Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

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) 10 July 2021 [1].

---

Giovanni Antonio Grassi

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Unlike many of the other articles about Jesuits I've nominated here, this Jesuit had a very active life in Europe, not just in the United States. He was an astronomer turned missionary turned educator turned royal advisor. I've developed this article substantially and think that it is up to FA standards. Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from SportsLover 31

I like this article a lot.Has a lot of references ,good text ,sources written clearly,reasons explained well. These are the reasons why I like the article for a Featured Article.

Explanation

• Quality

The Quality of this works is very good .The images line with the text given,the text relates to the sources given and the sources are also a good informative reference for information.

• Sources

The sources are well mentioned and have the pg.no ,author and the publisher listed properly are correct in the sense of a reader.The sources have also been read .These a re a reliable source for an FAR.

Thank You SportsLover31 10:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, SportsLover31. Ergo Sum 14:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Johannes Schade

My opinions given here should not be overrated as I lack many of the qualifications usually expected from wikipedians engaged in FAC discussions. :-)

I feel the article tends towards overlinking (MOS:OL). Some of the writing is not Plain English. Sometimes, linked names are dropped without introduction and with insufficient context.

Removed some of the clustered blue links and added explanatory tidbits here and there. Ergo Sum 04:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead is a bit long. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 2 to 3 paragraphs for the article's text length (15 kB), not 4. On the other hand, the body could perhaps be extended to cover the subject better.

I've trimmed the lede. Ergo Sum 20:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph. If a mentioned place is immediately followed by a wider localisation, then IMHO the wider localisation should not be linked as this comes near MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It is therefore proposed to unlink Washington D.C. and Rome. —The short Propaganda Fide is easier for the reader than the full Latin name, which I believe to be too cumbersome to use in the article. However, if deemed necessary, it should be given at the first occurrence in the text (or possibly the lead) with the short name between parentheses behind it.
  • I don't generally subscribe to the rule of not linking place names following institutions located there, but in this case, I think the blue does run together, so I've unlinked it. I don't think the Propaganda Fide can be shortened because the Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples are not the same thing. The former is a college and the latter is a dicastery of the Roman Curia. Only the latter is commonly shortened to just "Propaganda Fide." Ergo Sum 20:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph. The mention of Połock after two northern-Italian towns surprises. Perhaps add some brief explanation ("now in Belarus"?). One might also wonder whether Polotsk would not be more appropriate (or give both?). If I understand it right, Połock is the name in Polish, whereas Polotsk is the transliteration of the Russian and Belarusian name. Polotsk has the advantage of ensuring the right pronunciation of the second syllable. At the time Polotsk had just been acquired by the Russian Empire, but the school might have been teaching in Polish by tradition. —I think that "natural sciences", "mathematics", "astronomy", "rector", "Peking", "London", and "Lisbon" should not be linked in this context. —The geography in the last two sentences is confusing as Lisbon and London are mentioned, but then Coimbra, which is not in Lisbon, and Stonyhurst, which is not in London. Perhaps there is an occasion here to shorten the lead a bit.
  • I've significantly reworked this part of the lede so that many of the more minor details are not mentioned. I've also added that the Polotsk college was in the Russian Empire, since that is not something that is common knowledge. While many European readers have no use of linking European cities, I think it's generally useful to link them for a global readership. I've removed some of the other links. I've also changed the spelling of Polotsk. Ergo Sum 20:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 4rd paragraph. Propaganda Fide as already been linked. The last sentence again gives the full Latin name. It might not be clear to all readers that these two are forms of the same name. (more to come) Johannes Schade (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure how to make that clearer to readers since it just repeats the name. Ergo Sum 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section Early life and education should perhaps be extended and clarified by additions.

• 1st paragraph. The first sentence is too short to describe the region of his origins. Schilpario is a village in the Alps of north-eastern Lombardy that in Grassi's time was part of the Venetian Republic. The Italian version of the article does this quite well: "Schilpario in provincia di Bergamo (allora parte della Repubblica di Venezia)". The reader might find that "Lombardy" and "Venetian" contradict each other as Schilpario in not in the modern Veneto. —Somaschi and seminary in Bergamo. As you give a location for the seminary the reader might wonder where the Somaschi school he attended was. I would think also in Bergamo. But your use of "going to" might be understood to mean that it was elsewhere. Perhaps: going to -> entering? or attending? —It would be helpful to indicate the year when the pope suppressed the Jesuit order.
  • The source is not clear that it was actually a proper school, but rather that he studied under the Somaschi Fathers, so I can't give a location of where exactly it was. I'm a bit hesitant to go beyond simply the Venetian Republic because there's a whole article that explains it. Added the year of suppression. Ergo Sum 20:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph. "Therefore" is difficult to understand. The reader might first need some background about the suppression of the order that allowed the exception of Russia. You give this later. Perhaps you could move it forward? —Simple vow. Is it really necessary to introduce here the distinction between the simple and the solemn vow? Most readers will never have heard of it. I feel it should be sufficient to say that he had to go to Polotsk for his further training. —Replace "With Polock becoming" -> "where Polotsk became". Besides, the article about Gabriel Gruber uses Polotsk (Russian) rather than Połock (Polish). —Unlink "natural sciences" and "rector".
  • Moved up the explanation of Catherine the Great. While the distinction between simple and solemn vows is not huge in modern Catholic canon law, at this time, there was a big difference, so I think it's worth noting. Ergo Sum 20:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section European voyage abounds in needless detail.

• 1st paragraph. Beak up the sea of blue (MOS:SEAOFBLUE): Jesuit Superior General, Gabriel Gruber, to St. Petersburg -> summoned to Saint Petersburg to see Gabriel Gruber, the Superior General. —Last sentence Peking by sea? Confusing as Peking is not a seaport. What is this "departing Russian delegation" Which are "those cities? I think we do not need to know about them. Hence: Gruber wanted Grassi and his two colleagues to sail to China rather than to travel overland (or something similar).
  • Trimmed and unlinked. Ergo Sum 20:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph. 1st sentence: "General" -> "Superior General" or "Jesuit General". General alone might be misleading. —"gifts to give to the people" -> "gifts for the people". —2nd sentence: unlink sled. Is it useful to mention the Swedish interpreter? —3rd sentence "They set out for London, where the Superior General arranged" -> "They planned to go to London where Gruber had arranged" —The sentence "Shortly after departing, three of the party fell ill, including Grassi, and they stopped for ten days at a small town on the Russian–Swedish border, where they were attended by a doctor." seems needless to me or could be shortened to "They were delayed by sickness". —"22 March" -> "22 March 1805". Dropping the year from dates looks sometimes elegant, but IMHO it should not be extended across paragraph boundaries as it becomes too difficult for the reader to establish which year it was when reading the paragraph on its own.
  • Fixed date continuity. Trimmed.
• 3rd paragraph. The 1st sentence can be shortened to: "They eventually reached London on 25 May 1805." —2nd sentence Peking -> China. —3rd sentence "who unsuccessfully attempted to convince" -> "who however failed to convince".
  • Done. Ergo Sum
• 4th paragraph. The sentence "Their journey was delayed when the captain stopped in Cork, Ireland;" can be omitted. —Unlink "astronomy". —They seem to have met Damoiseau in Lisbon where he taught them some astronomic calculations that they thought would be useful when in China to correct the Chinese calendar. Give more detail to make this understandable.
  • I don't see this in the source. Can you point me to a page number that mentions this? Unlinked astronomy. Ergo Sum 21:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 5th paragraph. Nothing to report.

The heading of the section American missionary is perhaps misleading. Grassi did not go West to christen the Indians. He mostly was a teacher at an established school and a priest serving established Catholic parishes. The word "missionary" probably refers to the Maryland Mission, a Jesuit administrative subdivision, which became the Maryland province in 1833. The heading should be shortened to "American mission", or even to just "America".

You may underestimate just how "missionary" Maryland was at the time in the eyes of the church, especially rural Maryland, which is where most of the Maryland mission's institutions were located. The Maryland Mission was classified as such (rather than as a province) by the Jesuit order because it was located in a place where church was not yet very established. The Jesuits sent missionaries all over: China, Siberia, South America. There's nothing unique to the Indian missions that makes them missions. Ergo Sum 21:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. The reader might be surprised by the change in name from Gruber to Brzozowski. I propose "In 1810, Tadeusz Brzozowski, who had succeeded Gruber in 1805 as Superior General, ..."
  • Good catch. I've clarified the succession. Ergo Sum 21:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph. 1st Sentence: "became naturalized" -> "would become naturalized" using future-in-the-past tense to stress that it would happen much later than where the main flow of the narration is now. —2nd sentence: introduce Francis Neale already here as the rector of the school. —Spanish: unlink. How could he teach Spanish? At that stage he probably could speak Italian, Latin, Polish or Russian (or both?), Portuguese and English but not Spanish.
  • Done (rephrasing). I'm not sure when he learned Spanish, but the source says he was able to teach it by that point. Ergo Sum 21:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section Presidency of Georgetown College

• 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. Mention that Charles Neale was brother of Frances Neale. Helps the reader not to confuse them. —Final vows. The link refers to the article Religious vows, which says, under Catholic, that Jesuits' first vows are perpetual. I am confused. Perhaps some additional explanation is needed. —Correct typo: Caroll -> Carroll.
  • Fixed typo. Clarified relationship. I'm not an expert on the minutiae of vows under canon law; the get very complicated very quickly. I know there is a difference between first and final vows in the Jesuit order (see here), but I will leave it to an inquisitive reader to research that outside the corners of this article. Ergo Sum 21:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph. Faculty: perhaps link to Wiktionary: this American English sense was unknown to me. Unlink "algebra", "mensuration", and "arithmetic".
  • Unlinked all except mensuration, because I've never heard that word and would be surprised if its meaning is common knowledge today. Ergo Sum 21:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 3rd paragraph. Nothing to report.
• 4rd paragraph. Replace: Leonard Neale -> Archbishop Leonard Neale, another of the Neale brothers. —Proposed: "Following the papal restoration of the Society of Jesus in 1814," -> "After the pope had restored the Society of Jesus in 1814," (less static)
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 5th paragraph. 1st sentence: we seem here to jump backward to the time when Carrol was archbishop. We just learned Leonard Neale had succeeded him in the role. Probably move that sentence up. —"an increase in both the religious and ethnic the diversity of students" -> "an increase in the religious and ethnic diversity of students" —Proposed: "and he was succeeded" -> "when he was succeeded".
  • The fifth paragraph is not part of the temporal sequence but is instead a conclusion of the section, giving an overview of his presidency. I think to break it up and intersperse throughout the section would be more confusing to the reader. Rephrased per suggestions. Ergo Sum 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The heading of the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide should perhaps better read "Mission to Propaganda Fide in Rome" (or similar). The section is supposed to explain Grassi's mission to Propaganda Fide, but is difficult to understand and involves Charleston, South Carolina, and White Marsh, Maryland and some punished priests, in mysterious ways.

My concern with "mission" is that in the technical canonical sense, it wasa not a mission. I've trimmed some of the extraneous detail about White Marsh so that it keeps to the point of the section better. Ergo Sum 04:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph. 1st sentence: replace "tasked Grassi with going to" -> "sent Grassi to" (be concise). —The reference to "White Marsh" is not understandable at all. What happened there? The linked to article White Marsh, Maryland describes a place in Baltimore County, Maryland and says nothing about Catholics and Jesuits there. I hope that is at least the right place. —The entry in the "Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani" talks about the "scisma di Charleston". This schism is also mentioned in the article on Leonard Neale. Should be extended and reformulated to makes his mission understandable to the ordinary reader without going into undue detail.
  • As the Leonard Neale article explains, it was a rather complicated and tedious affair. I've removed mention of it altogether because it's not terribly relevant to Grassi except to say that Neale had removed the priests. I also caught a silly typo. The controversy was in Charleston, South Carolina, not Charlestown, Maryland. I might look into writing an article about the schism to have a place that both articles can link to. Ergo Sum 21:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph. "ecclesiastical superiors" -> "church leaders" in the interest of plain English. —"While in Rome, he also successfully argued before the Propaganda Fide for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England." -> "While in Rome, he skilfully pleaded for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England at the Propaganda Fide and appeared to have obtained it for a moment but new obstacles were later raised by the English Vicars Apostolic." (or something similar).
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The section Confessor and provincial superior mentions a profusion of offices and responsibilities given to him. He probably quit some of them before taking up the next duty which sometimes seems not to have been mentioned. The timeline is sometimes difficult to follow. Perhaps not all these offices were essential. Perhaps some were honorific only?

Yes, the timeline is a bit tricky. The sources are not great about supplying dates for the offices he held in Italy, and they rarely mention when he left an office. I've tried to organize them as clearly as I can, such as indicating when he left a certain city (and hence relinquishing an office he held there). None were honorific, as far as I can tell. Ergo Sum 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph. The first sentence is long and difficult to understand and does not work well as an introduction to the subject of "Confessor and provincial superior" indicated by the heading. It might be better to split it. The 1st part might be: "Grassi became the procurator of the Jesuit province of Italy." However, it still would need to be explained what his responsibilities were. The link to the article for Procurator does not seem to be very helpful in the given context. The second sentence might be "He also was appointed 'socius' (assistant) to the Provincial Superior of Italy." —"who Grassi had assisted" -> "whom Grassi had assisted", besides, what does this mean? What influence had Grassi on the succession to the throne? Seems to need some explanation.
  • I've added an explanation of what a procurator is and rephrase the sentence so that the punctuation breaks it up a bit. Ergo Sum 03:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph. The first sentence is overloaded and should be split. Clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school. He seems to have been transferred from being rector of the "College of Nobles" (mentioned in the section's 1st paragraph) to being rector of the "College of the Holy Martyrs".
  • It only expresses two ideas, so I've reworded slightly and added some punctuation. Ergo Sum 04:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• 3rd paragraph. "Recalled Grassi to Italy in 1835". He had not crossed any frontier by going from Turin to Chambéry. At the time Chambéry was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia just like Turin. Sardinia would cede its parts west of the Alps to France in 1858. —Again, full name of Propaganda Fide: not a good place for it. Keep with the short one. —Filiberto Avogadro di Collobiano, explain: "an Italian politician". —Pignatelli, the reader might have forgotten; remind the reader briefly: "his teacher at Colorno".
  • Good catch. I've left it simply as " recalled Grassi." This is the first mention of the Propaganda Fide College (not to be confused with the congregation) in the body, so it only makes sense to use the full name. Added those brief explanatory details. Ergo Sum 04:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Johannes Schade (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I am on vacation and will get to this as soon as possible. Ergo Sum 01:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Johannes Schade, for your very thorough comments. I've tried to address them all. There are a few instances in which I haven't adopted your suggestions and have provided some explanation. Ergo Sum 04:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ergo sum. Thanks for pinging me. Not being a subject-matter expert, I had indeed confused the College (school, Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide) with the Congregation (organization, Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide,Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione). Thanks for taking my criticisms so graciously, for sifting the wheat from the chaff among them, and for sometimes going even beyond my suggestions in adding needed detail. I have reread the article and will soon start another traverse of comments below. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the lead.

• 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence; proposed "appointed the rector" -> "appointed rector"; "Polotsk, located in the Russian" -> "Polotsk in the Russian". —2nd Sentence. I propose to reformulate entirely: "In 1805 he was selected to go to China as a missionary, but spent five years travelling through Europe without being able to secure a passage to the far-away country." (or similar). —3rd Sentence. The problem here is that he only studied at Coimbra, but studied and taught at Stonyhurst.
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 01:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• 3rd Paragraph. Last sentence; add "(a school for missionaries)" after the "Fide", so that readers can avoid the mistake I made.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section Early life and education

• 1st Paragraph. —1st sentence. I would add "near Bergamo" after "Lombardy". I would also add "then" before "in the Republic of Venice". —2nd Sentence "going to" -> "entering". —Last sentence: add "near Parma" after Colorno. To Europeans Bergamo and Parma are known places but Schilpario and Colorno are not.
  • I generally try to keep like articles alike; in this case, the like articles would be the other Georgetown presidents articles. I think most towns most people have never heard of. If a reader is interested in its location, they can always follow the link. Ergo Sum 02:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd Paragraph. —Penultimate sentence: "there" -> "in Polotsk", needed as the last place named was Colorno, but you mean Polotsk.
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 02:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section European voyage

• 2nd Paragraph. —2nd Sentence "ultimately arrive in London" -> "go to London". —Last sentence "China, who failed" -> "China, failed" —Penultimate sentence: "ships that would take them to Peking" -> "ships that would take them to China" as Peking is not a port city.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Last Paragraph. —3rd Sentence: "causing the it" -> "causing it".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section American missionary

• 1st paragraph. —Last sentence: "distrustful of the Jesuits" -> "wary of Jesuits".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd Paragraph. The paragraph is too short to appropriately narrate his arrival at the college, introduce Francis Neale and describe the problems Grassi finds there. I think Francis Neale must be introduced here and not later. Something like "Arriving at the college he met its president Francis Neale and joined its staff as a teacher. He soon found that the school was struggling. Enrollment had dropped and the college was running at a deficit. etc." See the article about Francis Neale. At that stage Neale was approaching his seventies, was overloaded with other duties in addition to the presidency of the school, and was often in conflict with Carroll, the archbishop. It seems also that he was a heavy-handed disciplinarian and not liked by the pupils. —Last sentence (gradus). This sentence stays unclear despite the explanatory footnote. Perhaps omit it.
  • There's really no reason to bring up Neale here or go into detail about his presidency. I think that's suitably covered in the Neale and Carroll articles. Gradus is not terribly important today in the Jesuit order (as I understand it) but was important at this time, so I think it's worth mentioning. That's another example of one of those things I think an interested reader can research on their own since it is obscure enough to not be readily described here without going into too much detail. Ergo Sum 03:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section Presidency of Georgetown College

• 1st Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "Grassi was appointed the president" -> "Grassi was appointed president" (without the article).
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide

• 1st Paragraph. —1st Sentence. I would prefer to call him "Archbishop Neale" rather than "Leonard Neale".
  • That's fair. Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Second traversal of the the section Provincial Superior and confessor

• 1st Paragraph. —4th sentence: "appointed the confessor" -> "appointed confessor".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "which forced" -> "that had forced". —3rd Sentence: "the the" -> "the". —Last sentence. "eventually when" -> "eventually broken when".
  • Done. I don't see a repeat of "the" or use of "eventually." Ergo Sum 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• 3rd Paragraph. —1st sentence: clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school.
  • Is this not apparent from the name? My first thought when I hear "college" is school rather than collegial body like the College of Cardinals. Ergo Sum 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• 4th Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "Wanting him to choose a permanent residence, the Superior General recalled Grassi in 1835" is not clear did he call him back to Turin? The Italian does not seem clearer. Is there another source?
  • I presume that the author uses the term "recall" in relation to the borders of modern-day Italy. Ergo Sum 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

So far. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Thank you for the ongoing feedback. I hope there's not too much more or else I might start to doubt my writing abilities. Ergo Sum 03:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to see if you had anything else to add, Johannes Schade or if you were inclined to !vote on the nom. Ergo Sum 19:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ergo Sum. I will read it another (hopefully last) time. Third traversal of the Lead

• 2nd Paragraph, 1st sentence: this sentence agglomerates origin, studies and appointment as rector in one sentence, which sounds almost funny. I propose to leave out Venice (we are told above that he is Italian and that may be good enough for the lead) and start the paragraph with "He excelled in the natural sciences ...". —Last sentence: "began teaching at the University of Coimbra and studying at Stonyhurst" I do not think he taught at Coimbra.
  • You're right; that sentence did not read well. I've rephrased it and corrected the point about Coimbra. Ergo Sum 19:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• 3rd Paragraph: "Congregation de Propaganda" is half English and half Latin. Should it not be "Congregatio de Propaganda Fide" (without the 'n'); or otherwise "congregation of Propaganda Fide"?
  • I admit it sounds strange, but the phrase "de Propaganda Fide" is quite commonly used in English (or at least it was while the congregation was still officially named that). Many Vatican documents and scholarly articles adopt the construction "Congregation de Propaganda Fide," simply because the latter part appears to have become something of a term of art. Ergo Sum 19:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Third traversal of the section European voyage

• 2nd Paragraph, last sentence: I agree with Z1720 that this sentence (starting with "Lord George") needs to be fixed.
  • I must have read that sentence too quickly. It's definitely not grammatically correct. I've fixed it. Ergo Sum 19:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• 3rd Paragraph, 1st sentence: "believed they could" -> "hoped to".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Third traversal of the section American missionary

