FACR. It certainly more comprehensive than Grabau 2000. Best, CMD (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Link Milliken's Bend, Louisiana in intro and article body?
  • "Grant still kept minor supply points at there, Young's Point, and Lake Providence in Louisiana" The placement of "at" seems a bit off, perhaps before Young's Point would be better?
    • This was a suggestion by Zawed in their review. The "there" here is referring to Milliken's Bend. I don't know that there's a way to get around the awkward phrasing here without the frequent use of Milliken's Bend in this section. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed

[edit]

Background

Battle

That's about it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so have added my support. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]

Pulling up a chair...

Just for myself, I would think that if a reader has no clue as to where New Orleans is, adding "Louisiana" is (highly) unlikely to help them, so you should feel free to skip it. Others may disagree. @Sammi Brie: for info. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly comma fixes and one or two copy flow items. Ping when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: - Thanks for your review! I'm not very good with comma usage - I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education somewhat. Hog Farm Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will leave comments. 750h+ 10:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Feel free to refuse the suggestions with justification.[reply]

lead
background
battle
aftermath
  • the field by a different ==> "the field in a different"
    • I prefer this as it is. At least in my mind, "by a different way" would generally be referring to a different route back, while "in a different way" could more naturally refer to getting back by a different method. Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all i got. fine work. 750h+ 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. 750h+ 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Shelby Foote seems to be a somewhat questionable source; was this accounted for when the article was written? John D. Winters raises similar doubts but to a lesser degree. "The Civil War Battlefield Guide" is being cited in two different formats. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - as to the Battlefield Guide matter, are you talking about Bearss 1998 and Winschel 1998 vs Kennedy 1998, this is due to a peculiarity of this work. The more important battles receive longer writeups from established and recognized historians like Bearss and Winschel, while the smaller battles have no byline and I guess were written by Kennedy? The smaller ones sometimes are pretty similar to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission battle summaries. I agree that Foote should probably go; his work is still respected as probably the single best piece of pure writing about the war, but is non-scholarly and is getting dated. I'm aware from my books right now, but once I get back I'll find replacements for the two citations to Foote. I will defend the usage of Winters, though. Winters is very heavily cited, even and is still being cited in post-2019 works. The main factual problem that I'm aware of is that his estimate of free blacks that served in the Confederacy is rejected by modern scholarship, but that error does not have any bearing on the topic at hand. Winters' views on certain subjects are not politically correct, but I've intentionally avoided using Winters for anything directly involving the USCT. As much as Winters is cited in the late 20th and 21st century literature on the war in Louisiana, I'm worried that it would be a WP:FACR #1c issue to not use Winters. Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think, but am not positive, that INTEXT attribution should be used or perhaps additional sources to corroborate Winters' claims if they are both questionable and yet necessary for completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of anyone who has questioned Winters' combat descriptions. I think this is more of a circumstance where Winters is only FA-usable for certain classes of statements, and the material Winters is cited for falls into those classifications. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus - both citations to Shelby Foote have been replaced - one by a citation to Miller, and another to a book written by Timothy B. Smith (one of the leading experts on the campaign) and published by the University of Kansas. Hog Farm Talk 22:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [71].