• Last Paragraph, last sentence: Gradus. You say that gradus was important and must not be left out, but then you provide an explanation in a footnote that reads "Gradus referred to two grades of membership in the Society of Jesus". This is not understandable and possibly even misleading as Gramatowski distinguishes gradus in societate from gradus in litteris, the one(s) given by the order the other(s) by a university. I wonder whether the Gradus tabled by Pulcinelli were not the fourth vow mentioned in Jesuit formation. Puccinelli just gives a date, we know nothing about the context, but it seems likely that it was a gradus in societate. Padberg talks about many "grades". If no new source about this can be discovered I would say delete or say something vague like "a high and rare honour. So far, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I slept over this and came to the conclusion that if you maintain that his gradus is important, then you must research it. That looks like something that is known. Puccinelli obviously expected people would understand. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think more research will yield any greater clarity. The source is not clear about which precise meaning of gradus it refers to, and since Grassi wasn't the Superior General or a bishop, there just do not exist the kind of highly detailed and comprehensive descriptions of his life that would discuss his attaining gradus. On quite a few other FAs and GAs of Jesuits that I've written, this Latin Jesuit publication is the only one that refers to the individual's rank of gradus, and my research indicates the same is true here. So it appears to me that the question is either include the sentence with the explanatory footnote (which is what I've done for the other FAs) and let an inquisitive and motivated reader attempt to discover any more detail that they might or remove it altogether. My inclination is to keep it since it does not really detract from the article. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ergo Sum. I understand, but I wonder whether such knowledge would not be expected at FA level. —There is another issue that needs to be covered: Grassi's involvement in slavery. There are lots of recent publications on the Jesuits and slavery. The order has acknowledged the facts and apologised. Georgetown College was partially financed by income from plantations in Maryland that were worked by slaves during Grassis's presidency. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been cognizant of the recent interest in the American Jesuits' activity in slavery. There is already a mention of Grassi's views on slavery. I have also added mention of his concrete interaction with the institution of slavery as superior. As for the gradus, I will attempt one more time to research it but if, as I suspect, nothing can be found about it, I will remove it altogether. Simply, it is not a so very important point; my opinion is that more information for the reader is better, but that is just my opinion. Ergo Sum 15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: I have looked through other Jesuit records from this time and have reread the Grammatowski explanatory document carefully. I have gathered that gradus here refers to the fact that he completed the examen ad gradum and thereafter professed his final/fourth vow. I have explained this in the article. Ergo Sum 19:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ergo Sum. I found that the American Cyclopaedia has a long and thorough article about the jesuits that explains the examen ad gradum. https://archive.org/details/americancyclopd04danagoog/page/n626/ Best regards. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, this is very helpful for future articles. That topic was always a bit murky for me. I don't find anything relevant in there for the Grassi article, but I will keep it at hand. Ergo Sum 20:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @Johannes Schade:. While taking on board your comment at the head of your review, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this nomination? If you did it would be appreciated, but it is not (obviously) obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Z1720

• "Born in the Republic of Venice, Grassi proved to be a promising student" -> "Born in the Republic of Venice, Grassi was a promising student" Sounds more encyclopedic to me.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "in which was ultimately unable to secure passage to the distant country." -> "in which he was unable to secure passage to the distant country."
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "where he eventually became the superior of the Jesuits' Maryland Mission" Delete eventually
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 19:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "For significantly improving its curriculum and public reputation and obtaining its congressional charter," Too many ands. Maybe, "For significantly improving its curriculum, public reputation, and obtaining its congressional charter"
  • I'm not sure that would be grammatically correct. I've rephrased it to sound less repetitive. Ergo Sum 19:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "which had been officially suppressed by the pope since 1773." why is this important to Grassi's biography?
  • It was pretty important becausee it ties together why he had to go to Russia to join the order, i.e. it was suppressed everywhere except Russia, where it continued semi-officially. Ergo Sum 19:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, I did not connect that the Society of Jesus are the Jesuits. Maybe when it says "Society of Jesus" for the first time, the article can include "(colloquially known as the Jesuits)" or "(also known as the Jesuits)" just in case the reader doesn't click on the wikilink or know who they are. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• " only to pronounce their simple vows." What does pronouncing mean in this context? Is there a wiki article for this?
  • Pronouncing is just the language that is typically used in the Catholic context. Sometimes one sees "taking" or "making" their vows, but pronouncing is usually the most common. Ergo Sum 19:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Because Empress Catherine the Great had declined to suppress the Jesuits,[a] the order fled Western Europe and survived in the Russian Empire," I don't think it's best practice to start a sentence with "Because". Perhaps, "Empress Catherine the Great declined to suppress the Jesuits,[a] and the order fled Western Europe and survived in the Russian Empire"
  • The perennial debate. I believe most modern linguists accept sentences starting with conjunctions such as "because" as long as it introduces a dependent clause at the start of the sentence (instead of starting a uni-claused sentence). I generally shy away from it, but here, I do think it's the most concise way of conveying the information. Ergo Sum 19:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It is often recommended to refrain from starting a sentence with a coordinating conjunction (the "fanboys": for, and, nor, but etc.) but starting one with a subordinating conjunction (because, if, though, when, etc.) is perfectly fine. Don't you agree? Johannes Schade (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right. (Although I'm pretty sure there's some except for certain instances of "for" but I can't quite recall the precise rule). Ergo Sum 13:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Therefore, Grassi went to the Jesuit College in Polotsk in 1801" Delete therefore.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• " Grassi proved to be an excellent student " Again, "proved to be" might be an idiom. Why not, "Grassi was an excellent student"
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "summoned to Saint Petersburg by, Gabriel Gruber," Delete the first comma
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Therefore, the trio departed by sled for Sweden," Delete therefore.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• " Lord George Macartney, the former British ambassador to China, who failed to convince the directors" Delete who
  • The sentence would not be grammatically correct by deleting who. It would also probably change the meaning of the sentence. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Therefore, the party set sail for Lisbon, Portugal, where they believed they could secure passage to Macau." Again, delete therefore.
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "the Superior General finally decided that he would no longer permit their mission." Delete finally
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "He set sail from Liverpool on 27 August," -> Grassi set sail from Liverpool
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Washington was an even greater contrast to the cities of Europe he was used to," Delete even
  • The point of "even" is to contrast his impression of Baltimore with that of Washington, which he found even more dissimilar. I think it adds something thatt would bee lost without it. Ergo Sum 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "He also established a museum, that housed these devices among items, which drew members of the public, including senators and congressmen." Awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "He also established a museum that housed these devices, among other items, which drew members of the public, senators, and congressmen." I'm not thrilled with the amount of commas but I think it's necessary.
  • I've rephrased and separated part of the sentence with a semicolon. It reads more smoothly now. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "He maintained good relations with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Andrey Yakovlevich Dashkov, who frequently visited the college, as well as with the American political leaders." Did Grassi maintain relations with other American political leaders, or Dashkov? Please clarify in the article.
  • With the other leaders. Clarified. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "His presidency came to an end on 28 June 1817" -> "His presidency ended on"
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Despite the calls of Peter Kenney, the visitor to the United States on behalf of the Superior General, to return Grassi to Georgetown, he would remain in Europe for the rest of his life." -> "Grassi would remain in Europe for the rest of his life despite calls from Peter Kenney, the visitor to the United States on behalf of the Superior General, to return Grassi to Georgetown."
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "While in Rome, he also successfully pleaded before the Propaganda Fide for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England." Delete also as redundant
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "this promise would later be broken when Charles Albert expelled the order from the Kingdom of Sardinia." Delete later as redundant.
  • I don't have a date for when Charles Albert expelled the Jesuits. The source only indicates that it was at some later time. I think "later" is necessary to convey this. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• ""for a total of 25 years," -> "for 25 years"
  • I also think the phrasing adds something. By simply saying 25 years, it suggests that it was 25 more years, when those 25 include the ones he already spent. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• "even though it required that he reduce his duties as provincial." what does "reducing his duties as provincial" mean? Please clarify in the article.
  • I'm not really sure of a great way to phrase this. The source says that he had to reduce his duties but doesn't explain how he did that or which ones he forewent. This seemed like the most generic but source-faithful way of putting it. Ergo Sum 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Why are the sources in "Further reading" not included as references in the article?
  • One is his writings on America, which would most likely constitute WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and also wouldn't really add anything to the article without going into excessive detail. There is already a brief summary of this writing in the article that relies on a secondary source's analysis. The second one is just an English translation of his writing. The third is just another academic analysis of his writing. None of them contain information that isn't already stated in the article or would just be much too detailed. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That's it for my first readthrough! Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Z1720. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I added a note above about the Society of Jesus/Jesuits, but that won't cause me to withdraw my support. I also suggest that "Horgan 1964, p. 12" in ref 47 be a bullet point, too. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the wikitext actually allows me to make the first one a bullet. Ergo Sum 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I used a template to create a bulleted list in this edit. Feel free to revert if it is not helpful. I would suggest that either all the sources are bulleted, or just list them with a comma separating each reference. Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Add alt text for the lead portrait and for the images of King Charles and Queen Maria.
  • All three already have alt text. Ergo Sum 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

They do - apologies.

• "File:Połacak, Jezuicki. Полацак, Езуіцкі (1800) (2).jpg"; "File:Ritratto di Carlo Felice - Google Art Project.jpg"; and "File:Berger - Maria Cristina of Naples and Sicily - Castle of Agliè.jpg" - add a US PD tags.
  • Added. Ergo Sum 19:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You missed King Charles, but I have added it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Citations

• #1: Should be "pp.", not "p."
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 14:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• #5: This is a pretty unwieldy short cite. For this and others to the same source, I'd come up with a shorter version (e.g., "Voyage of Fr. Grassi 1875").
  • I don't mind shortening it, but I'm hesitant to actually change it (i.e. excise words) because in the event someone is doing a Command-F search or just looking for that exact language, they won't find it. An alternative could be to shorten it to "Voyage of Very Rev. Fr. John Anthony Grassi". That's slightly shorter. What do you think? Ergo Sum 14:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Works for me. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. Ergo Sum 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• #49: Suggest using {{sfnm}} for this.
  • Much more concise. Done. Ergo Sum 14:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• Retrieval dates aren't needed for printed matter. But I think we've had this discussion before, so I won't push the point.
  • We have. I've been coming around to your point of view re access dates for Google Books links. Most refs in this article already had none for GB links and I've removed the rest to keep it consistent. Ergo Sum 14:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Curran 2012 still has a retrieval date. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Removed. Ergo Sum 16:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• For works with multiple authors, I suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. But up to you.
  • I only see a ref with 2 authors, in which case, my general preference is for minimalism. I think ampersands may be useful when it becomes hard to read the ref without additional punctuation. Ergo Sum 14:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Curran 2012: ISBN only partially hyphenated. I'd also take out the chapter title, since it doesn't seem to add much; incidentally, the page range given is for all of part 1, not merely chapter 1.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 14:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Garraghan 1937: The Catholic Historical Review can take a link.
  • The link would be to the article on JSTOR, which is provided. Ergo Sum 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I just meant that the journal itself could be linked; see my edit to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Got it. Ergo Sum 16:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Pizzorusso 2002: May as well translate the title, as you did for others.
  • The title is actually just his name. The Italian phrase I think you are referring to is the name of the encyclopedia it was published in. Ergo Sum 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I was thinking of the title of the encyclopedia, which could be rendered as "Italian Encyclopedia of Science, Letters, and Arts". But looking at the {{cite encyclopedia}} template, it doesn't look like there's a parameter for translating the title of the encyclopedia (as opposed to the title of an entry). So much for that great idea. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Russo 2017: Why the "Chapter 3" at the beginning? You seem to cite other chapters (e.g., Curran 2012) without the prefatory indication. Also, ISBN not hyphenated.
  • I generally add the chapter number at the beginning. The Curran one was an oversight, but is removed now anyway. Hyphenated the ISBN. Ergo Sum 15:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Schlafly 2015: Ditto re "Chapter 20".
  • See above. Ergo Sum 15:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Shea 1891: Ditto re "Chapter VIII". Chapter subtitle missing. Where does the book indicate that it is volume 3 of a larger work? OCLC not really needed; the point of the OCLC is to help locate a work in a library, and that's not needed given that the book is freely available online.
  • Added subtitle. The volume number was an error. Removed. Ergo Sum 15:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

• Grassi 1823: Should take the "ref=none" parameter. OCLC not really needed.
  • Added param. Ergo Sum 15:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, as always, Usernameunique. Ergo Sum 15:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Ergo Sum. Responses above (although looks like you've already seen them). The only one requiring action is the lingering retrieval date for Curran 2012. Also, I'm not sure if you overlooked my comments about the OCLCs, or saw them but just preferred to keep them. Fine if you prefer them, just making sure you saw the comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. I think having some identifier is helpful, so I've left the OCLC. Ergo Sum 16:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Coord note

Just going to take a look with a view to promotion if all well but first: not an expert but the fragment in the lead "a promising student of the natural sciences, especially mathematics and astronomy" struck me -- is mathematics a natural science? Would this be better expressed as "a promising student of the natural sciences, especially astronomy, and mathematics" or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I've always considered it so. There is definitely a hotly contested (albeit low stakes) debate in the philosophy of mathematics about how to categorize mathematics. By way of avoiding that entirely, I'll rephrase the sentence. Ergo Sum 02:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Tks for that, and your rephrasing is an improvement on mine... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [2].

---

Inuit clothing

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Inuit skin clothing is a tremendously interesting topic that I wrote a whole article about out of spite because we didn't have one and I wanted to merge an orphaned stub to it. The more I said about it, the more I learned there was to say about it, and my research resulted in not only the comprehensive primary article, but two child articles as well (history of Inuit clothing and research on Inuit clothing). It's a shame it took us until 2020 to have an article on the topic, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy I got to be the one to do it.

Throughout their entire history, the Inuit have been master survivors, and their skin clothing system is a living testament to that: research has found that the traditional clothing of the Inuit is warmer and more comfortable than modern military and expedition gear. In addition to being effective, Inuit clothing is an expression of identity, artistic technique, spirituality, and style. While full outfits of traditional skin clothing are no longer worn all the time, it would be a mistake to pin Inuit clothing to the past – the Inuit continue to integrate the patterns and styles of their traditional clothing with their modern lives today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted bolded phrase in the lead should match the article title per MOS:BOLD. Otherwise there shouldn't be a bolded phrase. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• https://skinddragter.natmus.dk/ states that its photographs are "CC-BY-NC". That is NOT a compatible license, nor is it the same one you used when uploading these photographs to Commons. Unless the license was changed post-upload, all these photographs will have to be deleted from Commons. (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• If you double check the samlinger.natmus.dk source links for all the photos, all are tagged as CC-BY-SA. I'm not sure why the front page of the Skin Clothing database would give contradictory information, but I believe it's not possible to un-license a photo once it's released under a more free license

• However, some of the photographs on https://samlinger.natmus.dk/ such as https://samlinger.natmus.dk/es/object/34959 are individually stated to be CC-BY-SA 4.0 which is OK, but does not match the license used on Commons, "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic". These need to match. Please be careful when uploading photos to get the licensing right!! (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• There is no need for exclamation marks. When those photos were uploaded, the license on the source pages explicitly stated CC-BY-SA 2.0. They may have updated their licensing since then. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I somewhat doubt this as 4.0 was being used before these uploads, according to Wayback Machine:[3][4][5][6] (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Those archived links are from January this year. I started using the site in August last year (you can see this from my earliest skin clothing upload), at which time their licensing stated CC-BY-SA and linked to CC-BY-SA 2.0. Obviously they have updated their licensing since then. I had no reason to realize they had done so in the mean time - why would I, since the line describing the licensing still read CC-BY-SA as it always had? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

However, there is no way to verify that the images were ever available under the other license. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as the Commons pages have been updated to CC by 4.0, which you would know if you had looked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• File:Inuit-Kleidung 1.jpg File:Throat singers 1999-04-07 (cut).jpg — why is the underlying clothing out of copyright?

• I have never heard of clothing having to be out of copyright before it can be photographed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Commons seems to indicate that freedom of panorama would cover it, clothing being a 3D work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The underlying clothing also has copyright. Unless the clothing designer has relinquished their rights to it or it expired. FoP only applies to permanently located works such as buildings or statues. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The helpful people in the Commons Discord pointed me to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter, which has a section on clothing. Per that section, "Images illustrating clothing styles or articles of clothing are normally acceptable." It goes on to state that copyright of fashion exists in some countries, such as France, but as far as I can tell, Canada does not have such a provision (See for example [7]). Since both photos were taken in Canada, they are fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Since it's a traditional design, no one can own a copyright on it. It's not like it's the Disney logo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• File:Two smiling Kauwerak Eskimo girls wearing print cotton parkas, Nome, Alaska, between 1903 and 1910 (AL+CA 6372).jpg — when was this first published?

• Before 1926, per the PD tag applied to it on the Commons page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The source does not give a publication date, so you can't assume it was just because the tag has been applied to it. People often use Commons tags incorrectly. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per [8], the photographer, Beverly Bennett Dobbs, stopped working in still photography and had sold his negatives to the Lomen Brothers by about 1911, including that photo in particular. The Lomen Bros. got out of photography entirely after a fire destroyed their building in 1934; they never reopened. If Dobbs published it himself first before 1911, or if Lomen published it before 1926, it's expired, both under {{PD-US-expired}}. If Lomen for some reason hung on to it for fifteen years and published it sometime between 1926 and the 1934 destruction of their studio, it's {{PD-US-no notice}}, because while the studio's name is on the photo, there is no explicit copyright notice on it. I find it exceedingly unlikely that they published it after they went out of business. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• It could have been published by someone else at any point. The image is the negative, not a published form. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Respectfully, are you suggesting that it could have been first published after it was first published? It was clearly published in by Lomen Brothers, as you can see on the photograph in the bottom left corner. Therefore, the latest that this image could have been "first published" is 1934, when their studio burned to the ground and went out of business. If anyone else published it first, they did it earlier, which only strengthens the PD-expired argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• File:Camp at Tikkoot, Hudson Strait (69047).jpg How do I verify that this is available under the stated license? (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• It was uploaded by an employee the Canadian Museum of History working through GLAM; they're still an active uploader so if you have further questions I'm sure they could answer them. It was also created before 1949 so it hits {{PD-Canada}} even if it wasn't uploaded as CC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The gallery. Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant. For example, if you feel you absolutely must have three images to illustrate caribou clothing, put a gallery of three images in that specific section. Also, I did not check these images for copyright status.[9] (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• You aren't obligated to like the gallery, but in my opinion it presents a selection of images that illustrate relevant and unique aspects of Inuit clothing that do not otherwise fit well in the text. WP:GALLERY does not forbid them in articles, nor does it state that they must be positioned in any specific place. The image of Niviatsinaq shows that beaded parkas have a long history, there is no other image of a Mother Hubbard parka where the subject isn't obscuring much of it, there are no photos of gloves in the text, the chewing to soften leather demonstrates the traditional clothing-making process, the Kalaaliit outfit illustrates the modern evolution of Greenlandic wear into the national costume (and the "skin embroidery" process mentioned in the article), and the image of kamiit with the tools demonstrate the specific process of boot-making. It's clear that the gallery serves the reader by providing a curated selection of images that are otherwise of interest to them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from the peanut gallery: I think the gallery adds value to this article and should be kept. This is a topic wherein visuals really help and freely licensed photography exists, so use it (if anything, increase the default size of the pictures in the gallery), and the gallery allows lots of relevant images to be included without creating sandwiching or overwhelming the text. Also, just stylistically, it's cleaner to have a single gallery at the end rather than multiple galleries, barring a truly gigantic amount of images in the gallery; not saying that the multiple gallery approach can't work, but it's a style preference at most. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not my opinion: MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• You are extrapolating MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which describes the most sensible place to put individual images, to apply to galleries. In fact, that section goes on to state that if that's not possible, only to avoid placing images too early in the text. It gives no direction about galleries. Neither WP:GALLERY nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout specify where galleries should be located, but most general galleries are placed at the bottom of articles by custom, such as at dress, wedding dress, Lolita fashion, or oil painting. I see no reason that this gallery should be any different - as SnowFire says, it's cleaner to have one gallery than a bunch of tiny ones cluttering up the main text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, they are, and just making "policy" up, and not for the first time. Perhaps unfortunately, WP:GALLERY doesn't reflect the existence of "mini-galleries" at all, mainly because they had not been "invented" when it was written - everybody using galleries did what you have done and put a single gallery at the end of the article. Just ignore. The pictures are of course absolutely vital for this, like any costume article, and very good. I'd only say the gallery size could be upped a bit. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Johnbod, I appreciate your input. I've never actually used the image size parameters for galleries before - should I use both the height and width parameters, or only one? And how big do you recommend? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I mostly use something like <gallery widths="180px" heights="200px"> , then maybe fiddle with the settings as appropriate. You have a mix of "portrait" and "landscape" images; you could split them into 2 consecutive galleries, or use the landscape ones in the text somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose 1f and 3. I'm concerned that the image licensing is not compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy in all cases and that images are being used without demonstrated encyclopedic relevance and connection to the article text. As stated in WP:IMGCONTENT, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." With each image I should be able to connect it to some aspect discussed in the article. A curated image gallery that's not directly connected to the text can be moved to Commons and linked as an external link. I don't appreciate being accused of "making policy up" when WP:image use policy actually says, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Buidhe, can you clarify as to which images you feel are out of compliance with copyright policy? I replied with clear explanations to all of your objections above over a week ago. Unfortunately, I have received no replies from you since then, so if you had any further concerns, it has been impossible for me to know what they are as you have not articulated them. It also feels distinctly unfair to have an opposition based on wording in a comment that someone else made - I did not ever say you were making anything up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm sorry if my remarks (not solely based on this nom) caused this, and I don't want to make things worse, but Buidhe, perhaps you could give the policy support for your statements above:

1. "Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant."
2. "If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all."
3. You might also comment on how "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader" (from MOS:IMAGELOCATION) ends up as "MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all".

Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s a really strange oppose. If Buidhe can't reply to PMC's in-line responses, it doesn't seem actionable to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, a full image review has not been done. I have not checked the copyright status of the image of the gallery, because the gallery itself violates WP:image use policy. Furthermore, the copyright issues from other images have NOT been resolved. so the oppose still stands. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Any "outstanding issues" exist because you failed or refused to reply to me, and then showed up ten days later to dump an oppose based on so-called unresolved copyright concerns - and still without responding to me at that time. Now you show up another ten days after that to respond to exactly two of them, then reaffirm your oppose without waiting for any reply to that! I hope the coordinators will treat this oppose with some scrutiny, because I feel that it goes completely against the collaborative spirit of FAC at which discussion and responsiveness from all parties is expected. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: you need to be more specific about your oppose. Nothing can move forward if you won't communicate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

• @Buidhe: hi and thanks for your work on this. Would it be possible to clarify if your oppose is solely on the basis of licensing, or because of the licensing and, separately, the use of the gallery? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It's based on both issues. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• User:Premeditated Chaos, can I ask if you are happy that the non-gallery images are appropriately licensed? Buidhe's concerns seem clear to me - I have not examined them in detail and so cannot comment if they are valid, but they seem clear. Regardless, it is for a nominator to bring a nomination to FAC with its image licences in good order. Are you quite sure that these are?
• Similarly, Buidhe comments that they have not reviewed the gallery images; are you quite sure that they would stand up to a scrutiny of their licensing status.
• In passing I note that ensuring that only images which quite clearly have no licensing issues are included in featured articles is one of the more important parts of FAC. Getting this wrong has the potential to cause serious legal issues for Wikipedia and the coordinators, and image reviewers, perforce err on the side of caution. Rereading, can I stress that that this is not meant to prejudge any coordinator decision as and when we dig into the detail of this nomination's image review, but to give some background on where we will be coming from.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For what its worth, it seems Buidhe is really digging in their heels and going against long standing norms re galleries. Which would be fine if they had well articulated and reasoned grounds, but no; just a vague sullenness. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we lay off the personal attacks. Ceoil, the last four words are inappropriate. I would be grateful if you would consider striking them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gog the Mild, I responded to each and every one of Buidhe's licensing concerns above in a timely manner yet I have received essentially little to no discussion in return. What little response I have received has been has been unhelpful and verged on feeling that Buidhe was assuming bad faith on my part. As a result, it has been utterly impossible for me to know what images she remains concerned about and which (if any!) she considers acceptable. It took a separate ping from ImaginesTigers for her to return several weeks after she stopped responding to me here, and at that time she basically reiterated her oppose with - again - no concrete feedback. Even now, a ping from an FAC coord receives five words in response, with zero clarification as to which images she has concerns about. As her interactions with me at the Dali FAC were both civil and reasonably responsive, I can only imagine that her unusual behavior at this FAC has to do with her feelings about the gallery, which is disappointing.

Since I have received no specific feedback, I can only guess, but I assume that her major concern is the set of images from Skin Clothing Online. I have gone through all of my uploads on Commons a second time to ensure that each has an active URL in the source field which links to the item's page at the Danish National Museum that clearly states the license for the images is CC-BY-4.0. The rest of the images on the article are either PD by virtue of being old, or are recent but have been freely licensed by their creators. I have zero issue with any coordinator or any other image reviewer digging through them with a fine-toothed comb, and in fact, I welcome it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand Buidhe's reasons for their comments on galleries, and I understand your response. Obviously either of you may add whatever you wish, but as things stand I believe that the position will be clear to the closing coordinator.

I may come across as "belt, braces and a piece of string" but image licencing is important and when an experienced reviewer feels driven to an oppose, the coordinators need to sit up and take notice. Thank you for double checking and for your detailed response above. We'll now consider how to take things forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand. I have absolutely no problem with people reviewing my work and my use of images - I wouldn't be here at FAC if I did. I appreciate your stepping in to seek clarification, although I'm disappointed that none was forthcoming. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• I would suggest adding alt text to at least the map image, as the caption doesn't make it clear how the distribution of groups is being presented (e.g., a map, graph, chart, etc.)

• I went with "Map of the North American Arctic with colored zones to indicate the primary Inuit language or dialect spoken within the area" - does that suit? And are there any other images you would recommend an alt for? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• According to WebAIM, "Every image must have an alt attribute". (This is because every image in a Wikipedia article links to another URL. According to WebAIM, "An image that is the only thing inside a link must never have a missing or empty alt attribute"). This is why if the alt text would mostly repeat a caption, I would recommend just doing alt=refer to caption. Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Heartfox, extremely sorry - I only just remembered to do this now. I've put the "refer to caption" tag on most things, but for a couple where the caption wasn't as self-explanatory, I added fuller alt text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Add row scopes, column scopes, and row headers to the "Main components of traditional outfit" table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• How's that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good. Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Source thoughts

• Why is Bird 2002 a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published report that was submitted to the UN

• I'm not sure self-published is the right descriptor. It was prepared by Bird for Pauktuutit, a national-level Inuit women's organization, as a report on a major research project they undertook regarding rights to the amauti (as well as the relevant background leading up to Project Amauti), and submitted at a UN summit. I'm fairly sure you have to be invited to speak at those, although admittedly the UN website isn't very clear on that. Also, I realize the organization was unlinked in the reference so I've linked it now.
  • I think of it like written testimony before a parliamentary committee. We wouldn't use the testimony itself as a source. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry to be argumentative, but this is a source I'm willing to quibble over (not least because it's used in History of Inuit clothing more substantially, and I plan to take that to FA eventually as well). I believe the report meets our "acceptable use of self-published works" criteria. Pauktuutit as an organization is a subject-matter expert on the question of Inuit women's issues, having studied and published on the topic since the 1980s. Their work in the area of Inuit clothing/IP protection and the report itself specifically have been cited in other reliable works, ([10], [11], [12] for a couple of examples) and the report was cited as a document for discussion at a World Intellectual Property Office invitational workshop in 2019 ([13]); all of which indicates to me that it is considered a reliable source by experts, and so should be by us as well.

• McCord Museum should be linked on first use

• It is, see the source that starts with "Kobayashi Issenman, Betty; Rankin, Catherine (1988b)."

• Why is Pauktuutit: Inuit Women of Canada a reliable publisher?

• See note under Bird - national-level Inuit women's organization that works in various fields including education. Since it's the only use of the source and the content is supported by the Truth & Reconciliation report, I'm willing to drop this one if you object to it strongly.
  • Not much turns on it, so it stands under its own weight --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Why is Inuktut Tusaalanga a reliable publisher?

• Published by Pirurvik, an Inuit educational centre that publishes Inuktut-language educational material. The Inuktut Tusaalanga site in particular has been given an award by the Canadian government ([14]) and is supported by the government of Nunavut (the polar bear "Nunavut" logo at the bottom of the page is a government icon - see here for confirmation).

• Why is UpHere a reliable source?

• Up Here is an established magazine with a reputation for quality, having won several journalistic awards over its 35+ year history. They accept outside pitches but not user-generated content, all stories are bylined, and the contact info for their editorial department is transparent and available. They include corrections when they make errors. The author of that particular article, Kassina Ryder, is as far as I can tell an experienced journalist in covering northern culture.

• The way chapters from books is organized is strange, but I like it

• I figured better to go alphabetical on the chapters since the names are the primary means of identification in the citations. Glad you like it :)

No spotchecks were done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 03:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! Hopefully that's sufficient to address any concerns. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support after reviewing the changes made after my comments last month --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Likely to Support Excellent article, in an area (clothing) where we have few very really strong articles. I will do some points soon, but nothing is likely to be major. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review and spot-checks

Sources don't need any interrogation. Everything is from reliable sources (anthropological or Inuit-focused journals). None of the citations are malformed or missing necessary parameters.

There are a lot of citations on this article. For that reason, I'm going to start with an unusually low 5% (which is still 15 citations). If there are more than 2 errors in that sample, I'll do another 15. If I need to do another 15, it'll be tomorrow or the day after. Given that the nominator has previously gone through FAC with a stellar sourcing record, I'm not concerned. Nominator has helpfully provided a list of her source access. Of the ones she does not have access to, I've been able to track down most online, so I don't think we'll struggle to get a representative survey.

• Fns 1 and 2 – Pass
• Fn 29 (end of Upper body garments subheading) - I had a brain fart and couldn't find where it said it, but it’s right at the beginning of p.42 – pass
• Fn 35 (trousers and leggings) - this website is hideous, but it’s an established museum and does indeed support the statement – pass
• Fn 20 (accessory garments) - google books preview was enough - pass
• Fn 61 (accessory garments) - pass
• Fn 7 (very end children's clothing) - this author has two articles with a very similar name, weirdly - also, pass
• Fn 65 (end of accessory garments) - this one caught my eye because it’s fascinating - pass
• Fn 68 (children's clothing) - this is pretty hardcore - also pass
• Fn 105 (bird skins) - makes sense - pass (available online)
• Fn 97 (other natural mammals) - this is the only fact in the article so far that I actually knew - pass
• Fn 10 (construction and maintenance) - side note: construction feels like a weird word for this heading - pass, though MUSE did not work for me
• Fn 145 (hide processing) - straightforward pass, paraphrasing across the board is really good (paraphrased but not so much that it’s impossible to find)
• Fn 12 (major principles) - a brilliantly written section, clearly grounded in judicious research - pass
• Fn 184 (decorative techniques) - pass (found online)
• Fn 223 (decorative techniques) - PDF copy provided by nominator I'm not paying £7 for it. quote from paper: "Traditionally, kamiks had geometric patterns which ran vertically down the front on men's and horizontally around the top on women's". pass, but would probably be worth including that extra information about where the patterns go. also, standardise the tense (the nominated article has "are" for men and "were" for women, as if things have changed; Oakes' article says "were")

And just like that, we have 15. This one was really straightforward. I have literally no reservations in supporting the article on the quality and judiciousness of its sources. This has very clearly been a labour of love for the nominator, and I want to extend my sincere appreciation to her for making such an incredible, centralised resource. I love seeing this sort of stuff at FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in that I made the change proposed for the content at fn 223 and forgot to actually mention it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I have a question about this bit, inhabiting the Arctic areas of North America and Greenland, from the lead. Why is Greenland specified here? It is a part of the Arctic areas of North America, but this bit makes it sound like a separate area from that.

• Not everyone immediately pictures Greenland when they think North America, so I wanted to make it clear what's being included. Would one of "Arctic areas of North America, including the United States, Canada, and Greenland" or maybe "Arctic areas of the United States, Canada, and Greenland" be better?

• Thank you for the response. Upon doing further research, it seems like people tie Greenland very closely to Europe even though geographically, it is very clearly a part of North America. Because of this, the current wording should be fine. That being said, I prefer "Arctic areas of the United States, Canada, and Greenland", but I will leave this choice up to you as you have more knowledge about this area than I do. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've reworded it to that.

• Thank you! To be fair, I asked my brother which continent Greenland is associated with, and he said Europe so there's that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this part, Recent efforts by Inuit organizations to revive traditional cultural skills, from the lead. Instead of "Recent efforts", I would specify the time period that these efforts started as "recent" can mean something very different ten years down the line for instance. I would think it would be better to be more specific to help establish a clearer timeline for readers.

• Swapped out to "Since the 1990s"

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is a minor suggestion, but it may be beneficial to link ruff in this part, and fringes, ruffs, and decorative inserts, especially since other clothing terms like fringe get wikilinks.

• The ruff (clothing) article is pretty specific in referring to elaborate fabric collars worn in the 16th-17th centuries. It doesn't mention the more modern sense of the word, which can refer to trim on hoods. I think it might be confusing to link to.

• Thank you for the explanation. I should have read that article more thoroughly so apologies for my mistake. You are right that it would be unnecessarily confusing so it would be best to keep it as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph of the "Tools" subsection, would it be possible to avoid having four citations together? I would think that would be considered an example of citation overkill. From my personal experience, I have seen around three citations being considered as the limit, but I do not know if there is a greater (and more formal) consensus about this. Another instance of this is in the "Research and documentation" section.

• There isn't a formal limit, and normally I would try to stick to 3 or less. In the case of the tools section, each ref supports a chunk of the sentence but not the whole thing, in a way that makes it hard to separate into two sentences without wonking up the structure. For example, the first ref supports many of the tools but not the materials, the second ref supports some tools and some materials, the third supports other tools that aren't in the first, and the fourth supports the materials that weren't supported in the others. I did pull the 4th cite from "research and documentation" as it turned out I hadn't added any new content with it.

• Thank you for the explanation. It should be fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion for this sentence: Even after the decline of the residential schools, most day schools did not include material on Inuit culture until very recently. I would replace "until very recently" with something more specific as the current wording will change over time to mean something different.

• I found a ref and have changed the wording to "the 1980s"
• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have a clarification question about this sentence: The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. has an extensive collection of Arctic materials from Canada and Alaska, including clothing, obtained beginning in 1850. Do you mean the Smithsonian Institution as a whole or specifically the National Museum of the American Indian?

• Double checked and the source says "Smithsonian Institution", no specification.

• Thank you for the explanation. I would not be surprised if this collection was not assigned to a specific Smithsonian museum and could be put on display in a number of locations since it could really fit into a number of these contexts. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again for your work on this article. It was a very fascinating read and I very much enjoyed it. My comments are focused on the prose and are relatively minor. I do not feel comfortable enough with image use policy to add anything to the discussion about how images are used in the article. Apologies for that. With that being said, I will be more than happy to support the article for promotion based on the prose once my comments have been addressed. I hope you have a wonderful week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Aoba47, thanks for your comments here and again I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded above, most of them I've made the changes you requested, but in a couple I have some justifications. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to respond to everything. I agree with your justifications, and I will leave the Greenland matter up to you. I support the article for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. It is on a completely unrelated (and much more obscure) topic though so I understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a good rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• This is an interesting one. First comments below, more to follow:
• as early as 24,000 years ago, and in northern Canada and Greenland as early as 2500 BCE – I propose to use the same format for the years, either "years ago" or "BCE", to make those numbers directly comparable.

• I used the "X years ago" phrasing because that's what the source said - I didn't want to overstep into OR/potential misstatement of the source by translating it into BCE. I'm fine to swap it to BCE if you don't feel that would be problematic though.

• I don't see how a simple unit conversion could overstep into OR. As the sentence currently reads, the reader needs to think if they need to add or substract 2021 years from the first (or second) number to be able to compare those values. This is just disrupting reading flow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Changed

• In Arviat, a hamlet in Nunavut, some women wear a beret, a cap introduced by French missionaries. – Here I wonder why this detail is relevant in this comparatively central article; you are talking about a single village? Mentioning this would imply that similar incidents did not occur in some other hamlets, is this the case?

• It just happened to be an interesting tidbit that tied into the sentence about modern Inuit wearing caps. I don't have any indication as to whether it never happened elsewhere, only that it specifically did happen and became traditional in that one location. I'm not crazy attached to it though, I can pull it.

• It would help to translate the Inuit terms in the image captions as well.

• Done

• Inuit groups that practiced kayaking regularly developed specialized garments – I don't understand why the "regularly" is needed here. I thought a particular group only need to invent it once?

• Ah, that's meant to be "kayaking regularly", not "regularly developed". I'll reword.

• For the sake of consistency, this article uses Canadian Inuktitut terminology, unless otherwise noted. – This is not completely ideal since it introduces bias, but it might still be the best option. Unfortunately, some famous names such as "anorak" do not appear in the article because of this decision. If you would briefly mention the words of the other languages as well, would that clutter the article too much? Also, can you back up this decision a bit, i.e. why Inuktitut and not another language? Has this precedence in the sources? This reasoning could be added as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• So...my reasoning here came from a few things.
  First, the majority of English sources that I found used the Inuktitut words (particularly Sinews of Survival which is the main comprehensive book on the topic). Most sources don't discuss this choice explicitly in the text (Kobayashi Issenman for example mentions using the Inuktitut for place names but doesn't seem to talk specifically about using it for garment names). My guess is that's probably because those sources are mostly Canadian and because Inuktitut is the largest Canadian Inuit language with 35k+ speakers and official recognition in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. While some sources mention other terms here and there, which I have sometimes used in the article, I never found sources that comprehensively listed the outfit equivalents in other languages like Iñupiaq and Greenlandic.
  Second, I believe it would be overly cluttery to mention every equivalent word that I could find - as I quoted from Kobayashi Issenman, the vocabulary is extensive and there are lots of dialects/regional variations and not necessarily any one "official" word. Once I start including some dialects, where do I draw the line?
  I did find a source for the origins of parka/anorak so I've put that in - couldn't find a place to logically insert it so it's a footnote for now, but I'm happy to move it if you can see somewhere better to put it. It's at the end of the upper body garments subsection now.

• I see, thanks, just asking! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Jens Lallensack, looking forward to the rest! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• which confirms significant consistency – When reading "significant", I think about statistics. I think something can be significantly different, but I don't see how a lack of difference can possibly be significant. Would it hurt to remove this word, or what exactly does it actually add?

• When you think about how much clothing styles and technologies change, it's basically jaw-dropping to consider that the ancestors of the Inuit invented a clothing technology so effective that it remained in use for something like 24,000 years. Aesthetics changed here and there, and new techniques developed, but the system of layered insulating furs sewn in specific shapes to capture and retain heat while permitting ventilation remained the same. That's significant.

• It is indicated that ulu knives are made from "bone, baleen, antler and ivory", and later it is stated that they are made from "Wood and stone" and "meteoric iron or copper". Is this correct?

• Yup. There was no "prescribed" material. The Inuit used whatever was at hand and could be made nice and sharp. The first sentence describes materials for all traditional tools, including ulu. Wood and stone were also used for ulu - wood to make grips, stone for the blade. Here's an example I'd kill to have a free picture of. When they found metal, they made blades from it, like this one - ivory handle, iron blade. Later, when white people showed up, they started to make them from metal much more systematically, but that wasn't an option for the majority of their history.

• bespoke paper patterns – link?

• Sewing pattern is already linked in the previous sentence.

• Instead, frost accumulates on the surface of fur – bit difficult to imagine. Does it mean that sweat is migrating through the skin and hair to the outside?

• I wound up re-reading some sources and rewriting a bunch of the paragraph. Better now?

• Thanks, much better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Shamans from groups which permitted the hunting of albino caribou, – I don't understand the significance of the albino caribou. Other groups did not permit hunting those? The albino caribou is somehow linked to the color-inverted parkas?

• Yes, it was specifically noted in the source that those groups allowed it; by inference, other groups didn't for whatever reason. Lots of hunting societies have taboos or beliefs about differently-colored animals. Some groups forbid hunting such animals for spiritual reasons; the source didn't get into detail about why but it appears that the Copper and Caribou Inuit encouraged it for spiritual reasons, and when someone killed one, the shaman got an incredible and visually distinct white parka. Remember, until basically the modern period, everyone's caribou garments were colored basically like a caribou - brown, with some white trim. Most caribou don't have a lot of white fur, so you can't get a white parka unless you get an albino caribou. Thus, for the shaman to have a parka with inverse coloration is a big deal - they look different, they look connected to that specific spiritually-significant animal in a way that sets them apart from laypeople. Call it the equivalent of a cardinal's red robe - you know the guy wearing it is something special.