330 West 42nd Street

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This one was constructed as an office building for the McGraw-Hill Companies in 1931. Because of its distinctive color, 330 West 42nd has been called the "green monster", though it has also been held up as an early example of the International Style of architecture. After going through some ownership changes over the years, it was extensively renovated a few years ago, and the building's owners recently started converting the upper stories to apartments.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by Filmgoer, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this one - please ping me in a week if I haven't started. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The terracotta panels were built to the minimum thickness required by city building codes" - source has "the important architectural elements formed by the smooth bands of colored terra cotta spandrels are nothing more than the strict minimum requirement of the building regulations-namely masonry filling between window heads and sills". When I first read the sentence in the article, I understood this as a reference as to how thick the panels were from outer surface to the back of the panel, but the source seems to be referring to the amount of paneling between each window (so the thickness of the terracotta panels in a different sense). Is there a way that this can be clarified?
    • I've changed "minimum thickness" to "minimum dimensions", but I still have to think on this, as the wording in the source is a bit convoluted. The source implies that some terracotta had to be included and Hood wanted to include the smallest possible pieces, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Hood used as few pieces of terracotta as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were painted white with orange stripes, but that color was removed when McGraw-Hill sold the building" - is "removed" really the right word? Per the NPS source, instead of the color being taken away, it was covered up
  • "were rented out as office space at a rate of $0.90 per square foot ($9.7/m2)." - do any of the sources compare this price to that charged by other skyscrapers in the area at the time?
  • "There was a reception area to the left and a large seating area to the right. Gerard Nocera, a managing partner for the asset manager that controlled the building, said at the time:" - the location of this sentence implie that this is referring to features of the modern lobby, while the use of "was" suggests this is referring to the old lobby.
  • "Industrial uses were placed on the second through tenth floors," - I don't think "industrial uses" works as a noun when used like this
  • "These stories were converted to standard office space by 1933" - the source just says that the printing equipment was removed in 1933 and that by the end of the decade, the McGraw-Hill space had gone from 75% to 34%, with the remainder attempting to be filled by tenants. I don't think we can really say that it was all standard office space by 1933 using this source
  • "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors became obsolete and was sold in January 1931" - two gripes on this one. First, based on the source this should be 1933 not 1931. And also, I don't think "obsolete" is the right word here. That suggests that the equipment became outdated, when what the source is saying is that McGraw-Hill just didn't have enough business to justify the continued ownership and use of the machines
    • Good point. I think I typed the wrong year, so I've changed that. The sentence now reads, "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors was sold in January 1933" Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These tenants included a trading floor of Paine Webber[132] as well as the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs" - this is referring to the agency as one of Gural's large tenants in the 1980s, but then we get "The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA) moved to a 13,000-square-foot (1,200 m2) space at 330 West 42nd Street in 1998,". So did the DCLA move to the site in the 1980s, move out, and then move back in in '98, or are these two sentences referring to the same event?
  • "and the building's owner, Resolution Real Estate, started leasing office space" - I thought the building was owned by Deco Towers?
  • " Pitts, Carolyn. (February 9, 1989) National Register of Historic Places Registration: McGraw Hill Building, National Park Service and Template:NHLS Url" - something has gone wrong with the citation formatting

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 21:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments HF. I'll take a look at these by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I've now addressed everything that you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st 1.jpg: CC-BY-SA
  • File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st.jpg: CC-BY-SA
  • File:The_old_McGraw-Hill_Art_Deco_building._(48162190537).jpg: CC-BY
  • File:McGraw_Hill_Building,_from_42nd_Street_and_Ninth_Avenue_looking_east,_Manhattan_(NYPL_b13668355-482670).jpg: PD, correct license
  • File:McGraw-Hill_building,_Manhattan.jpg: CC-BY-SA
  • File:The_Orion_and_330_West_42nd_Street_Oct_2011.jpg: CC-BY-SA

All images are appropriate to the article. They're laid out correctly, captioned well, and have alt-text. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review after Hog Farm finishes his. 750h+ 02:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • link the first instance of facade
  • green metal-framed windows, with a strongly remove comma
  • in floor plan, except for remove the comma
  • The building subsequently served as the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI). ==> "The building subsequently became the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI)." (WP:SERVEDAS)
site
  • Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible, and critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930. because these sentences ta;l about two different things i'd split this to "Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible. Critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930." (or something like that.
architecture
  • and J. André Fouilhoux, of the firm Hood remove the comma
  • "The requirements peculiar to a publishing business have formed the basis for the entire structure—in plan, section and elevation." even though this is a quote, i think you'd still change this to "in plan, section[,] and elevation."
  • link the first instance of facade
  • Nash likened the massing to that of an ocean liner. i'd remove "that of"
  • contains what were originally a pair of three-bay-wide change "were" to "was". If you said "contains what were originally two three-bay-wide" then you'd keep "were" but because you say "pair" that's a singular noun, so it should be "was"
  • doorway with five doors, recessed within remove the comma
  • considered several different colors for remove "different"
  • There were doorways that led to the bookstore on the left ==> "Some doorways led to the bookstore on the left"
  • on the left (east) wall and to the bank on the remove "to"
history
  • The LPC had declined to preserve the lobby i'd find a synonym for preserve since it's used in the previous sentence.
reception
  • nothing here

No other problems. Fine work, @Epicgenius:. 750h+ 09:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I might get to these by Wednesday or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, @750h+, I was just able to fix all of the issues you raised above. Thanks again for the comments. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 750h+ 16:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Incoming. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • Sources are of high and reliable quality
  • Searches show no additional sources that are either stronger than those used, or that show anything missing
  • Pass source review - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy: support

[edit]

I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Here they are:[reply]