• I don't understand that Jill E. Oakes quote. I can't find "Text stitched into footwear designs" discussed in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• She doesn't mean literal text... she's talking metaphorically about the culture and history that underlies individual kamiit designs, how they often represent personal or spiritual things that may not be apparent just from looking at the boot, and how it can be impossible to properly understand what was intended without the actual designer there to interpret things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Opinion on the above oppose: My reading of WP:GALLERY is that the use of galleries is in-line with the MOS. "Fashion" is even listed as a topic for which image galleries may be suitable. I therefore don't see any issue in this regard. I consequently may support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Support by Johnbod

• So far so good (down to decoration). I have tweaked a few things, mostly links. More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - great stuff. A few tweaks made but no real queries. I've described my objections to the oppose on images above. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Ceoil

Placeholder (will prob support). Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Support: Having followed the improvements over the last few weeks, and making trivial edits, am very happy to recommend that this impressive, fascinating article is promoted to FA. Excellent work. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, criteria for my support are quality of sources, prose and image use (I'm also not convinced by Buide's oppose above). Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• You say their clothes are made out of made of animal hide and fur twice in the lead in consecutive sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've reworded this bit (and a bit of the lead in general)

• Is the 22,000 years ago thing referring to the Venus figurines of the Mal'ta–Buret' culture? If so, this has some great discussion and images comparing their figurines to modern circumpolar clothing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oddly, I don't recall any of the sources I read using the word "Venus" specifically, but I can't imagine it's somehow a different set of figurines. I'll have a look at that source - it'll probably be useful detail for history of Inuit clothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the large number of modern archaeologists who object to the whole "Venus" name, many others restrict the term to finds from Western Europe. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it's not the best name, but Venus figurines of Mal'ta is kinda their most commonly recognized name for better or worse. If you'd like, we can say human figurines?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

So is the 22 kya thing referring to Mal'ta?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's for sure the Mal'ta culture, that's discussed in detail at history of Inuit clothing. The only thing I wasn't sure of was whether or not the figurines were the specific Venus figurines you were talking about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

They didn't make any other figurines. In that case, link "carved figurines" to Venus figurines of Mal'ta and somewhere at least say the words "Mal'ta–Buret' culture"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a bit detailed given the tightness of the summary in the main article here; the sub-article gets into it in more detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I know, I'm just asking to actually have a link to that sub-article. If the Mal'ta–Buret' culture is so unimportant to not even name, then don't include the 22,000 year thing at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, linked the culture. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Canada and Greenland as early as 2500 BCE" I think we're talking about the Saqqaq culture which arrived at the Canadian archipelago and Greenland right around that date. It's a bit too early to be referencing the Qilakitsoq mummies, so the source is probably just simplifying things using that date. Am I correct? If so, including all of Canada may not be the best description, and you might wanna move the date to the mummies but that's optional since Qilakitsoq is a Saqqaq site. Sorry this is coming so late, I just noticed it now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, Dunkleosteus77, I didn't notice this comment until now. The Kobayashi Issenman source mentions archaeological finds on Baffin & Ellesmere Islands dating back to as early as 2500 BCE, as well as Independence I culture finds in Greenland. and Stenton talks about archaeological evidence of pre-Dorset clothing-making tools. Neither mentions the "Saqqaq culture"; both use Dorset and pre-Dorset. I'm not comfortable extrapolating this to be about the Saqqaq without a reference.
  Not sure what you mean when you say "move the date to the mummies". Evidence for tools for making skin-clothing "as early as 2500 BCE" is correct to the sources cited; the mummies are carbon-dated to c. 1475, so that's quite a significant difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This book has a great overview of the Saqqaq, and on p. 96 it mentions, "Another unusual find category from Qeqertasussuk are skin fragments, some being clothing. The foot of a kamik-stocking appears to have been made in the same fashion as more recent inner boots: a sole and a tube, sewn together with very fine thin twisted sinew. Within the inner boot there was some plant material believed to be the remains of a lining (Møller 1991), which in more recent times was usually made of lyme grass." The Qeqertasussuk site dates to 2400 to 900 BCE, but I'm still kinda convinced the source is just oversimplifying given this which goes over the earliest dates of Greenlandic colonization. And, if we're going off just stone tools instead of fabric samples, I'm worried how the source has decided to set its cut-off point especially considering that's not its main focus, since delicate sewing needles were invented before Greenland was colonized. What are your source's exact words?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That first source you gave comes back as a 404 for me. The Stenton source is linked in the article and is available on JSTOR, and here's a Google Books link to Sinews with a search for 2500 highlighted. It's probably easier if you read them and see what they say rather than me trying to figure out what you want me to quote, since the content covers more than a single sentence. The second source you cited mentions that earliest colonization of Greenland occurred around 2500 BCE. I honestly don't understand what issue you're trying to highlight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just link whatever culture you're discussing, because like I said earlier, if it's not worth mentioning by name, it's not worth mentioning at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've put pre-Dorset and Dorset, since that's what my sources say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review gallery

• File:Greenland Inuit mitts with depilated palms and cord.jpg and File:West Greenland Inuit modern outfit with avittat.jpg I don't see anywhere on the page that they're CC anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Click "source" URL, scroll to bottom, under Details, you will see Photographer: Roberto Fortuna followed by License: CC-BY-SA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Other images are fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, I appreciate you taking a look. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• All gallery images are good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comments

• Cites 23, 83, 128, 180 and several others contain p/pp errors.

• All of these errors should now be dealt with.

Cites 83 and 262 not resolved.

Sorry, should be now.

• Cite 236 has an em dash in the page range.

• Fixed

It's not.

What on earth...Okay, it should be now. Not sure what happened there.

• There seems to be inconsistency in the use or non-use of sentence case in the titles of works. For example in "Websites".

• I used the same case that the source used. Newspapers tend to use sentence case for their titles, while other websites mostly use title case. I couldn't find guidance on how to resolve that in the MOS, but I could very well be blind :)

The MoS takes a lot of getting used to. "The English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as detailed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Composition titles). The first and last words in an English-language title are always capitalized." sums it up. For detail see MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. I've sorted it, and have also linked publishers and journals in the first instance, as I realized I hadn't done that consistently either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Gog. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Typo alert: " 'Wear Their Culture on Their Cleeve, Literally' ". I bet they don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ooh nope not a lot of Inuit residents of small villages in England, I bet :| ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Likely Support from Sdkb

 Doing... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so as you can probably tell from the time delay/the size of this edit haha, I got sucked into this article and went through it with a pretty fine-toothed comb. Overall, it's in excellent shape: comprehensive, scholarly, and well-referenced. My comments below reflect a lot of nitpicky things, many of which are moreso suggestions rather than major concerns that would lead to an oppose if unaddressed, so please feel free to disagree with me if anything doesn't seem like it'd be an improvement to the page. Once the few more significant issues (e.g. religion section) have been resolved, I look forward to supporting, and I hope the smaller suggestions are helpful for tuning it up to get it to the best possible state. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Would it be possible for you to hat out or otherwise separate any ones that you consider dealt with, even if only temporarily? I get lost in huge swaths of wikitext and it would make it easier for me to find and reply to ones that are getting threaded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'll start out with the archetypal picky comment haha: Oxford comma usage is inconsistent. Most sentences in the lead so far use it, but caribou, seals and seabirds doesn't. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• There's quite a lot of use of the word "traditional" in the lead. Are there places where we could take it out? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• extreme weather of the polar regions could wikilink to Climate of the Arctic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Above three all handled. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• There's some tense inconsistency. In the second paragraph, have historically been consistent uses [grammar nerds, please help me out] tense, different from past tense, which would be were historically consistent. The paragraph later switches to past tense with varied and decorated. Overall, we need to make a decision about whether to describe Inuit clothing as a past aspect of history or something contemporary. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• We can't, really - it is distinctly both. Much of what was traditionally practiced, particularly the nomadic hunting lifestyle that followed the migration cycles of useful animals, is pretty clearly past tense. On the other hand, there's also a lot that's still done more or less in line with traditional methods and patterns. So it's neither entirely historical nor entirely contemporary, and it would be misleading to try to make it a bright line. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Given that, using a mix of past and present tense seems fine. The most I ask, then, is just that we put consideration into which places use past and which use present, and that we don't mix them when referring to the same thing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• history of the circumpolar clothing system goes to History of Inuit clothing, which is a bit odd given that the previous sentence just talked about there being other circumpolar peoples. One way to resolve this would be to create a redirect from History of circumpolar clothing to History of Inuit clothing, tag it as {{r to subtopic}}, and then link to the redirect instead of directly. That way, it'd be clearer to readers that they're being pointed to a subtopic, and if a broader history article is ever created, it'll go to that instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Non-breaking spaces are needed between years and BCE or CE. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• For 3–4.5 kg (6.6–9.9 lb), I'm assuming the original comes from kg and is accurate to .5kg, so the conversion to lb appears to introduce a false precision to .1lb. See here for instructions on reducing the rounding to the nearest pound. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Previous 3 done

• In the sentence where Betty Kobayashi Issenman is brought up, I'm not sure it's necessary to cite her by name or to quote her directly. WP:INTEXT suggests caution about when to use in-text attribution, and this material doesn't seem to be among the most subjective or potentially controversial. Stating basic factual information rather than quoting it is generally preferred. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Same for the block quote in the next paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• It's not really possible to reword those quoted sentences without closely paraphrasing; better to quote outright in my opinion than try to contort myself around rewriting what's already been elegantly put. As for Kobayashi Issenman, she was generally considered the all-around expert on the broad topic of Inuit clothing (Oakes & Riewes probably know more about footwear, but that's a subtopic). Sinews was big enough in its field that it smashed GNG easily, which is something for a reference book from 1997. In my opinion it is necessary to introduce her and Sinews, as the article relies so much on her scholarship. I'm responding to these point by point so forgive me if this touches on something you mention later, but I also mention several other experts a number of times in the article, so to me it doesn't feel out of place, as it occurs throughout. It's also something I did at Dali (goddess) and it wasn't considered an issue there.

  I speak a little more to paraphrasing below. If she's so important to the topic's research history, would it make sense to talk about her in the research and documentation section below? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The great tragedy is that she wrote quite a lot of the significant work on the topic, and everybody cites her, but nobody that I've found has actually written about her and her research. That's why I bluelinked Sinews but not her. I also think it might be undue to focus on one researcher in that section in the main article, since it's a really condensed summary of what has become a fairly substantial article on its own. (I suppose it could be worth trying to squeeze anything I can find from the Sinews reviews for the research article, but that's a separate future FAC :P)

• For the sake of consistency, this article uses Canadian Inuktitut terminology, unless otherwise noted. is a MOS:SELFREF. I've only recently come across this area, which appears pretty complex, so I'm not confident making a suggestion about whether it needs wrapping in {{xref}}, conversion to a footnote, or something else. But I'd appreciate hearing from someone more familiar about how this sentence should be handled. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{xref}} appears to be for text that refers to other Wikipedia articles, so it doesn't quite fit. I had this conversation at the GA review, and I don't believe a footnote is suitable. I want this information to be visible and clear to the reader without having to click elsewhere, which many readers (especially on mobile) don't do. It's rare, but per MOS:SELFREF, References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable.

  Sounds fine; glad to hear it's been considered. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding footnote a, according to this article, the Inuit Cultural Institute is now defunct, and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami has approved the most recent version of the writing system. Changing to that might be better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, no, that article says that ITK approved a standard orthography that uses Roman letters, but syllabics still use the 1976 standard developed by ITK as far as I can tell. I still put your source in since it's more specific about the date.

  Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't really have a problem with the lack of a {{Contains special characters}} tag, as the article doesn't use that many of them and it's my sense that the tag is somewhat a relic of a time when browsers had much worse rendering support. But just noting it here for the record, as others might disagree. I wish it were possible to make the template display only when needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, it wasn't a conscious choice to omit, I just forgot about it. I can put it in if you want.

  I think it's fine without it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm seeing more inconsistent tense use: Parkas for women were called amauti and had large pouches starts in past, but then the paragraph moves to present. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed, I wound up moving some stuff down into the "decorative techniques" area.

• Non-breaking space fixes are needed for the en-dashes; I fixed one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Duffel" isn't wikilinked on its first appearance, but is then wikilinked twice later on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• National Museum of Denmark isn't wikilinked in the caption where it first appears but is then wikilinked later on; I'd suggest wikilinking it in the caption, too. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Prev 3 done

• These baggy leggings were much-noted by non-Inuit who encountered them I don't really have a sense of why this is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• The reference doesn't get into it so I can't put this in the article, but consider that for white people in the 1800s-early 1900s, these would have been incredibly exotic and interesting garments. Women wearing pants was weird enough for Euro-Americans at the time, but the fact that they had these big huge storage pockets for carting stuff around was fascinating to them. Remember, cargo pants were only invented in the 1940s or so :)

  That's interesting to know! I think the current article text is fine, then. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• During the wet season of summer This is the first mention of summer Inuit clothing. Is there anything to say in the upper body garments and lower body garments sections about this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at the lower sections about hoods/etc., you seem to address this, so it's probably fine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Basically that's because the structure of the garments were the same, just made of different fur as seasonally appropriate. I get into it in the materials section - caribou outfits were for cold dry winter, seal outfits were for wet cool summer. Layer up in winter or as otherwise necessary.

• It'd be nice to see {{circa}} used whenever there are approximate dates. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Can you specify where you mean?

  Just ctrl+f search for "c. 1". I'm not sure using the circa template is required, but many people don't know what "c." means, so I think having the tooltip (as the circa template does) is helpful. If you choose not to use it, you'll still want to replace the space with a non-breaking one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oh duhhh, I wasn't thinking of the captions, sorry. Fixed now :)

• The sentence about Arviat women wearing berets is interesting. But it looks to be a pretty tiny place, and there's no indication of this elsewhere. Is it really a significant enough factoid to warrant inclusion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since someone else commented about it above, I pulled it.

• More present vs. past tense confusion in the accessories section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I changed the paragraphs about hoods/hats and mitts to be completely present tense as those are still commonly used in the same fashion today, belts I left past tense since that mostly concerns historical usage.

  Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Cockpit links to an article explicitly about aircraft cockpits. Unless we're talking about flying kayaks, that wouldn't seem ideal.^{[understatement]} Cockpit (sailing) unfortunately doesn't look like a great fit either; do we need a wikilink here at all? If so, maybe Wiktionary? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delinked for simplicity

• My preference would be to have snow goggles linked in the caption, per the exception for captions at MOS:REPEATLINK and the fact it's an interesting concept. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• For the child suit, by 1924 in the caption took me a minute to figure out, as I generally associate "by" more with authorship than with dates. You use "collected [date]" above; would it be appropriate to do the same here? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Above two both done

• Hairstyles for pubescent girls also changed to indicate their new status. Would it be possible to give a concise explanation of how, or is it complicated/varied enough that explaining it would be WP:UNDUE? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• IIRC neither source got into the detail of what changed. I don't have the sources right now to double check; my library made me give Sinews back and those pages are not in the GBooks preview, and I don't have the Arctic Clothing pdf at hand.

  Thinking about it, hairstyles is a little beyond the scope of this article on clothing, so that's probably reason enough to not both to go into further detail. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was able to check Arctic Clothing on my break and it barely gives any detail, and that was only for Greenland anyway. But Inuit hairstyles beckons, I suppose.

• use of seabird skins is now rare even in places where traditional clothing is still common Is there a particular reason why, or is it just a trend? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Birdskin sucks in comparison to basically any other skin; I talk about it in the materials section. Nobody really did much birdskin sewing unless they really had no other options, so nowadays with all the modern commercial options available, most people are going to avoid birdskin unless they're making a particular choice to use it.

  Yep, I wrote the above before I'd read through the rest of the materials section; this seems covered fine there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• For [15], there's a 3D model of the outfit in addition to the photo. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has the technical infrastructure to support 3D imagery (probably not), but it'd be super cool to have that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the 3D models are CC, sadly.

• today, many seamstresses also make use Are Inuit who sew still universally female? If not, it'd be better to de-gender. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Same with all the other uses of this word farther down. Regarding a gender neutral term, some suggestions include "tailor", "sewer", and "sewist". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• For the Inuit, sewing is and always has been a female activity. Every single source I read used "seamstresses," talked about it as a woman's craft, how it's a part of women's identity, etc etc, even when referring to modern times. Every modern Inuit designer I've read about has been female. Every cultural education program I've read about talks about engaging women. I have literally never seen a single reference to a male taking up sewing as a major activity. I can't guarantee that there's not a single man or nonbinary person who's taken up sewing (only the Sith deal in absolutes), but in my opinion, it would be both incorrect and culturally inappropriate to use gender-neutral terms here.

  Sounds reasonable. There's still one related line I'd like clarified, though (see below; ctrl+f for "conflicts with"). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Traditionally all clothing material was obtained I'd suggest a comma after "traditionally". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• to make waterproof jackets, for inclement weather I'd suggest removing the comma here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Last 2 done

• Is German Federal Fur School likely to be notable? Redlink if so, fine if not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{ill}} linked it since it has an article in German

• The use of bird skins has been documented by all Inuit groups Do you mean "The use of bird skins by all Inuit groups has been documented"? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Changed it to "documented across all Inuit groups"

  Even better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Over two dozen I'd suggest changing to "more than two dozen". Same with over 2100 historic skin clothing items later down. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Done

• Is there anything to say about Inuit sleepwear? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think they had jammies. None of the sources I read (and I read...several) mentioned it.

• and fabric which began I'd suggest a comma after "fabric". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Done

• These garments were valued by women as they were simple to make "Appreciated" might be a better word here than "valued", as the latter tends to refer to something rarer or better rather than just cheaper. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, reading the next sentence, I guess they were considered better, too. Still, the "as" in the previous sentence implies a causal connection, and something being simple to make doesn't alone make it more valuable, so I'd still suggest switching to "appreciated". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• The labor-saving simplicity of construction is precisely what made fabric garments valuable to the women. The entire construction process for full skin garments could take hundreds of hours of hide processing, cutting, planning, and sewing. In comparison, sewing pre-made fabric together saves a ton of work. That's valuable, in the same way that your car is valuable because it saves you the time and energy of walking.

  As I understand it, "valuable" refers to something's worth, not how hard it is to acquire. If something becomes easier to acquire, that tends to make it less valuable, because it pushes the price down. You seem to be using "valued" as a synonym for "appreciated" here, which is a valid sense of the word, but I still think it'd be a little better to just say "appreciated" to eliminate the potential confusion. It's a small thing, though, so no worries if you still prefer "valued". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The second dictionary sense of "to value" is "to consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial," which I think applies here, both in the sense that these items were expensive status symbols, and because they beneficially saved women a bunch of hard work.

• It is important to note that these new materials... Just say These new materials... It's not our role to say what is or isn't important to note, and it's unneeded wordiness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree. The previous two paragraphs indicate a lot of changes to the traditional system. It should be made clear to the reader that despite that influx of foreign materials and garments, the Inuit didn't abandon their traditional clothing system. Instead, they adopted what worked for them.

  The relevant link here is MOS:EDITORIAL, which appears to speak pretty specifically to this situation. There are other ways to indicate the "despite" aspect, which I think will still come across clearly to readers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I tweaked it.

• More tense confusion in the construction section: Women were responsible, then switching to These skills have historically been passed. I'll stop noting specific instances, but this is something that needs fixing throughout the article. This is something that should be given careful consideration: from the fact you chose to work on this article, I'm guessing you have an interest in cultural preservation, but it's also important for neutrality that, when something has become historical (i.e. no longer worn in its original everyday context, or worn only in significantly altered descendant versions), we note so honestly. I anticipate that you'll discuss cultural preservation farther down the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I reworded the whole paragraph a bit. How's that?

  Looks good! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Better! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Creating" is an MOS:EGG link to learning-by-doing. Changing which text is linked over or rephrasing a bit might help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed in the process of rewording as above

• Garments had to be sewn well and properly maintained to maintain the survival of the family and the larger group Awkward wording. I'd suggest changing to Garments had to be sewn well and properly maintained to for the family and the larger group to survive. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wound up flipping the sentence over, I think that works better

• I'd suggest a wikilink over heat loss, probably to Heat transfer (but you might be able to find something better). That'll make the interdisciplinary physics people happy haha. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sure, done

• Production of clothing was an intensive communal process undertaken by entire families gathered together. This conflicts with the earlier statement that women were entirely responsible for the work. Did the men in the families help out? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded to be more clear - every family in a community basically set up into a camp following the hunt. The women sewed their collective asses off while the men butchered the meat and dealt with (and this isn't explicitly in any of my sources so I didn't put it in the article) I assume whatever community business there was that wasn't sewing. Also I happened to find a sort-of estimate of how many seals were needed to clothe a whole family, so I stuck that in since I already had the caribou estimate. Neat!

• Does Jill Oakes meet WP:NPROF (warranting a redlink)? She doesn't appear to hold a named professorship, which would be the most common route, but maybe she's written books that have been reviewed, creating a GNG path. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. I honestly hate trying to judge notability by NPROF, I'm so bad with it. I remember DGG saying once upon a time that anyone with a professorship at a major university likely qualified, so I redlinked her just in case.

• Transitioning to the quote in the Oakes sentence introduces some plurality grammar concerns, and same as above, I'm not sure the material is necessary to quote. I'm guessing you were trying to avoid any plagiarism concerns, but it'd be helpful to hear from a copyright person as to whether a basic list like that would run any risk of copyright violation without the quote marks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I tweaked the sentence and trimmed the quote a bit, but I still think it should be quoted, as it comes directly from her fieldwork.

• Having the caribou hide picture be from Scandinavia is slightly odd, but if that's the best hide picture available, that's probably a worthwhile tradeoff. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I mean, same issue with the sealskin pic, which is from the German Fur School. I don't have any clear color photos of either type of skin harvested by Inuit specifically, unfortunately.

  Yeah, the pictures we use are fine, then. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• the latter being a uniquely Inuit development To improve flow, I would move this farther down the paragraph to where you talk about the waterproof stitch. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded slightly.

• wearing clean clothing on a hunt was important, The start of the sentence indicates that we're talking about religious importance specifically here, not general importance. Therefore, no need for the comma after "important". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded slightly.

• I'm guessing "innitaq" is the plural of "innitait", but I can't be sure. More generally, all the foreign words in the article are italicized, which is good, but there are a lot of them, which makes the prose much harder to read for someone who doesn't speak the Inuit languages. I would try to use English words wherever you reasonably can—garments were laid over the rack near a heat source seems like it'd work fine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Another thought on foreign words: it'd be nice in some cases to have audio or IPA pronunciations available. For clothing items with their own articles like amauti, a place for that would be at the start of those articles (which is beyond the scope of this FAC), but for others without articles, it might be appropriate to add them here, perhaps in the table. I'm not sure if we're allowed to put pronunciations outside the lead, though, and in any case this isn't something strictly necessary; it'd just be nice since the pronunciations in many cases aren't intuitive to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I reworded the innitaq bit. As for pronounciation, Iiiiii don't actually speak Inuktitut and I'm not comfortable with IPA stuff...I could make a go of it if you really think it's important but it's a bit beyond my normal capabilities as an editor.

  No worries, then—we definitely don't want non-Inuit (literally) speaking for Inuit by trying to pronounce their words. Just something to keep in mind if you ever come across PD recordings or meet someone who wants to help. For IPA, I not too long ago had to dive into that for the first time myself; I found that many dictionaries included IPA pronunciations, and it wasn't too hard to translate into {{IPAc-en}}. I'm not having any luck there for the Inuit words in this article, though, unfortunately—nothing on Dictionary.com or sources like this. I think for our purposes here the Inuktitut syllabics are enough, as they're workable for a really dedicated reader who uses the table at the syllabics page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Betty Kobayashi Issenman is introduced with her full name three times, and with a description the first and third time. I would include her full name and description the first time, and then just her last names, or maybe "Kobayashi Issenman, the Inuit clothing expert". That makes the fact that readers are being reminded of her rather than introduced to her more explicit. Also, the fact that her book, Sinews of Survival, is notable probably means she is as well, and should therefore be redlinked. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I fixed the second use of her full name; in the case of "Major principles", I think I'd prefer to keep it like that for the benefit of those mobile readers skip through articles section by section (the horror) and may not have encountered her earlier in the article. Per my comments above, I don't think she actually hits NPROF or NAUTHOR (only one book IMO is not sufficient), so I haven't redlinked her.

  Okay, I'll defer to your preference then. This touches again on the question of repeated info where I think it might be helpful to have a broader discussion at MoS at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Loosed" sounds a bit weird/archaic to me; I'd expect to see "loosened". It might be different in Canadian English, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• It's not a Canadianism, but it is synonymous.

  Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• You give the winter temperature; could you note the typical summer temperature as well? Overall, a little more climate information wouldn't hurt, as the extreme climate is a major influence on the clothing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have references for the summer temperatures offhand, and I'm not sure where I would put that...open to suggestions though, assuming I can find something?

  I would put it in this sentence: For the warmer weather of spring and summer, where temperatures average X °C (Y °F) in [region], only a single layer of clothing was necessary. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Having done my best at searching, I couldn't find a solid easy-to-cite reference for an average summer temperature. There's this map from 2007 that's built on NOAA data, but I can't cite a user-created map, and I frankly don't understand how to produce useful results from the NOAA Arctic Datasets website, let alone citable ones.

  For something at a pretty general level, USA Today says 40s F. I imagine there's plenty of specific data, but the tricky thing here is that we want a more general take. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• That source is brand-placed advertorial content (Google "Leaf Group"), and it gives no indication as to where that estimate came from. I wouldn't call that a RS, let alone a high-quality FAC-qualifying source.

  Ack, I probably should've looked for more than two seconds and/or searched when I'm more awake haha. Second try: https://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/information/nunavut-faqs. Nunavut doesn't exactly overlap with Inuit territory, but is it close enough? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Er, Nunavut is most definitely Inuit territory. The name means "our land" in Inuktitut :) In any case, good find, it led me to the Canadian Climate Stations that the FAQ cites. I've used those instead, citing the lowest and the highest average summer temp given by the stations that meet World Meteorological Organization standards.

  Aaannnd I managed to find a way to stick my foot in my mouth again before we're done haha. Anyways, looks good! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• The major principles section contains some repetition of facts elsewhere in the article: garments were individually tailored, work was divided by gender, etc. It's not ideal, but I'm not sure there's really anything to be done about it, as the information is relevant in both places. How Wikipedia articles deal with the fact that some readers jump to different sections rather than reading straight through (relevant also to my comments about Kobayashi Issenman and MOS:REPEATLINK) is something that should probably be considered in a broader forum at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• In the decorative techniques section, as above, when there are differences between the genders, this article currently discusses the male variant first. This might be worth switching up, and the decorative techniques section might be a good place to do it, as it sounds like women's clothing has more ornamentation than men's. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've switched up the order.

• The article uses the word "even" a fair amount. In some places, it connotes an element of surprise, which threatens a bit the detached scholarly tone we want to take. I don't object to leaving it in where you want to, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Verbal tic, I've trimmed a bunch of them.

• The sentence where Riewe is introduced looks to me like another instance where we needlessly include in-text attribution and a quote for a basic factual list. Looking at MOS:QUOTE, I'm not sure using quotes this way is strictly against guidance, but it wouldn't be my preference: readers who want attribution can always find it in references, and when the information is not controversial, the important thing is the information itself, not who said it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Imo this is an interesting enough fact and a specific enough list that I'm not comfortable rewording it, and I'd prefer to keep the quote.

  Fair enough. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Clean clothing showing respect for animals during hunting is another repeated fact, but again I'm not sure we can do anything about that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable here in the religious context.

  Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I interpret WP:RNPOV to mean that we shouldn't write Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt pleased the animal's spirit directly. Instead, we could say Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt was said to please the animal's spirit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• When the bear's spirit departed, it took the spirits of the tools with it and used them in the afterlife. Again, this is a religious belief which needs to be attributed to the religion rather than stated directly as fact. I'm guessing this issue will come up a few more times in this section; I won't list out all of them, but the point and suggested remedy is the same. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• For the above two, I've found this is a pretty common type of phrasing in academic sources dealing with religious beliefs, and I don't think it goes against NPOV to use it here. It would be repetitive to continually be repeating "the Inuit believed," "it was said," etc etc in a section where the context is clearly "what the Inuit believed about their clothes". I think we can trust the reader to understand that we are making a factual statement about what Inuit people believed, not a factual statement about reality.

  There is a bit of a tradeoff between wordiness and precise language here, yeah, but especially for sensitive topics like religion, I think we should err on the side of being precise. "Was said to please" isn't hugely longer than "pleased". I imagine that this question has probably come up before for religion articles—are you aware of any such discussions and what the consensus was? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have any awareness of previous discussions on it. I still think it's quite clear from context that that it's a statement of fact about a belief rather than a fact about reality, without having to remind the reader of that in every sentence.

• The position of the amulet on the clothing was in some cases as important as the item itself. It's odd to note how important the position is and then end the section without providing any information about it. If it's so important, shouldn't it be discussed? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Blegh. I don't have the source anymore to double check as it was an interlibrary loan, and it will take several weeks to get back as it was from another province and I don't currently have any free ILL slots. The page in question isn't on GBooks and there are no PDFs of the book anywhere. I don't recall it going into specifics about what individual positions meant, but I don't presently have the means to check.

  Due weight is determined by sources, so if you don't recall the book going into specifics, they're presumably not important enough to require adding. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded & added a Kobayashi Issenman cite. How's that?

• In addition to their everyday clothing, many Inuit had a set of ceremonial clothing This contradicts the earlier statement that most people only had one set of clothing, which was made without caveat. The earlier statement should probably be qualified to say only one set of everyday clothing or something like that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. Sinews is actually more ambiguous here than I thought. Page 40 says "a rich man, a successful hunter, can have two or more sets of clothing for himself and his family," and talks about how "the traditional style of life demands a set of new clothes for each of the two seasons." I may have misinterpreted that to mean that most people only had one set, especially since apparently under "Construction" I talk about family members having two sets. I'll just remove the "one set" statement entirely.

  It's too bad to not have that sentence, as how many sets of clothing people owned is a very relevant piece of information for this article. If you find coverage of it elsewhere in the future, I'd encourage re-adding something. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Er...but I said that I do mention it? "Especially since apparently under "Construction" I talk about family members having two sets"

  Oops, I missed that. I think we're good here, then. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency in the formatting of captions: " – Royal Ontario Museum" has a dash, whereas ", Greenland National Museum" has a comma. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Dash turned into comma

• Overhunting led to a significant depletion of caribou herds in some areas, and strong opposition to seal hunting from the animal rights movement led to a major decline in the export market for seal pelts, and a corresponding drop in hunting as a primary occupation. I was waiting for this sort of material to come up. Maybe it's just my personal interests, but I'd like to hear a little more. Was the overhunting all from non-Inuit or was some of it from Inuit themselves? Did environmental activists oppose seal hunting just for non-Inuit, or did some of the more extreme groups oppose it for everyone, including Inuit peoples? Were any laws passed that made it more difficult to create traditional skin clothing? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is discussed in detail in the history article; it's a bit too much to get into in the main. By and large it was whitey's fault; the Inuit have historically been pretty good about managing their hunting without overexploitation. Environmental activists generally oppose all seal hunting, and since in Canada most seal hunting is done by Inuit, they were consequently the people who got most fucked over when the bans came down. As for laws, there's a hunting quota in Canada, and you can't hunt whitecoats (baby seals) here at all. Again though, in my opinion this is all a bit detail for the main overview article when there's a subtopic.

  Having that info in the subtopic page sounds fine; thanks for the details! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• It's unusual to have the history section so late in an article. It seems to work alright enough here, though; I'm not sure moving it up would've reduced the need for repetition much. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• The research and historiography section seems a bit overlong—this kind of historiography is probably of significant interest to the researchers writing many of this article's sources, but it's of less interest to Wikipedia's readership of the general public. Especially given that there's a spinoff article, could the coverage here be shortened? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I trimmed a bit of detail about the museums, but the rest is already as trimmed as I can get I think.

  It's good enough now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I find the gallery perfectly acceptable per the WP:Gallery policy. I hope the coordinators do not give weight to Buidhe's oppose above—while it perfectly appropriate to have non-policy based preferences, it is not appropriate to use FAC !votes as leverage to force one's personal preferences on others, and it is especially inappropriate to tangle the issue up with unspecified copyright concerns upon which Buidhe has refused to elaborate. I should disclose that I am not a neutral party on this issue, having recently encountered opposition from Buidhe at my own FAC when I declined to remove a gallery. Buidhe is a respected editor who does a lot of valuable work, but this is a concerning pattern. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• One question about the gallery, though—is there a reason it's split in two? On my display, that leads to five images on the first row, one on the next, five on the next, and one on the last. I wish there were better tuning tools available. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Top row is portrait ish images, bottom is landscape ish; dividing it up was a suggestion from Johnbod. On my screen each one covers exactly one row, so I think this may simply be a not-easily-resolvable screen size issue (see also the sfn column thing below).

• Having a see also section with only a single link feels a little stubby. Would it be possible to link Yup'ik clothing somewhere in the body instead so that the section could be cleared? Alternatively, it'd seem appropriate to include in the section clothing articles for every major cold-weather culture. Many of them may not have a dedicated article yet, in which case we could use section links. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, seeing the {{Folk costumes}} navbox at the bottom, maybe it'd be better to just add any missing entries to there rather than trying to duplicate the navbox in a see also section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I cheated and got it into the text under "Accessories". I would have linked it up at the top under "Traditional outfit", but that sentence doesn't specifically call out any one culture (it links to a bunch of broad concept articles) so it didn't feel right. None of the other circumpolar peoples have articles about their clothing except the Yup'ik.

• Having the references be entirely SFNs is quite nice. As they're quite short, you might want to consider having three columns to reduce the length of the section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• The template scales to your window size automatically - at its normal size, mine shows 3 columns. If I make the window hugelarge to match my ludicrously wide curved monitor, I get 5 columns, and if I squash it I can get it down to one.

• And more about that last navbox..."folk costumes" feels like a kinda gross label to me, as "costumes" connotes a shallowness that belies the serious, practical elements of Inuit clothing discussed here. Folk costume appears to be located at that title, and moving it would be beyond the scope of this FAC, but it might be worth discussing whether the navbox could switch to using one of the alternative terms the article identifies. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• None of that is anything I can fix in this FAC though.

  I'm not familiar enough to know, but I've always assumed that FAC reviews can include issues with templates used in an article, as {{Folk costumes}} is here, since readers don't really distinguish between what's a template and what's not. That question might be something to discuss at WT:FAC sometime (if it hasn't already been discussed before), but it's immaterial here, as this isn't something I'd hold up my full support over. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I mean, I think it would be fair to review stuff like issues where the article isn't linked in a navbox that's present in an article, or where a template is malfunctioning or otherwise causing problems, but given that "folk costume" is a) the title of the actual article and b) a legitimate scholarly term and not a label arbitrarily created by Wikipedians, I think trying to change those titles is well beyond the scope of this FAC.

• It might be worthwhile to create some redirects to this article, such as Inuit fashion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Redirected that one to History of Inuit clothing#Contemporary fashion, since it's discussed in depth there.

• There are some repeated links in the article. Some of them aren't of huge concern—I'm not an MOS:REPEATLINK stickler, having encountered as a reader infinity times as many instances where I wish there was a repeated link as times when I wish there wasn't—but for some very common terms like kayaking it doesn't seem necessary. The main thing I ask is that we be intentional about choosing when a link is repeated. This tool will let you see where they are. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have it, I just let some sneak in by mistake. They're clipped now.

• Oh, one other thing I just noticed: you may want to use {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to make the bibliography section reference-sized. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Done

Moving to full support. All my major (and many minor) concerns have been adequately addressed. Article is comprehensive, scholarly, and well-referenced, deserving of featured status. As I mentioned above, I do not see the oppose as actionable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Closing comment

Aside from everything else, I've now gone through all the comments re. the gallery and WP:Gallery itself and it appears to me that this article's gallery is within image policy. The fact that an example in the policy is fashion-related (Wedding dress) is persuasive -- Inuit clothing has a much smaller gallery that creates even less of an overbalancing issue IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 July 2021 [16].

---

Martin Rundkvist

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC); Chiswick Chap (talk)

Martin Rundkvist has excavated a Viking boat grave, a sixteenth-century sword, and, last summer, a mead hall from the time of Beowulf, where he discovered nearly two dozen gold figures. And then there were the times he won six games on Jeopardy!, and spent a week at the helm of Sweden's official Twitter account, @sweden. Cool stuff.

This article, too, has an interesting history. It lasted for less than a month when it was created in 2008; within days of its recreation in 2020 it was brought back to the gents at AfD, where it again failed their discerning gaze. This year, Chiswick Chap and I thoroughly reworked the article, incorporating dozens of new sources and soliciting the input of half a dozen users with experience in this space, including Midnightblueowl, Johnbod, KJP1, The Rambling Man, and Amitchell125, even before MeegsC gave it a thorough good-article review. The benefit of this process is that the article is in pretty much the best shape it could possibly be in; it is therefore featured-article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• Scandinavian élite I don't believe an accent is needed here. Noah^Talk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's not a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep this one. The relevant guideline, for its part, says that "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged". And the OED lists both forms.

• Link the first mention of Stockholm in the prose.

• Done.

• Link to amber since not everyone may know it is fossilized tree resin. Noah^Talk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done.

• Link brooch. Noah^Talk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done.

• four of its 25 castles Numbers shouldn't variate between numerical and word form in the same sentence. Noah^Talk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done, per comparable values guidance.

Well done. I only found some minor issues with the article. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. Noah^Talk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hurricane Noah, I appreciate the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I support this nomination now. Noah^Talk 23:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spicy

(Not an image review). I have concerns over the licensing of the lead image. This was uploaded to Commons with the source listed as 'Directly from photographer' and the author listed as 'Kristina Ekero Eriksson'. The uploader doesn't seem to be the same person as Erikson, so this would require an OTRS release from the copyright holder. Spicy (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved, permission has been received. Spicy (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Spicy, given your previous input, would you have any interest in conducting an image review for the article? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aza24

How fascinating! Looking through now. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Lead

• Hmm, may be picky (and perhaps incorrect) of me, but "He is particularly known for research into the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages of Scandinavia, and for significant excavations in the province of Östergötland" doesn't sound right. These are obviously huge spans of time and seem like a fairly large topic to be "particularly known for". My initial reaction is that people are particularly known for more specific things, such as "He specializes in medieval music and is particularly known for his work on Guillaume de Machaut—am I making any sense here? Maybe rephrase to "his research focuses on/lies in", "he studies" or something...

• Yes, I agree that could be worded better. It now reads: "His research focuses on the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages of Scandinavia, and includes significant excavations in the province of Östergötland." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "research into" seems a bit vague, is there a qualifier for what kind of research we're talking about here? Archaeology seems like a broad subject for such a statement

• Addressed with the above rewording. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a name for this group of people Rundkvist is discovering all these things on?—or are they merely the inhabitants of said areas?

• The inhabitants; groups were often small in those times, and there were many different ones over the centuries of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• It feels a little odd to exclude almost all the universities he has been associated with in the lead

• Added a new sentence to the third paragraph of the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Early life and education

• I presume nothing is recorded on his parents or secondary schooling?

• Not that I recall seeing, and certainly, not in a secondary source. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Found the names of his parents in the acknowledgements section of his dissertation, and added to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• "has lived entirely in Stockholm", just to check, though a researcher at Exeter and Chester for ~10 years, he still lived in Stockholm?

• Yep. See the paragraph beginning with "My main task" at the good-article review. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Career

• "In January 2020"—would be nice to avoid the two sentences in a row that begin with "In"

• Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Bronze buckle is a nice picture, but confusing and out of place as there's no explanation for why it's there, what it is, or indeed anything about Barshalder until a later section. You may want to add to the caption, text or perhaps move it downwards

• Good point. Mentioned that it was one of Rundkvist's excavations in the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Any date for the pic of Rundkvist?

• 2007, added. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Planning to look at Research and the rest of the article tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Research

• Completely up to you, but it's been a while since Williams was mentioned, so I almost wonder if his full name should be used here again for his first mention (though me forgetting who he was could have easily been the result of returning to this article they next day). By no means necessary though

• I think using just the last name suggests that he was mentioned previously—and that someone trying to figure out who he is should look above—whereas a full name might suggest that he was not mentioned. So if anything, a second link is probably the way to go rather than a full name. I'm happy either way. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fair point, should be fine how it is then

• "Reported as far away as India" seems a bit odd, I mean, India has a huge media system and probably reports on a ton of archeological subjects. And either way, it might be more meaningful to say something like "widely reported in the media"

• Reworded with your phrasing. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe a wikitionary link for oblong? I had to look it up and I suspect others would have to as well

• Linked to rectangle, which discusses "oblong" (with a link to wiktionary) in the first paragraph. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Would a link to "Late antiquity" for the Late Roman Period make sense? Might be a stretch but am not sure

• I think that's probably a bit too broad, but Chiswick Chap, what do you think (or any other ideas for links)? We could perhaps link it as "Late Roman Period". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's marginal; either of those two would do at a stretch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Aska mead hall

• I feel a bit awkward to say I didn't know what "pendant" meant—so it could warrant linking—but this may just be me. As an aside, this seems like a broad category—is there a more specific characterization that could be used?

• Linked. I took a look, but couldn't find a more specific article. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the "stamped" either in this context. Does it literally have a stamp of somekind?