  • The first paragraph of the Architecture section has two quotes that MOS:QUOTEPUNCT recommends but does not require are preceded by a colon instead of a comma, as the article has it. I would also recommend this unless you feel attached to the commas. Same for the North quote and the Architecture Plus quote and the Koolhaas quote in the Reception section.
  • MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting sentences with numbers. That happens 6 times in this article. I recommend giving another look and deciding if that 6 number can be reduced. Otherwise, I would judge 6 is not egregious given the topic. Perhaps you could replace some of those 6 instances with "The McGraw-Hill Building"? I say that used in the article.
    • You would be right in almost all cases. However, MOS:NUMNOTES does include an exception ("Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered"), giving 10 Downing Street, which is also an address, as an example. In this case, 330 West 42nd Street can be treated as a proper name as well. Although it is historically also referred to as the McGraw-Hill Building, this name also refers to 1221 Avenue of the Americas, so I used the address to avoid confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building was largely designed with a plain facade, except for the original ground level and the upper stories. I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. It seems to be telling me that the design was plain, except for on every story. Maybe it means that it was plain in the middle? If so, maybe changing "upper" to "uppermost" or "top" would clarify.
  • MOS:SMALLCAPS says: "Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps." That tells me to remove the use of small caps for describing the McGraw-Hill signage. Do you have an overriding reason for using small caps here?
  • Reading the description of the storefront level and lobby, I'm wondering what they look like. Can you add photos of wither? As well-illustrated as this article is, none of these photos show the first floor or interior.
    • Unfortunately, the first floor is physically closed to the public right now (which is ironic, given that I go past there every day). I could probably take pictures of the exterior storefronts, though. I also realized that there is a serious dearth of pictures of this building on Commons, which is very weird, since I usually take dozens of pictures for buildings that I write about. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having "appalled" raises the question of whether this is WP:SCAREQUOTES (especially when paired with "supposedly") or a James H. McGraw Jr. quote or the quote of a scholar or contemporary. I'm guessing you could replace with "reportedly appalled" without quotation marks, which would nix all of these questions.
  • Who came up with the building's nicknames? Can they be attributed to journalists or others?
  • contains a frame: I think "includes" would be a better word choice.
  • Wikilink Mullion?
  • The building is sometimes described as the "McGraw-Hill Building". Has there been much thought or discussion already paid to whether it is more appropriate for this article to bear that name?
    • The current title does function as a WP:NATURALDIS, since there are two McGraw-Hill Buildings in Manhattan. If the common name were "McGraw-Hill Building", then perhaps the article could be moved to McGraw-Hill Building (42nd Street) (which is substantially longer than the current name but is the shortest one that's not ambiguous). However, from what I can tell, more-recent sources tend to refer to the building both by its address and by its name. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who came up with and/or uses the term "Raymond Hood Colonial"?
  • the natural light: I think "the" is extraneous.
  • Furthermore, there are several tenant lounges,: "Furthermore" doesn't look right here. I think the paragraph would work better without it.
  • Early on in the Architecture section, the article says the building uses sash windows, but later on in the same section, it says that the windows were eventually replaced with windows that could open and close. Don't sash windows open and close?
  • The term "clockwise from the north" doesn't seem necessary for orienting the reader.
  • hoped that the building: "That" is unecessary.
  • Who considered West 42nd Street tawdry?
  • Is the period in "three times over in ten minutes." part of the quote? If not, it should be moved outside the quotation marks per MOS:INOROUT.
  • What are amenity spaces?
  • Rather than putting "nonhistorical windows" in quotation marks, I think maybe "windows they didn't consider historically significant" or something like that.
  • McGraw-Hill Companies is Wikilinked twice in the lead. The second instance should be removed per MOS:DUPLINK.
  • GHI is spelled out as both Group Health Insurance and Group Health Inc. Which is it?
  • GHI is redlinked in the lead, so I think its first instance in the body should also be redlinked.
  • My feeling is that the infobox should only pull from info that is already in the body, which would mean it doesn't need citations. Of the four significant dates, the first and fourth are already in the body, the second just needs the month and day added to the body, and the third doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere. What do you think about adding the missing info to the body and removing the infobox citations?

Summary: This article is really well-written, neutral throughout, and very comprehensive, without undue attention to any one aspect of the topic, I think. The lead does a great job of summarizing the body. It also appears to be stable and well-illustrated. Earwig doesn't find anything that looks like plagiarism.

Thank you very much for the comments. I will get to these over the next few days. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dugan Murphy, thanks again for the detailed review. I've actually been able to address all of your feedback now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. This article is in great shape, so I support this nomination. If you are willing to do some reviewing yourself, I have an active FAC nomination that hasn't received any reviews yet beyond an image review. You'll find that here. Thanks in advance if you decide to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. And sure, I can take a look at your nomination soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [72].