• Linked to Stamping (metalworking). Not a great article, but should get the point across. --Usernameunique (talk)

Other

• Well the "Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities" is dup linked, but the distance between is far enough that it could be warranted

• I don't think the duplicate linking was intentional, although I'm slightly inclined to keep the second, since arguably the link is more important there. But I could also be convinced to take it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Seems to be retrieval dates missing from ref 6 and 7 of the Primary section

• These are archived URLs where the originals are dead. The "archived on" dates are thus the relevant ones: whatever day the archived URLs are accessed, they will still appear as the sources appeared on 11 February 2015 and 3 September 2014, respectively. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed. My rationale was merely that other archived refs have retrieval dates, so I assumed this was an oversight

• Most of the URL-sourced references have archived URLs as backups; only primary refs 6 & 7, and secondary refs 5 & 10, have dead URLs, and rely on the archived URLs in the first instance. Those four are the ones that don't have retrieval dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• That seems to be it. First class work; looking forward to supporting. Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the review, Aza24. I think we've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I left one response about retrieval dates, but I'm fine with it either way. Happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Responded above. Thanks for the support, Aza24.

Placeholder Support from KJP1

Apologies, life is intruding, but shall certainly be back with comments, although probably not before the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I made some minor suggestions on this at the informal PR. It was a very good article then, and has been improved since. It is well-written, exhaustively researched and impeccably cited, nicely illustrated, and guides the lay reader through some, quite technical, concepts. I’ve re-read it for FAC, think it fully meets the criteria, and am pleased to Support it. KJP1 (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, KJP1! Appreciate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Edwininlondon

I am no expert in the field, and also apologies beforehand for any odd comments regarding prose, as I'm not a native speaker. My comments:

• wikilink Ph.D. to Doctor of Philosophy

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• terms "the most-read archaeology blog on the Internet" --> given that this is now 14 years ago, should this not be past tense?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Rundkvist has lived entirely in Stockholm --> this reads odd to my foreign eyes. I expected "his entire life"

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• received his Ph.D. from the same institution --> in which field?

• Archaeology? This source suggests it is classified as "Social sciences and culture", "Historical sciences and archeology", and "Archeology". But absent a definitive source, it doesn't make sense to guess. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• its connection to archaeology --> wikilink archaeology

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• these were primarily research-related, but included contract work --> I don't get the "but": I have known people doing research as a contractor

• I agree they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it appears that for Rundkvist, contract work did not generally include research; he uses "but" himself ("I have made a living in archaeology since my graduation in 1992, now and then in contract work but mainly doing research into the Iron Age of Sweden's southern quarter."). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• He likewise served --> like what? I don't understand what is being compared

• Changed to "He also served". --Usernameunique (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Rundkvist's research deals with the Bronze through Middle Ages in Scandinavia. --> a bit further on we have "Barshalder 3 detailed the Stone Age finds from the site", so I'm not sure this opening sentence is accurate

• Changed to "focuses on". As far as I can tell he doesn't do much Stone Age-related research; Barshalder 3 appears to have been more for the sake of completion than anything else, and Rundkvist admits in the introduction that the Stone Age is not his bailiwick ("In working with the Iron Age graves for my doctorate and preparing a basic report of the excavations, I ... had to bring order also to the Stone Age finds. I found this to be an excellent opportunity to learn something about Neolithic matters."). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• analyzed --> is there a reason this is in American English? Given Rundkvist's connection with Exeter and Chester, BrE seems more appropriate

• Yeah, it was a bit of an unintentional medley—analyzed, but then artefact. I've tried to make it consistently British English, though may have missed a few—Chiswick Chap, any others that you see? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• It seems fine now. Actually as a Brit I use -ize forms also, which Wiki-places me as 'Oxford English' ... though IRL others such as Scots use it too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• where mead halls may have stood --> there is an earlier instance of mead halls that should be linked; and a bit further on there is a superfluous link: a mead hall measuring 47.5 metres

• Removed the duplicate link. The reason for not linking the first mention is to avoid having two links directly next to each other ("Beowulfian mead halls"). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about some of the quotes. Why is "the ostentatious manorial buildings where the Late Iron Age elite lived their lives and played their roles" a quote? Since there is a quote from an interview in the same paragraph, I think it would be better to reduce the number of quotes here and paraphrase.

• I just liked the line, but changed to "the large buildings that housed the Late Iron Age élite". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• the Society's executive board --> I don't think that capital is right, and come to think of it, should it not be "the association's executive board?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That's all I could see. I'll have a look at the sources later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the review, Edwininlondon. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, a bit more as promised (sorry for the delay). Looking the sources now.

Source reliability:

• What makes the Aardvarchaeology blog a reliable source to be used here?

• Aardvarchaeology is Rundkvist's own blog, and is cited sparingly. [R 9] (first cite), [R 42], and [R 43] are "self-published sources on the article's subject", and are used for his various positions and the precise dates thereof, which are uncontroversial. [R 9] (second cite) and [R 12] merely offer Rundkvist's quoted perspectives, but state nothing as fact (besides the fact of his words). Finally, [R 36] and [R 37], which add several details about Rundkvist's excavations at Aska, are "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"—a standard which, appropriately enough, takes the shortcut WP:BLOGS. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Spot check:

• R 1: ok
• R 2: ok, except source has 2014 not 2015 as start year Talinn Uni

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• R 3: ok, except for source does not seem to cover "as a project leader, field archaeologist, and artefact specialist for Värmdö Municipality from 2007 to 2008"

• Added a second citation which covers it. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• R 4: ok
• R 5: ok
• 34: the link does not take me to the review

• Removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• 35: ok
• 37: ok
• 38: ok
• 39: Neither the original nor the archive link leads me to this book review. Google Scholar doesn't seem to have it, so not sure. What page is the book review on? The link shows the index

• It's on the bottom half of the last page (19) of the link. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• R 23: ok
• R 30: I couldn't find anything that validates "near the town of Vadstena"

• That's taken from the article on Aska (and confirmed via Google Maps). It's an uncontroversial point that I added for clarity, but I can remove it (or look for a better source) if you prefer. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• R 32: ok
• 50: ok

Formatting:

• I must admit I'm not so sure about the use of — — —. Just makes it a little too academic for me. Are there other FAs that use this format? I'm open to be convinced about it, but have not come this style across before.

• It seems a convenient notation, avoiding the need to repeat the subject's name many times down the list of sources. It's not obvious what else could take its place, as the symbol must look suitably blank so as to be unambiguous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• ——— (2020) needs a language tag and translation

• Added, though it's just the Swedish translation of the work directly above it. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• (1999) Grave matters: misspelled Göteborg

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• (Spring 2010) and (April 2015) --> I would just say (2010) and (2015), but maybe this is a matter of taste. But if months are given for journal articles, it should be for all journal articles. A few in the Other section do not have a month and ref #35 #40 also do not have months.

• The convention here is to use the date listed on the cover or title page of the journal. Some journals—particularly those published once a year—have only the year, while others have a month or (particularly for quarterly journals) a season. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• The last 2 works, ——— & Koskinen, Julia Schulte, are these self-published?

• They're excavation reports, so essentially yes. There was some discussion of this at the DYK nomination. Basically, their use is acceptable when "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", as is the case here. But in any event, the language in the article was tweaked slightly (e.g., "Their survey reported") to reflect that these are not peer-reviewed works. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• #13: Thunmark-Nylén 1995, Abb. 53:2 What does Abb. mean? Is this German?

• It's short for "abbildung", and means "illustration". (Note the title of the book: "Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (I): Abbildungen der grabfunde", which translates as "Gotland's Viking Age: Illustrations of the grave finds".) It's the equivalent of "pl." for "plate". It's obvious when the work is in hand, because each illustration is labelled "abb." followed by the number. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• #44: needs a language tag and translation

• Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's all I could find. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, Edwininlondon. We've responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your explanations and changes, on prose and sources. I Support the nomination. A nice piece of work, well done. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Edwininlondon! Appreciate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

3D artistic items - which includes items such as coins - need two licences. One for the photograph and one for the original work. In the cases in this article where the latter is missing the objects portrayed are obviously out of copy right, but this still needs to be stated. See File:Stele des Polybios.jpg or File:CILI(2)p47fgtXXFastitriumphales.jpg for examples of how this might be handled. Images which seem to lack full licencing include the buckle, the chess piece and the foil figures. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild. Added the licenses. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I imagine Edwin's comments above are equivalent to a source review, but if necessary I will do one. Substantive comments (I have only a short time tonight and more will come tomorrow):

• If he has lived in Stockholm almost all his life, then how does he fulfill the academic positions at non-Swedish schools?

• Thanks, Wehwalt. His position at Łódź is primarily research-based. See the comment beginning "My main task" at the good-article review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Only two minor things:

• Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities is linked twice.

• Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Should "Fornvännen" be italicised as the name of a publication? (in the last sentence).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's usual for the names of journals, regardless of language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping me if I'm needed to do a formal source review, though I imagine what Edwin did is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: No rush, of course, but just a heads up that all comments have been resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2021 [17].

---

Zombie Nightmare

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a voodoo priestess resurrecting a baseball player to get revenge on the people who ran him over. Set in Canada. Starring Adam West.

This Canadian jaunt is yet another article about a film that ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and personally surprised me with how much information I was able to find about this. But I am prepared for the criticism this nomination might bring. But I do think this has what it takes to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. GamerPro64 21:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from JM

This looks fun!

• "and was originally intended to be a black-centric film before changing the characters to have whiter names to appease investors" How about "The film was originally written to start mostly black actors [if that's what is being claimed] but, at the request of investors, the characters' names were changed to more typically white names, and white actors were hired." Or something. I find the current wording a bit off.
  • Fair assessment. I'll use that instead. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• "mother Louise mourns for him" Do you mourn for someone, or just mourn them?
  • I changed it to "mourns over him". GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is Blood Sisters worth a link? Don't be scared of redlinks! (Ditto the bands mentioned in the soundtrack section.)
  • Not really on the movie. But the bands I can wiki-link.
• "for eating all the craft services" What does this mean?
  • It means he ate all the food meant for the cast and crew. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm getting a few hits on Google Books/Google Scholar, but nothing (I don't think) that absolutely has to go in. And nothing of any interest showing up on Netflix. Maybe there'd be more sources buried deep in forgotten magazines, but I don't know how much there is written about this one!
  • J Milburn replied to your comments. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Andrzejbanas

• "Zombie Nightmare was a commercial success despite negative reviews". Probably shouldn't say "despite" here, as that implies that the financial success of the film defies any negative critical reaction. I may note too that despite comparisons between budget and gross, we don't have any statment that says it was a financial success as budget may be the cost of the film, it does not take into consideration how much other factors of it may have caused. So you might just want to state something a bit more specific and less interpretive like "The film grossed a total of ____ againa a ____ budget" and let users piece what that means themselves.
  • Changed.
• Similar to the above, where its stated "Wrestler Superstar Billy Graham was originally cast to play Tony's father. However, on the day he arrived in Montreal, no one came to pick him up at the airport and Graham left after waiting ten hours. Fasano took up the role." You can probably drop the "However" as its a bit jarring to read a statement, assume its true then read a "however" which sort of puts into the readers mind what's happening was not true at all.
  • Removed the "However". GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• The music section in the article is so small that I would not give it its own headline.
  • Ok removed section. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• The Deep Red Magazine link goes to FantaCo Enterprises, but there is no information on the magazine here, so i would remove the link.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'd try to split the contemporary reviews between the retrospective ones (i.e: the initial release give or take a year over the retrospective ones). Otherwise its not clear how the film was received on its release compared to later reception.
  • Moved things around. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• The Kerrang" article doesn't state "Best" it just says "13 Kickass Horror Soundtracks To Amplify Your Halloween". Kerrang! is an ok source for things but this is a cheap listicle that doesn't really provide much critical commentary and just sort of arbitrarily lists halloween playlists for people. It might be better to get the more critical meat of the article like how it says the soundtrack is better than the film itself.
  • Reworked. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• The DVDTalk article does not state that the DVD was released in 2010, that's just when the review is posted.
  • Added source from AllMovie. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• A brief description of what the Turkey Day marathon would be helpful otherwise i don't know what the film screening on that session has in any context.
  • Just mentioned that its an MST3K marathon. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• The Bloody Digusting film should specify the genre your mentioning (i.e: it's talking about rock-music themed horror films, not just zombie films as the identified genre in the lead.
  • Specified. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Andrzejbanas replied to your comments. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Hi Andrzejbanas, do you feel able to support or oppose this nomination? Or do you have further comments to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey hey, sorry for the slow response.

• The lead should cover some information about the production. I know there isn't much, but even the basics on how it was filmed in Canada, some casting, etc. Whatever you feel is important as the lead should cover the major parts of the article, and one of the major parts is the production.
  • Added some more information in lead. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• You can remove the red links to bands that probably will not be getting any wiki articles any time soon.
  • Kind of goes opposite of what J Milburn said. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• This will probably sound picky, but my own pet peeve is assuming an all encompassing reception to a film from the few we've gathered. There is no ratio that collects whether it was recieved poorly or not (i.e: no metacritic / rotten tomatoes or historian covering these bits and pieces). So I don't really like say things like "The film received negative reviews from contemporary and retrospective yadda yadda yadda". I'd remove it unless you have a source with suggests the general reception. (For the record, I don't doubt it recieved bad reviews, but we should have something that backs up that statement other than our own original research).
  • Removed the sentence. GamerPro64 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• The part of the Voodoo in Film book probably should focus on the criticism of the film rather than how it uses voodoo in context as that seems to be a pretty minor element that's not really expanded on here.
  • Added more to it. GamerPro64 19:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Other than that, I don't have much more to add. once these things are addressed i can look it over one more time. Otherwise, i'd say it's good. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, I give my support for FA. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy

• What variant of English is being used? I'd assume Canadian, but I see a "centers" - I'm not an expert on Canadian English, but I think they use the same "-re" spelling as British English
  • Changed. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• "the production crew, believing him" - the gerund doesn't sound quite right to me; "the production crew, who believed him" matches the tense of the rest of the sentence
  • Changed. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• "that set an up old, tired plot" - the "up" is out of order
  • Changed the right order. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not an expert on film articles by any stretch of the imagination, but do we not need citations for members of the cast not mentioned elsewhere in the article?
  • I think it varies. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I suppose the point could be made that it's functionally the same as the plot summary - the credits in the movie itself cover it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• The film grossed C$1.5M by 1990 - any idea on sales of the DVD? I'm guessing not, but figured I'd ask.
  • I did not find any results on sales on DVDs. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Parsecboy: replied. GamerPro64 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I have actually not seen this film or the MST3K episode about it so hopefully, I will be able to offer a different perspective. My comments are below:

• I do not think "Canadian" needs to be linked in the lead. I see where you were going with the Cinema of Canada link, but I think it is unnecessary as I do not believe any other film FA links nationality in this way.
  • Changed. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• In the lead, I would link "Haitian voodoo" to the Haitian Vodou article. I would also link "priestess" to be consistent with the link in the plot summary.
  • Made changes. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have two comments for this part, The film was shot in the suburbs of Montreal, Canada, the film was originally written to start mostly black actors but. I believe the comma after Canada is supposed to be a period as these seem like two separate sentences. I would also avoid having two separate sentences begin with "The film".
  • Made changes. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• For this part in the plot summary, Now a voodoo priestess, I would clarify that it is Haitian Voodoo as without that, it looks like it could be referring to other voodoo topics.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would be consistent with using either a character's first or last name in the plot summary after their first mention. For instance, you use Tony and Churchman. Since a good portion of these characters do not have last names, I would go by first names.
  • Ok. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• In the "Cast" list, is there a reason Captain is not fully spelled out? Was it done that way in the film credits?
  • He was just credited as Churchman. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The current wording should be fine then. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• For the Adam West image, I would revise the caption to include the year that it was taken.
  • added date. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• For this part, Wanting to direct a horror film, Jack Bravman, I think it may be worthwhile to add a link for horror film.
  • Wiki-linked. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• For the first sentence of the "Production" section, I would avoid repeating "horror film" twice.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Do we know what budget the original script received from investors (or did they just flat-out refuse to do the film with black characters and actors)?
  • They flat out refused by the looks of it. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • That was the impression that I got while reading the article, but I just wanted to double-check with you. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have a question about this part, Adam West, who portrayed Batman in the 1960s television series. How is West's work as Batman relevant to this article or to the film? I understand that West is best known for his performance as Batman, but it seems rather tangential to me.
  • Removed that part. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• The "Critical reception" sub-section seems rather short, but I am assuming this means that this film just did not receive a lot of reviews. That would not be surprisingly given the low budget, its direct-to-video status, and its general obscurity, but I just wanted to confirm this with you.
  • I tried by best and this was the most I could find. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • You did a good job with this part. I just wanted to double-check with you about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Were there any reviews of the MST3K episode about this film?
  • Not really. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • That's what I had assumed from reading the article, but I just wanted to double-check about it. Apologies for these clarification questions. I do not really see this MST3K episode discussed as much as other ones so this is not particularly surprising to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Have you checked out the following source, Historicising Racialised Objects of Horror: From the Black Renaissance Villain to the Voodoo Doer? It is behind a paywall so I cannot say for sure if it has anything, but it may be useful.
  • This is what the piece had to say about the movie: "Ratgirl thus sees a missed opportunity in both these films for the conventional early 20th century script and the type to be rewritten and hence the subgenre of voodoo horror and the black stereotype to be changed from within in the 1980s. Could this have happened in the 1980s? Are there examples of this type of reworking of the subgenre and the type? In fact, there are. In Jack Bravman’s 1986 film Zombie Nightmare there is a voodoo priest who resurrects the character Jon Mikl Lohr (Tony Washington) who has been run over by white teenagers. Jon is given a new lease on life as a zombie and the power to hunt and kill those who have killed him. It is still a horror movie and the ethics are debatable but the point here is that the voodoo priest is not the villain of the piece but instead provides a means of retribution for the victim."

• • "Yet, a critical examination quickly reveals that Manuska Rigaud (Molly Mokembe) is not a priest but a priestess. It is the female voodoo doer who has been changed in Zombie Nightmare rather than the male type." GamerPro64 00:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• This is another potential useful source, The Migrant Monsters of Multiculturalism in Andrew Currie’s Fido. It is behind a paywall, but it has more information about the original script. It talks about how the film was originally "a retribution narrative in which a black teenager returns from the dead to exact revenge on the privileged white hoodlums responsible for his death". It uses the 2004 Vatnsdal citation that is already used in the article so maybe that information is also in there? I think this information is relevant as it adds more background on the original intention for the film.
  • Let me try to get access to these two as I never seen these sources before. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Let me know how it goes. I am uncertain about the first one, but from my very (and I mean very) limited preview, it seemed somewhat promising. I think the second one would be helpful as it provides a little more context on the original vision of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• This is what this source says about the movie: "In addition, Zombie Nightmare (1986) was originally written as a retribution narrative in which a black teenager returns from the dead to exact revenge on the privileged white hoodlums responsible for his death (Vatnsdal, 2004)." GamerPro64 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would encourage you to archive your web citations (like citation 17) to avoid any future issues.
  • Added archives. GamerPro64 19:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would clarify in the ProQuest citations that a subscription is needed to access the information.
• Citation 17 has Allmovie when it should be AllMovie.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Citation 28 has Popmatters when it should be PopMatters.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Citation 4 has Newspapes.com when it should be Newspapers.com.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Why is Den of Geek not linked in Citation 26? I have the same question for Montreal Gazette in Citation 16 and Newspapers.com in Citations 5 and 24.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Why do you not include a link for the Newspapers.com citations? I would think it would benefit the reader more to include a link (or ideally a clipping) so they can verify the information for themselves or read the original source.

Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article again just to make sure I can do a thorough review. I hope you have a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses so far. I will look through the article again sometime this weekend. Let me know how things go with the two sources I recommended above. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Posted the pieces with their Zombie Nightmare quotes up top. I honestly dont think they would add much to the article. GamerPro64 00:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quotes. The first source is interesting, but not necessary for the article. I'd still add information from the second source. The "retribution narrative" aspect provides more context for the original script because it shows the initial concept had a more direct message on race and this informs the original casting choices. I think without this, readers might think Fasano just wanted to cast black actors and that it did not have a significant connection with the story. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Added that part into the production section. GamerPro64 01:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my review. Everything looks good now so I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Shooterwalker

Looking mostly at the prose. It's in pretty good shape and only needs a few tweaks.