Gedling Town F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Gedling Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team that last competed at the tenth tier of the English football pyramid before disbanding in 2011. The article passed GA requirements in June and has since featured on DYK. I now think the article is ready for FAC comments. Just a few preliminary points arising from the imperfect and fragmentary nature of sources covering smaller football clubs:

  • You will see mentions of "at least" etc. when I have been unable to find the exact start and/or end of something being implemented at the club. This is the best I can do, unfortunately.
  • I cannot say for sure why Gedling was denied promotion in 2001–02. The British Newspaper Archive only runs sources up to 1999 and online reporting on the Northern Counties East Football League (NCEL) only started in 2002.
  • In some of the older archived NCEL pages, there's no separate URL to take you to the info on Gedling Town specifically. You will first need to click on "Clubs" and then "Div One".

If all of that has failed to scare you off (or torpedo my bid from the start), I look forward to receiving your feedback. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]

I wanted to figure out the 2002 failure to promote. The only possible clue I have is in this article in NewsBank: "Pikes drop points to finish in fourth place". North Yorkshire County Publications. 9 May 2002.

The promoted sides from the first division will the champions Gedling Town and runners-up Bridlington Town, provided both grounds meet the relevant criteria.

Given that ground issues had dogged the club before, that would be a prime candidate for the promotion blocker.

With that piece of business out of the way, let's give this a look:

  • The team were nicknamed "The Ferrymen" and their colours were primarily yellow and blue. Needs a comma after Ferrymen. WP:CINS
  • Gedling Town was founded as R & R Scaffolding in 1985, the works team of a construction firm from Netherfield. Flip to Gedling Town was founded in 1985 as R & R Scaffolding, the works team of a construction firm from Netherfield. so the appositive properly connects.
  • In the 1988–89 season, R & R Scaffolding contested the final of the league's Senior Cup, but lost 1–0 Remove comma after Cup (one subject, not two)
  • The team led the league for much of the season before finishing runners-up to Slack & Parr, but were still promoted to the CML Supreme Division Remove unneeded comma
  • Hyphenate "biggest-ever"
  • This season marked the arrival of full-back Gary Ball from Arnold Town, a player... Arnold Town is not a player. Reorganize: This season marked the arrival from Arnold Town of full-back Gary Ball, a player...
  • the team was eliminated from title contention by January and manager Dave Sands was sacked to be replaced by Ray Sully Comma after January
  • Floodlights were installed by 1993 and accidental damage to these in 1997 Needs a comma after 1993

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sammi Brie. Everything done. If you're happy with putting the failed promotion down to ground issues, then so am I. I'll write it up if you could kindly provide the full citation. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Curlymanjaro The full citation has been included above (there's a Cite news template if you edit source). No byline or page number is given for this article by NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie. Thanks - it's in. Do you have a URL perchance? Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curlymanjaro Not with NewsBank. It does not produce nice URLs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sammi Brie- sorry to nudge. Any final verdict on the nom? Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for you to reply all this time... I'm a Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Although the use of "it"/"they" to refer to a football club/team in UK English can be" a bit nebulous, I feel there are some cases where the wrong one is being used in terms of how football people would speak......