• The opening sentence is a little long and might be worth splitting, but I would defer to other editors if no one else has raised any issues.
• "directed a majority" -> "directed the majority"
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "and the production crew, believed him" -> "and the production crew, who believed him"
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Drop the "during a Thanksgiving marathon hosted by West" for succinctness. (Or perhaps there's a way to work it in better: "Adam West hosted an episode of Mystery Science Theatre ...")
  • Removed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Years later, after disrupting an attempted robbery at a grocery store, William's son Tony, now a baseball player, is struck and killed by a car full of teenagers: Bob, Amy, Jim, Peter, and Susie." -> "Years later, William's son Tony grows up to also become a baseball player. After Tony disrupts an attempted robbery at a grocery store, he is struck and killed by a car full of teenagers: Bob, Amy, Jim, Peter, and Susie." (burying the subject "Tony" makes this sentence hard to understand)
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Sending Sorrell home to rest, Churchman contacts Jim's father Fred and informs him of Molly's involvement in Jim's death, then tells him to come to the police station. Fred tries to do so but encounters Tony outside his house and is killed." -> "After sending Sorrell home to rest, Churchman calls Jim's father Fred and informs him of Molly's involvement in Jim's death. Fred tries to meet Churchman at the police station, but is killed by Tony on his way."
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Knowing that they will be targeted next," --> "Believing that they will be targeted next,"
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "After destroying the zombie he shoots and kills Molly while she casts a spell. Before he is able to shoot Sorrell for being a witness, a second zombie rises out of a nearby grave and drags Churchman into the ground while Churchman pleads for Sorrell to kill him." -> "Molly tries to cast a spell, but is shot and killed by Churchman, who then turns to kill Sorrell as the only surviving witness. However, a second zombie rises out of a nearby grave and drags Churchman into the ground while Churchman pleads for Sorrell to kill him."
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Wanting to direct a horror film, Jack Bravman, who had worked in the adult entertainment industry, contacted John Fasano after hearing about his work on Blood Sisters." -> "Director Jack Bravman wanted to transition from adult films to horror, and contacted John Fasano after hearing about his work on Blood Sisters."
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "wrote up the white sounding names" --> "typed the white-sounding names onto a page"
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "which caused filming to move to" --> "so the filming moved to"
  • Made changes. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "; a childhood friend of Fasano, Frank Dietz, played fellow cop Frank Sorrell" -> "Fellow cop Frank Sorrell was played by Frank Dietz, a childhood friend of Fasano."
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Worldwide, the film grossed C$1.5 million" -> "the film grossed C$1.5 million worldwide" or "the film grossed C$1.5 million across all [markets/territories]"
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Fangoria was positive on" -> "Fangoria had praise for"
  • Changed. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "While recommending the movie for the soundtrack," -> "However," (you already mention praise for the soundtrack)
  • Retooled. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• "the film was horrible but was so "deliciously goofy"" -- drop the second "was"
  • Done. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• There might be some undue weight on the Mystery Science Theatre section. It could probably be trimmed down to one paragraph. At a minimum, I'd cut the list of titles in the box set, which seem to be basically unrelated.
  • Retooled section. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is close overall, without taking a closer look at the sources or citations. Let's see where we stand after the suggested revisions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Shooterwalker: I replied to your comments. GamerPro64 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• It reads well now and I can support this based on the prose. If you have time, I could also use an FA review. Good job and happy editing! Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• "It was originally written to start mostly black actors but, at the request of investors, the characters' names were changed to more typically white names, and white actors were hired" - this is only partly supported by the text, is there a source that provides this detail?
  • I removed the last bit due to how its not accurate due to Tia Carrere being Asian. GamerPro64 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Fixed it to alphabetical order. GamerPro64 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• What makes DVD Verdict a high-quality reliable source? Mandatory? Midnight Marquee Press?
  • I assume DVD Verdict is like DVD Talk for being a reliable source, since I have used the latter in other articles. Mandatory is part of the Mandatory company. And Midnight Marquee Press seems to have books that have been used as sources for other articles too. GamerPro64 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Being used in other articles doesn't automatically make a source high-quality; see here for some guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Well I cant really find anything that could support that its a high-quality reliable source. The book itself is just used for the critical reception section. GamerPro64 02:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi GamerPro64, I was about to ping Nikkimaria to see if all of her concerns had been addressed, but it is unlikely that she is going to sign off on a source review when the nominator admits that a source doesn't meet one of the FAC criterion - "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Can I suggest that you resolve the DVD Verdict issue and ping her yourself? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I removed the DVD Verdict source and replaced it with Fangoria for another piece of information. GamerPro64 20:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• FN3 should use p not pp. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed that. GamerPro64 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: GamerPro64 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

What about Midnight Marquee? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed that too. GamerPro64 00:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What source now supports runtime? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

AllMovie. GamerPro64 02:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want a response (you do) you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Nikki passed the review a week ago. GamerPro64 20:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2021 [18].

---

Jamiroquai

Nominator(s): 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the English funk and acid jazz band Jamiroquai. They are well known for their music video of "Virtual Insanity" and the song "Canned Heat", the latter which appeared in Napoleon Dynamite. My previous attempts to nominate the article in 2019 failed and understandably so, as it had cluttered writing and excessive detail, but has now improved in comparison. I've worked on this since 2018, which has been challenging but rewarding, as I've learned alot from it. This article is in hopes that it will represent the band's artistry and success above all the tabloids and sensationalism that overshadowed them. Thank you and I hope this passes. Submitting again due to lack of feedback. 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review–pass

• I would use an image in "Stage and visuals" section. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'd rather this [19] be the infobox pic and this [20] as the stage and visuals pic to vary the timelines and his headgear. 웃OO 13:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Any shot that emphasizes the headgear may no longer be de minimis (see here) and you have to worry about copyright issues. (t · c) buidhe 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the headgear doesn't have to be necessary, I still would like for the infobox to give a clear shot of the frontman at least. 웃OO 13:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-15 (27352016619).jpg or File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-21 (25262574408).jpg as the infobox image? (t · c) buidhe 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I actually decided to change your first choice to this 2018 photo [21], which served as the infobox pic before. You can revert if you're not satisfied. 웃OO 00:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi buidhe, is this ok by you? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

Resolved comments from Hurricane Noah

Hello, I have a few comments for you below to improve your article. I am not an expert on music articles, but I will give it a whirl. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC) funk/jazz movement Could you replace the slash with a word per MOS:SLASH? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC) The band has sold more than 26 million albums worldwide as of 2017 Anything more up-to-date? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC) The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success, and was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards, and the song earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998. Run-on sentence. I suggest changing to: "The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success. The song was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards and earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998." NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC) As a prominent component within the London-based funk/acid-jazz Same thing here on the legacy section with the slash. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC) They sold 4.4 million albums in the UK and had US sales of 2.5 million copies sold as of 2010 This seems really out of date since it was 11 years ago. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC) FN66: Just judging from the title, it appears to be in German, but the ref doesn't state this. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)' Copyedited the article per these requests. There aren't any updates regarding the sales in 2017 nor the individual sales in 2010. 웃OO 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I support this nomination. NoahTalk 00:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from K. Peake

Resolved comments from K.Peake

Sorry about taking so long to comment, I kept on forgetting and was busy quite a bit with my job at Maccy's. For publications like CNN and MTV that are not italicised, you should cite them using the publisher parameter instead. Consequence of Sound has now changed its title to Consequence so update accordingly, plus cite Paper magazine as Paper and pipe to Paper (magazine). You have written New Musical Express instead of NME at one point in the references; only use the latter for consistency. AllMusic should also be stylised in the correct format throughout, while every The Telegraph reference needs url-access=subscription due to the website having these rules consistently. Pipe Interview Magazine to Interview (magazine), plus are you sure Dezeen is a reliable source for a FA? Regarding the body, I believe that the last para of legacy is too short and should be merged with the above one. Furthermore, you should at least give an overview in the awards and nominations section, also not all forms of media should be aligned to the right since this looks tedious for a FA. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC) I'm just so happy you commented! 😊 The ref format issues should all be addressed, but I couldn't find what you mentioned with AllMusic. Dezeen seems to have alot of high regard, [22] they were mentioned by The Independent, The Times and Time magazine. I merged the artists influenced by the band and I created a summary of the more relevant awards in the UK and US. 웃OO 19:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC) This looks better now, but ref 29 – you have stylized as Allmusic, plus it should be wikilinked there and nowhere else since that's the first instance. Also, you missed citing CNN as publisher for ref 84 and MTV News for ref 9, as well as not getting Consequence for refs 34 and 48. --K. Peake 06:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Should be all fixed now. 웃OO 06:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Yes you have gone through everything, though there was a formatting issue with the first Consequence ref that I fixed and I will now support! --K. Peake 07:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy

• Quite a few dupe links in the article that need to be removed - if you don't happen to have a tool installed, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is the one I use
• Some refs are out of order (for example: [28][59][64][61])
• "Jay Kay was sending songs to record companies" - when? You mention a single released in 1986, but the header says 1992 - there's a bit of vagueness here
• Lots of things like "Other writers said", "some critics accusing ", etc. strike me as fairly WP:WEASELy - it would be best to be specific
• "They sold 4.4 million albums in the UK and had US sales of 2.5 million copies sold as of 2010." - what's the purpose of including this? We've already said what their sales by 2017 were

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I addressed most of these comments. As for the formation section, maybe the solution is to instead rename the subheader as "Formation in 1992". And the following comment, when it comes to reviews of entertainment, they tend to be best written this way to condense what critics often point out, per WP:Reception. Just as long as the information has sources. Thank you for commenting! I'll be sure to check out your candidate. 웃OO 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough on the reviews thing - I'm not familiar with how these articles are written ;) As for the formation section, I wonder if it's worth adding a "In the early 1990s, Jay Kay was..." Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe "by the early 1990s" when thinking about that 1986 single. 웃OO 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47

For this part in the lead, in the London-based funk and jazz movement, do you mean jazz in general or specifically acid jazz? If it is the first option, I would link jazz, but if it is the second option, I would clarify that. The lead has Acid Jazz records, when I believe it should be Acid Jazz Records. The Records part is capitalized already in the body of the article. Apologies in advance if this is obvious, but for this part, When he had it studio-recorded, is it necessary to specify that it was "studio-recorded" as opposed to just "recorded"? It may be helpful to wikilink demo tape. It might be obvious to most people, but I could still see some people not being entirely certain on what it means. For this part, but would share his royalties with his band members in accordance to their contributions, could you clarify what you mean by "contributions" as it is rather nebulous? Is it referring to like song-writing and/or production contributions or like performance contributions? I would link world music just to help readers who may not be familiar with the term. I have a question about this part, Zender left Jamiroquai due to conflicts with Kay. Do we have any more information about these conflicts? I would link Congress Theater in the image caption since it does have an article. I have a question about Gig in the Sky. It is not a suggestion or anything really necessary for the FAC. It is more of a question I had while reading this part. I thought it a little odd that a group who had songs about environmental issues would do a concert on a private plane as those are terrible for the environment. Was there any coverage on this contradiction? I would link funk rock. For the quote box in the "Lyrics" subsection, shouldn't "Virtual Insanity" be in single quotation marks since it is a song title within a quote? I think it may be beneficial to link "Native American rights" to the Native American civil rights article. It may also be useful to link "youth protests", but I am honestly not sure what it is referring to (which is why I think a link would be useful). First Nations is linked twice in the article. Great work with the article. I have honestly never heard of this band, but I enjoyed reading the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, which is only very tangentially related to this as it is a sitcom involving a radio station. Either way, I will support the article for promotion once all my comments are addressed. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I addressed most of these comments. I clarified the contribution thing to indicate that they work as musicians. For Gig in the Sky, I don't recall seeing any coverage about the contradiction. Though similar comments are already covered with sports cars in the lyrics section. For Zender leaving, information regarding the conflicts is all unclear. The Independent article says he wanted to quote "do his own thing" but where did the statement come from? Only the Rocky Mountain News article where Toby Smith is interviewed states there is an unspecified conflict but I'm unable to access the interview to re-read it. 웃OO 21:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the responses. Your response about Gig in the Sky makes sense to me and I for some reason completely missed the sports car part so I am glad that I was not the only one who was thinking about this. The Zender coverage should be fine in the article. If the information is not known, then this is the best option of addressing it. I support the article for promotion. Again, I really enjoyed reading through this one. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

Resolved comments from Z1720

Please consider me a non-expert. "The band's output blends their anything-goes approach" Anything-goes sounds a little like MOS:IDIOM and I am not sure what is meant by this. Can this be clarified in the lede? Anything-goes takes from a quotation in Musical style and influences. They basically do whatever they want. I'm not sure what other words to use in this context. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Since "anything goes" is a commentator's descriptor, and not a musical term, I don't think it can be used here. What about, "The band's music blends aggressive dance rhythms and 1970s influenced sounds with sounds and instruments that are not limited by genre." Do you feel that information is verified by the sources? Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC) While not explicitly stated by alot of sources, it's verifiable that they did explore musical styles and genres within the article's body. I changed the sentence to your suggestion. 웃OO 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC) " with three of their albums charting at number one in the UK, including Emergency on Planet Earth (1993), Synkronized (1999), A Funk Odyssey (2001), and additionally their greatest hits compilation." Three albums are mentioned to chart to number one, but four albums are named. Also, this sentence is quite long and I would split it in two. A compilation album is different from a studio album. Thinking about it, that might not be so important. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) "When he had it recorded, Kay fought with his producer" Did this fight happen during the recording process or afterward? After. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Note A talks about rumours of Kay's rejection. Why is this important information for an article about Jamiroquai? An IP kept adding this to the article even though I kept saying it was better off in Kay's article. See here: [23] At that point I gave up trying to debate this person and left that there. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Update: I decided to remove it. 웃OO 03:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC) "so Smith compromised his playing" What does "compromising his playing" mean? He changed his playing style for the band. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Can "compromised his playing" be changed to "changed his play style"? Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC) I already changed it. 웃OO 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC) "who left the band in the following year for paternal reasons." Can this be more specific? Was a child born that he wanted to take care of? He did have a child that time. He left to take care of his family. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) "sound with[…] EDM, soul and trap sounds" I don't think there are supposed to be square brackets around the ellipses, per MOS:ELLIPSIS Will fix. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Why is "Current members" uncited? What verifies that these are the current members? There's a ref in the history body, but I could add it there too. 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Ref 24 does not use the sfn template, but other references do. This is creating a HARV error in the Sources section. For consistency's sake, I recommend that it uses the template. I missed that. Thank you! 웃OO 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Those are my comments! I will re-review when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Some comments above. Sorry it took so long to respond; I forgot about this FAC. If I don't respond in a few days, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC) My concerns have been addressed, and I support. Z1720 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The list of genres in the infobox is different from the list of genres in Artistry. Why?

The infobox guidelines ([24]) say it should have a minimum of four genres. Should more or less be included? 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It says generally two to four, but if this particular case has more then it would make sense to include more. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Source for the list of labels? Not all of these are mentioned in the text

Were the ones removed incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Columbia issued their greatest hits album and the others are for American releases. They could be brought back in, but verifiablly. 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The band's music blends aggressive dance rhythms and 1970s influenced sounds with sounds and instruments that are not limited by genre" - part of this is a critic's opinion, and part I don't see in text.

the part where it says "not limited by genre" used to have something like "the band takes an anything goes approach" which is from another critic's opinion, but a reviewer found it to be poor writing. I suppose this statement does feel a bit convoluted. I could instead write that the band started off by building their acid jazz sound in their beginning years, as it is much more verifiable in the body. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "it listed in the Guinness World Records as the best-selling funk album in history". Is this meant to be it is listed, or it was listed?

It now implies that they currently hold this record. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Kay's manager scouted keyboardist Toby Smith, but was rejected because he played in an acid house style Kay disliked, so Smith compromised his playing style to join the group again as Kay's songwriting partner" - is there an independent source for this claim?

No I'm afraid. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In that case, does it warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll cut out the part that appears "contentious". 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Archiving and retrieval date isn't needed for GBooks links
• "The album's complex songwriting caused Sony to tell Jamiroquai that "none of [the tracks] sounded like singles"," - is there an independent source for this claim?

No I'm afraid. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In that case, does it warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll cut out the part that appears "contentious". 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fn12 is missing publication date. Ditto FN17, check for others

Still issues here - eg FN60. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll look harder. 웃OO 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• FN21: OCC is a publisher not a work
• Indian Country Today, conversely, should be italicized
• What makes Consequence a high-quality reliable source? Highsnobiety? Vinyl Me Please?

Consequence is New York based, and had been featured in Rotten Tomatoes and Time Entertainment. They've also been involved with the Chicago Film Critics Association and Sony Music. Consequence was formerly named Consequence of Sound. While Highsnobiety started off as a blog, they've extended to London and New York City and have over 100 staffs. They've documented counterfeit brands in South Korea and won a Webby Award for Cultural Blog/Website. The interviewer in Vinyl Me Please has contributed to NPR, The New York Times, Pitchfork Music and Washington Post among others. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Being located in a particular place and having a high number of staff aren't characteristics that contribute to reliability. See here for guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Highsnobiety. They best I can find are these NYT interviews of their editors. [25][26][27]. I also found this Tech Crunch article which I'm not sure will benefit much. [28]

Those NYT articles suggest the source may have some expertise in fashion, but that's not what it's being used for here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I was unable to find anything else supporting highsnobiety as this exceptional source, so I'm letting it go. 웃OO 01:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering Sources?
• Be consistent in when you include publication location

I was completely unaware that this was included when I was automating some of the citations. I actually don't have knowledge of this feature and I can't find where it's used. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, Footman includes it but the other Sources do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include |via=

I haven't seen any other citations I thought needed via. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, some Google Books references include it and others do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include |ISSN=

I removed all of these. Again, they must have sprung up when doing automatic citations. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fn53 is missing author. Ditto FN57, check for others
• Fn55 is missing page(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I hopefully resolved most of these issues. Let me know if I missed anything. 웃OO 19:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, how's it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [29].

---

Steve Davis

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC), User:The Rambling Man

This article is about one of the most important snooker players of all time. Davis is a six-time world champion, and absolutely dominated the 1980s, winning 28 world ranking tournaments and a further 56 invitational devices. Three times a winner of the Masters, Davis was also a master of nine-ball, poker and chess during his professional career from 1976 to 2016. Gaining an MBE in 2000, Davis is also the only snooker player to win the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, and was part of the most viewed broadcast on BBC2 and post midnight at the 1985 World Snooker Championship.

I think the article is fantastic, so I would like your comments as to how this looks alongside my other nominator The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Buidhe. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

I may claim Wikicup points, if I consider my review substantial enough. Will probably add my comments in a few batches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

General

• No mention of Frank Callan?
  • I have added a mention. I'm sure there's loads of sourcing about it, but other than him being the coach, there's not much to say. Happy to add a quote if Davis says something specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In Pocket Money, Gordon Burn notes how Davis had never publicly mentioned Callan and how "Stalin-like, [Callan] has been written out of all the official Davis histories." Seems like Bill Davis and Callan clashed, but given how Griffiths, Hendry, Mountjoy and others have spoken about Callan, it seems very possible that Callan was important for Davis's development and success. He's mentioned now, so cool. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s? I think these were pretty significant for the later development of snooker, and he was the headliner IIRC.