  • "Gedling played its first four seasons" => "Gedling played their first four seasons"
  • "the club competed in the Northern Counties East Football League (NCEL) Division One and three Central Midlands Football League (CML) divisions before that" - last two words are redundant as you already used "before" at the start of the sentence
  • "Promoted to Division Two, 1986–87 saw" - it wasn't 1986-87 that got promoted. Suggest "After being promoted to Division Two, R & R Scaffolding reached the final of the league's Junior Cup in the 1986–87 season"
  • Netherfield image caption needs a full stop
  • " the team delivered on its own slim promotion hopes" => " the team delivered on their slim promotion hopes"
  • "Becoming champions on the first attempt" => "Becoming champions at the first attempt"
  • " later led it in the new year" - what's "it"?
  • "the team was eliminated from title contention by January" => "the team were eliminated from title contention by January"
  • "by his assistant, player-manager Jamie Brodie" - he wasn't player-manager when he was his assistant. Suggest "by his assistant, Jamie Brodie, who became player-manager "
  • Watnall Road image caption needs a full stop
  • "While aiming for back-to-back championships, 1998–99 saw Gedling" - it wasn't 1998-99 that was doing the aiming. Suggest "Although the club was aiming for back-to-back championships, 1998–99 saw Gedling"
  • Devon White image caption needs a full stop
  • "Much of the team departed also" => "Much of the team also departed"
  • "a move that, joined by assistant Tony Cox, saw John Humphries return to management for the rest of the season" - this is a bit hard to follow. Suggest "a move that saw John Humphries return to management for the rest of the season, joined by assistant Tony Cox, "
  • "Gedling was a founder member of the tenth-tier East Midlands Counties Football League (EMCFL) and its sole Premier Division, transferring to it for 2008–09." => "Gedling was a founder member of the tenth-tier East Midlands Counties Football League (EMCFL) and its sole Premier Division for 2008–09."
  • Lee Wilson image caption needs a full stop
  • "Inclusion in the 2010–11 season was jeopardised in October " - I think simply "The club's future was jeopardised in October 2010" would read better
  • "The club's previous badge, used from 1997 at least" - "previous" doesn't work here because you haven't mentioned any other badge for it to be previous to
  • "The estimated cost had risen to £1 million" - the sums in the last sentence of the previous paragraph add up to £1M, so saying it had risen to £1M is odd
  • NCEFL is massively overlinked in the notes
  • That's what I got. Nice to see such dedication put into an article on a non-League team! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ChrisTheDude. Everything done - and thanks for your kind words. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are of high and reliable quality
  • Searches show no additional sources that are either stronger than those used, or that show anything missing
  • There is a bit of an issue with the formatting of the refs. Some refs are in sentence case, others have each word capitalised (sometimes in the same citation!), and these should be made consistent – ensuring that prepositions are lower case, (which they aren't in a couple of places). – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @SchroCat! I just wrote the titles out verbatim. Anyway, they should all be standardised now. :) Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I think it would be worth that Gedling is a village and borough near Stoke Bardolph. Is there any information on why the team changed its name? And I think it would be worth giving the date of the name change in the lead.
    • Sorry, somehow missed this the first time. No info on the change but I've explained the geography and put the date in the lead.
  • "SSR" is an odd name for a team -- do we know what it stands for? Was it a works-based team?
    • Sadly, the Football Post doesn't seem to provide any details on SSR's name or origin. Apparently they were still going in the Notts Amateur League in 1999.
  • No change necessary, but I'm curious: why were their first two seasons in the CML "technically separate" from the nationwide league system, as note c says? Our article on the CML says it's part of the NLS.
    • The two non-NLS divisions perceivably joined it in 2011 as per the FCHDB link. I don't know why they were excluded before.
  • Are Clifton Town worth a redlink?
    • Could do, although they're not listed on FCHDB and Clifton All Whites are the predominant team there.
  • "was not promoted consecutively": since they were in fact promoted the two previous consecutive seasons, I think this would be less ambiguous as something like "was not promoted in their first season in the division".
    • Done.
  • "Staged in November "under gruelling conditions", Notts won the match 2–1": needs rephrasing; as it stands this says Notts were staged in November, not the match.
    • Done.
  • "the team had found form by the following month": why "had"? We've been in simple past for most of this. Since the sentence ends with a statement of their finishing position, I can see there's a "looking back" from that point, but it doesn't parse well because the reader doesn't find that out till the end of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • "Gedling was one of four non-League clubs served by former England international Chris Waddle during this season": he played for them? The source isn't very specific, I see. Is there any other evidence of this? I had a look in our article on him and didn't find any mention of these teams. I would have thought local papers would mention this if he actually went out on the pitch for them.
    • According to this book, Waddle was dual-registered with Gedling and South Normanton Athletic in March 2003 before moving on to Stocksbridge Park Steels in April. Looks to be a self-published source though.
      I see you've used "served", which is how the other source phrases it, but if we don't know more than that about Waddle's involvement with the club I think we should drop the mention of him. He might have been involved with non-playing aspects of the club, or registered but never actually shown up to train or play. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. An interesting factoid; it will be sorely missed!
  • "Division dropped by default due to creation of Conference North at level six": this refers to the 2004-05 season? The tier doesn't drop to 10 till after the season on which this note is placed; perhaps make it "Division dropped to 10 after this season as Conference North was created at level six" or something similar.
  • "In August 2012, the ground was taken over by Real United, a Nottingham-based football team aiming to keep young people away from drugs and gang culture. Real United in-turn renamed it as the Inspire Stadium." Suggest "In August 2012, Real United, a Nottingham-based football team aiming to keep young people away from drugs and gang culture, took over the ground and renamed it the Inspire Stadium."
    • Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback, @Mike Christie. Some really useful comments. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not an issue, just a suggestion: you might consider bolding R & R Scaffolding in the lead and making a redirect for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 30 September 2024 (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_2024&oldid=1254368017"