• Online mentions here, here (sub/reg needed), here and here (sub/reg needed). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements? The ratio of his other income to prize money appears in quite a few sources.
  • Any examples? I feel it's a bit of a throwaway thing, other than his relationship with Hearn being monetary in nature, Davis isn't a businessman; and this is a bio about a snooker player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • • Here are a couple. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
    • "At 29, Davis is the game's first millionaire. … cued his way to 255,000 pounds sterling ($510,000 Cdn.) in tournament winnings last year, while endorsements and exhibitions boosted his income to about $1.5 million … Davis has a five-year, $1-million pound contract with a brewery that calls for him to devote 40 days a year on their behalf - at roughly $10,000 a day. His other endorsements include men's toiletries, luggage, watches and, of course, snooker equipment"
    • "his season's earnings in official prize money to a record$A1.06 million. And it is estimated that he earned the best part of another million in restricted tournaments, exhibitions, endorsements and sponsorships … By 1981, the year in which he won the championship for the first time, he was already a millionaire. It is accepted that he has earned a million pounds a year ever since."
    • "Courage’s original agreement to become patron to Davis made him the best-paid sportsman in Britain"
    • "Hearn and Davis need each other"; coverage of Hong Kong trip, and Riley and Goya deals.
      • and another: Dominic Sandbrook, Who Dares Wins: Britain, 1979-1982. London: Allen Lane. 2019. ISBN 978-1-846-14737-1 p.492 : "[Davis] was not merely an exceptional sportsman but an exceptional business, cashing in on the transformtion in snooker's image ...[By 1985] he was raking in three times as much from endorsements, an estimated £600,000 a year, than he was from tournament prize money." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• On my desktop view, the names of the tournaments in the performance and ranking timeline disappear when I scroll past a certain year, is there any way to make this a bit more reader-friendly?
  • I think that's a Question for WT:SNOOKER. I don't like these tables particularly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Legacy section looks a little light, but let me have a look at sources to see if I have any more specific points/comments.
  • I agree there's room for improvement. You've certainly added some good sources below that would benefit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I haven't read it as it's paywalled, but this might be interesting. There's a Eurosport article that might be useful here. The last couple of pages of the Davis chapter of Masters of the Baize are on Google Books (on my view), as is some of Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (see the start of chapter 7, for example). I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

• Shouldn't info be cited in the body rather than in the infobox?
  • WP:INFOBOXCITE suggests that citations shouldn't be in the infobox if there is a suitable way to convey the info in the prose. I'd argue with these nicknames they aren't really all that important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Master Cueman" is not sourced in the article.
• "Golden nugget" is not sourced in the article, but does appear in two headlines of sources used.
  • See top Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• 147 as being his highest break isn't explicitly sourced, only that he compiled it...perhaps doesn't need to be as it's called a "maximum break" in the body and breaks over 147 are virtually unknown?
  • Yeah, we clearly denote he's made maximum breaks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • We can also just use https://wst.tv/players/steve-davis/ as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Total number of century breaks isn't sourced.
  • Now in body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "he remains the only snooker player ever to win the award." - not explicitly sourced in the article.
  • cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Davis domination of the game waned in the 1990s" - Davis's?
  • That's actually against the MOS, as far as I'm aware. The Rambling Man knows more on this iirc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • No, Benny's right, Davis's in this context. Although MOS advises the wording is changed to avoid such constructions if possible. In the good old days, it would have been "Davis'" but we're not allowed that any more it would seem. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "at age 39" - "at the age of 39" seems better to me.
  • Made some changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "He made a record 30th" - doesn't look like the "record" part is sourced in the article.
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Should MBE be wikilinked?
  • It is linked after the name in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • OBE (same target) is, but not everyone will know that MBE is part of the same Most Excellent Order. I suppose it might be seen as overlinking. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Images

• "Davis playing a trick shot exhibition during the break of the 2012 German Masters final" - maybe something like "interval" rather than "break" (to avoid any possible confusion with break)?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Early career

• "introduced him to snooker at age 12 took him to play at his local working men's club and gave him an instructional book" seems to be lacking some punctuation or words.
  • reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Pontin's Spring Open" is redlinked here; "Pontins Spring Open" (no apostrophe) is wikilinked in the Pro-am finals section.
  • Interestingly, this was piped to Spring Open. I've also created a suitable redirect to Pontins Open#Pontins Spring Open Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
• "He made his debut at the World Snooker Championship in 1979, losing 11–13 to Dennis Taylor in the first round" - consider mentioning that he won two qualifying matches to get there.
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Professional success (1980-1984)

• "defeating defending champion Terry Griffiths in the second round" merits a little more detail, I think.
  • reworded. I don't want to give it too much weight though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Over the next 18 months, Davis won seven more events" - not verified by source, as far as I can see. (Seems that after the 1980 UK, he won the the English Professional, the Yamaha Masters, the 1981 World Championship and "The following season he won seven more titles" which would probably be ten in 18 months - I've not checked all the dates.)
  • I've removed and just said facts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Davis followed up this with a 9–0 whitewash victory over Dennis Taylor in the International Open final" - sort of, but I think he lost to Griffiths in the Pontins Pro Championship and also won the Lang's Scottish Masters inbetween the world championship and the International Open (if Hayton has the sequence right).
  • I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "This began a six-month period in which Davis and Griffiths contested almost all the major tournament finals." - source?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "In doing so, Davis won a Lada car" - possibly worth mentioning that Lada were the sponsors of the tournament. Also, it feels like that belongs with the previous sentence rather than with "but lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final"
  • Good point Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "defeating Griffiths 9–6 in the final." - the source (and Hayton) say 9–5.
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "falling to the Crucible curse" - I suppose a little poetic licence is allowed even in featured articles.
  • I mean, we have a full on article on it, seems fair game to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "he was the first player to retain his title at the Crucible Theatre – the venue for the event " - may be worth adding since when it was the venue.
  • Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• How about adding when he first achieved the number one ranking?
  • Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Feels like this section is slightly out of balance with the Retirement (2010–2016) section, which looks like it has a higher proportion of match scores but for matches which are IMO less significant in his career. (e.g. "He qualified for the Shanghai Masters by defeating Alfie Burden 5–1 and Andrew Higginson 5–0, defeating Zhu Yinghui 5–1 to reach the last 32[116] before losing 4–5 to Ricky Walden" v "Davis reached the final by defeating White in the first round, Higgins in the second round, Griffiths in the quarter-finals and defending champion Cliff Thorburn in the semi-final." and "Davis also won the 1984 UK Championship, defeating Higgins 16–8 in the final".)
  • This has been addressed per the below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1985 World Snooker Championship

• "lost only 23 frames en route to the final" - might be useful to add how many he won, to put the 23 in context.
  • I've added who he beat instead, which is much more relevant. 23 isn't a low amount of frames to conceed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Later world championship victories (1985–1989)

• "The result did not affect his position at the top of the world rankings, since he had won the UK Championship, the Grand Prix and the British Open in the 1985–86 season.2 is not sourced.
  • Yeah, suprised I didn't mention the win better. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "By the end of the 1980s, Davis was snooker's first millionaire" - fair interpretation of the source. The Evening Standard for 7 April 1983 says Davis was a millionaire, and there was a March 1985 edition of Sportsnight that said the same, so the current wording is supported but he was probably a millionaire earlier than it implies.
  • Yeah, not much more we can do than say this, unless there's a specific source that says when this was. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1990–2005

• "His last victory in a major tournament was at the 1997 Masters." - source? (BBC source after the next sentence mentions it, but not that it was his "last")
  • We do say his last ranking title was in 1995, source added that specifically says this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "After a season in which he reached only one ranking event quarter-final" - source?
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In other media

• I'd suggest wikilinking or explaining " sixth form"
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Combine the two mentions of Phoenix FM, I think
  • These seem like the same mention! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is The Official Matchroom actually The Official 1990 Matchroom Snooker Special (isbn 0600566005)? If so, Ian Morrison is the author, although Davis wrote the introduction and, unlike Morrison, has his name on the cover. ("Introduced by world champion Steve Davis")
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Could add Medical Grade Music to his list of books. There's a Guardian interview about it here.
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Could add Steve Davis Snooker, Virtual Snooker and /or Steve Davis World Snooker to the list of software.
  • Virtual snooker is already mentioned. Added the others - I will try and clean these articles up one day. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Davis won a record 83 professional titles and was the runner-up in 38 events, with 28 of these as ranking event victories. His modern-era record of six world titles has been broken only by Hendry, and his six UK Championship titles has been bettered only by Ronnie O'Sullivan. Davis compiled over 300 competitive centuries during his career. " - all seems to be unsourced.
  • Added some nice sourcing for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

• "he is honorary president of the Snooker Writers' Association" - source is from 2005, is he still President?
  • I'm not even convinced it still exists. There's nothing online in the last decade. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • No idea. Maybe change wording to something like "became", and perhaps remove the redlink as the association doesn't appear to be notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "he is on the board of Leyton Orient F.C." - source is from 2011, is he still on the board?
  • Doesn't look like it. It's hard to find sources, as they've had both a player and manager named "Steve Davis" at Orient. I'll put "was on the board", unless anyone can find differently. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Davis lives in Brentwood, Essex" - source is from 2004, does he still live there?
  • No idea. He still was as of 2019, so probably. The mail online suggests he might have been selling [30], but hardly a trustworthy source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Performance and Ranking Timeline

• What's the source for 1990 Shoot Out?
  • cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• What are the sources for Pot Black performances? (Excluding the finals, which are cited in the article)
  • We could use [31], which I'm never sure if it's suitable or not. Looks to have a 13 year history (copyright 2007). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Career finals

• 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup - no source given (I've not been able to find one for the result)
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That source has "Alex Higgins meets Steve Davis in the 11-frame final of the Hong Kong Gold Cup today" (and some other details) - not the result of the final. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• 2018 Seniors Irish Masters - source has his opponent's name spelt "Jonathan Bagley"
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• 1991 World Mixed Doubles Championship - might be worth linking to 1991 World Masters as it was part of that.
  • Done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources (I'll try and help where I can if you get stuck....)

• What makes http://www.cuesnviews.co.uk/ a reliable source?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• What makes https://www.snookerisland.com/ a reliable source?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• What makes "The Mob Poker Database" a reliable source?
  • Replaced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• what makes britishcomedychannel.com a reliable source?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Guinness Book of Snooker match report" - not sure what this source is. My book with this title is from 1982, and Guinness' The Records book was published in 1985 so neither of those could comment on a match in 1989.
  • Removed whole section - not really helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "White Crowned Senior Champion". Archived from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 24 May 2011." looks to be lacking publisher/site.
  • FixedBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• ""Champion of Champions Group Seeds Announced – Matchroom Sport". 17 October 2014. Archived from the original on 18 June 2015. Retrieved 21 October 2014." Publisher is part of the title.
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Davis, Steve (1989). The Official Matchroom 1990. Hamlyn" - looks like title is incomplete. (see comment under "In other media")
  • fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• There's something odd about " "When Snooker Went Loopy". BBC. 20 November 2000. Archived from the original on 13 June 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2010." which looks like a BBC site but an IMDB archived page.
  • Removed. Weird. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• ""Snooker Loopy". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 5 February 2009." links to Square Dance Rap by Sir Mix-A-Lot.
  • FixedBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Williams, Luke; Gadsby, Paul (2005). Masters of the Baize: Cue Legends, Bad Boys and Forgotten Men in Search of Snooker's Ultimate Prize" I'm surprised to only see this used once. The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole.
  • I... er. don't have a copy. I'll message you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Snooker Scene refs aren't consistent. (Also, publisher was Everton's News Agency before Snooker Scene Ltd)
  • I think I got all of these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Notes section doesn't have any sources. I think this is the first snooker bio to be nominated for FA so I'd be interested to hear views on how far the contents of the performance and ranking timeline (progress, and statements like "not held" or "ranking tournament" or "did not participate") need to be sourced within a bio article.
  • I'd argue these are cited to the reference sections to the individual tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Seems to be quite a high proportion of "World Snooker" and snooker.org sources, which is fine by me to confirm results, but would we be better with some more commentary from secondary sources? (I'll reflect on this after re-reading)
  • I mean, sure, but these are both independent sources in this case. I'd love to use news publications to talk about things, but they aren't all that indepth, especially for the smaller comps. I don't have the snooker scenes from anything earlier than this year, so the worldsnooker links were really helpful, and snooker.org is a good database for what we need. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm happy for those sources for verifying the facts of results, dates, etc. I was thinking more of secondary sources for general commentary/analysis, like Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (nearly 60 references to Davis in the index, some of which likely lead to interesting stuff), Masters of the Baize, or Hayes's Snooker Legends and where are they now? There are also some older books like Trelford's Snookered and Burns's Pocket Money that cover a couple of years in depth (not just about Davis). There are a load of other 1980's books that talk about Davis but obviously recent publications would be preferable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Could probably use these in the legacy if you have any ideas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• The archive for "Boniface, Susie (6 March 2005). "Steve's Cutie". Sunday Mirror(Questia Online Library). Archived from the original on 4 May 2021. Retrieved 4 April 2012." isn't very helpful
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Layton, Eric. Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. pp. 159–160." name should be Hayton, as per "Hayton, Eric (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker. Suffolk: Rose Villa Publications. pp. 344–347. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4."
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Inconsistent ISBN number format in the "Sources" section.
  • Should be ok now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Happy, as ever, to discuss or be challenged on any of my review comments. I might have more later, but I think I've earnt my cheese and marmite sandwich for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the responses, Lee Vilenski, I haven't checked through them all yet, but will do. I need to have a look at a few sources to make any other specific suggestions about legacy etc. I haven't found a reliable source for the Hong Kong Gold Cup result - seems it wasn't covered by Snooker Scene unless I haven't found the right issue. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Was the Gold Cup not covered in the link I added? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sadly not. (See above under "Career finals".) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't find much either. I'd suggest a cull, it was just a glorified exhibition with three participants after all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've forgotten - was there anything outstanding BennyOnTheLoose? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'll re-read as a lot has been done on the article since I last looked at it, but the outstanding points from above are:

• "Master Cueman" is not sourced in the article.

• • removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Link MBE in body? OBE (same target) is, but not everyone will know that MBE is part of the same Most Excellent Order.

• • Otherway around, but both are now linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• "falling to the Crucible curse" - my point about "poetic licence" was that he lost to Knowles, not to this abstract concept.

• • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Davis won a record 83 professional titles and was the runner-up in 38 events, with 28 of these as ranking event victories" - BBC source has 28 ranking and 53 non-ranking (and 9 team) events, which would be a total of 81 (excluding team events). Our table lists 56 non-ranking wins, and I'm not going to guess which 53 are counted in the sources - possibly some not in our list. Perhaps a footnote? I didn't see "was the runner-up in 38 events" in the sources; if it's from the tables in the article then, again, maybe add a note to that effect?

• • I have added a note Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Does he still live in Brentwood, Essex? In the absence of RS after 2004, reword or omit.

• • No idea. removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• What are the sources for Pot Black performances? (Excluding the finals, which are cited in the article)?
• Source used for 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup doesn't have the final outcome or result.

• • I've just been bold and removed this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Williams, Luke; Gadsby, Paul (2005) ... The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole.

• • Have you got the specific page numbers for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Notes section doesn't have any sources - I'll wait and see what other reviewers think.

• • I don't have much of an issue around this - the table itself is really well cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Outstanding points:

• No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s?
• No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements?
• Legacy - "I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide." (Note "ideally", not "or else")

• (Added 15/06) Is The Official Matchroom actually The Official 1990 Matchroom Snooker Special (isbn 0600566005)? If so, Ian Morrison is the author, although Davis wrote the introduction and, unlike Morrison, has his name on the cover. ("Introduced by world champion Steve Davis")

• I've corrected this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• • Hi BennyOnTheLoose - I've added something suitable. Probably do with a bit more expansion when I get a few minutes to check through sourcing, but let me know what you think as I've covered the other points. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

New points

Early success (1980–1984)

• reword second sentence of "Despite making the maximum, he lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final. Davis defeated Griffiths 9–5 in that year's final..."
  • Reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• change either "won or "win " in "he won 18–12 against Doug Mountjoy to win"
  • Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• "retained the UK" - add "championship" or "title" or similar.
  • Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• The link shortcut "Classic" is used twice - once to the 1980s Wilsons Classic and the 1982 Classic; I'm not sure if that is an issue.
  • Not sure, but I disambiguated anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• "In doing so, as Lada were sponsoring the event, Davis won a car" - slight reword, as them sponsoring doesn't necessarily mean there would be a car awarded for a maximum.
  • agreed. Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Despite making the maximum, he lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final" - the maximum was in a different match, so I'm not sure it was "despite"
  • Agreed. Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

1985 World Snooker Championship

• "left Taylor with a reasonably-straightforward pot to secure the championship." - feels to me like a mention of Taylor actually potting it should be here.
  • Added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• I think I now have everything BennyOnTheLoose Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Amakuru

I feel really bad here, because I've worked a lot with Lee and TRM in the past and consider them to be very good wiki-friends. But without having gone into the detail yet I think there's a fairly fundamental balance issue in this article with the Career section. I ran a quick prose-size check on Sunday evening on the different subsections, and found the following:

Year range	Bytes	Words	Bytes-per-year
1970-1979	1580	271 words	158
1980-1984	2323	385 words	464.6
1985	1082	184 words	1082
1985–1989	3258	569 words	651.6
1990–2005	1467	253 words	97.8
2005–2010	3855	652 words	771
2010–2016	4570	778 words	761.7

As we can see, the prose is heavily skewed towards the last ten years of Davis's career, a period which evidently wasn't his heyday. (He won all of his world titles in the 1980s). Looking at the narrative itself, it switches in 2005 from extremely broad-brush statements to suddenly having intricate detail of individual seasons, including individual scores in minor events such as the Australian Goldfields Open. By contrast, the 15-year period from 1990 to 2005 is the shortest of all the sections, with only two shortish paragraphs covering an entire period in which he was presumably a higher-profile player than he was in his twilight years.

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out why this phenomenon might have occurred, it's something we see across the Wiki: 2005 marked the point in time when our august project really hit the big time, and from that point on there would have been editors updating details of his tournaments on a daily basis, as and when they happened. This is why our article on John Isner, a decent tennis player but never anywhere near the best in the world, is significantly longer than Pete Sampras, one of the all-time greats.

It's totally understandable why this occurs, and at GA level I would rate this an easy pass. But for FAC, I think I regretfully have to fail this on both criterion 1b and criterion 4. The Career section needs to be written so that it:

1. has significantly more detail on the earlier years (particularly that 1990–2005 period), to satisfy 1b "comprehensive", and probably
2. a bit less detail on the 2005–2016 period, in order to satisfy criterion 4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I doubt we'd want to include Australian Goldfields Open calibre events for every one of the 40 years he played!

Sorry again, but I'm not able to support at this time. If you're able to fix the above issues while the FAC is active, or if there's some fundamental detail that I've missed here, then I'll happily look again and also take a look at the prose and the other sections. There's no doubt this is well on the road towards being an FA, but for now I'll leave it there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've begun an expansion of that particular section. There's still a bit more that can be added (I haven't gotten as far as 2000-05 yet), but we are already bordering on 200 bytes per year. I agree the later years are too in-depth (for the reasons you outlined), so I'll get on removing some fluff. I'd argue the 70s section is the right size, as he didn't turn professional until 78, perhaps a little more on his development in the early 80s. The later 80s looks about right, considering that's when he was the most popular, most famous snooker player on the planet.

Give me a day or two to fix, and I'll drop you a ping. Thanks for the in-depth statistics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting, that even after the cull, there are a lot more tournaments in the later seasons compared to those in the 1990s (6 per year against 20ish nowadays). I'm going to do a c/e and get back to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru - I don't know if you mind having another look? Sorry it's been so long, I'm having a few issues offwiki; but if at all possible I'd still like to progress this. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: thanks for the note, and it's certainly looking much better now. That said, the "1990–2005" section is still giving me a cause for concern though. Is there no more detail that can be added to that? I'd favour splitting it into at least two, and bringing it up to having the same level of detail as we see in the post-2005 sections. Just as one example, we have "During the 1990s, Davis also won the Irish Masters four times: in 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994"... this has no scores and no individual detail; yet below, we have match-by-match detail on all sorts of tournaments such as the Paul Hunter Classic, Shanghai Masters etc. Perhaps those are more important tournaments than the Irish Masters of the early 1990s, but in general I think the level of coverage needs to be consistent throughout his career for an FA. Regreta that this isn't the answer you want, but this is the gold-standard when it comes to article awards! (Also, the readable prose is at 25kB at the moment, so I don't think there's a danger of the article becoming too long). On the plus side, I'm confident that this can eventually make it, whether on this FAC or a future one, so please keep up the good work. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added some additional to those sections. The issue is around the lack of tournaments during the late 90s and early 2000s, where the game was almost killed off. I'll do a bit more to cull some of the extrenous stuff from later years, as clearly the weight of his career is around his titles in the 90s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Ok thanks, let me know when you're done with that. By the way, ahead of more detailed analysis on this, I'm thinking that some expansion of his media career may be in order as well. Although obviously his career is the dominant aspect of his notability, I think he has become quite ubiquitous on the commentary at the crucible in recent years and I think it would be worth saying more than just the current one-liner "... is a commentator for the BBC's snooker coverage". I think a "Media career" section similar to Mark_Lawrenson#Media_career might be in order, covering when he joined the BBC, which events he covers, any other TV commitments, plus newspaper columns etc (if any). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The Lawrenson bio is good, but most of it is uncitable. To my knowledge Davis doesn't do newspaper columns, doesn't do radio, doesn't have much criticism, he's just been ever present on the commentary and punditry team for the BBC's coverage of the Triple Crown events. I did miss out that he is a pundit, which is more of what he does. Looking at the 2005-2010 section, most of the text is on the 2010 World championship, which is particularly important, reaching the quarter-finals and beating Higgins, and the replay of the 1985 World Championship; which are big deals. I have however, culled the remaining final section, which covers his final title, his retirement and dropping off the tour. Let me know what you think Amakuru. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

- I don't know if you have any further opinions on the weight of the article Amakuru? I think it's suitable now and his later career covers the important results (specifically against Higgins at the world championships, and then his retirement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I will hopefully be able to give this another look-over tomorrow morning. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Back for another look. Apologies for the delay compared with what I said above. I've re-run the sub-section prose counts again (yesterday) and found the following:

Year range	Bytes	Words	Bytes-per-year
1970–1979	1636	280 words	163.6
1980-1984	2300	385 words	460.0
1985	1172	198 words	1172
1985–1989	2891	505 words	578.2
1990–1999	2386	408 words	238.6
2000–2005	1596	281 words	319.2
2005–2010	2597	426 words	519.4
2010–2016	2333	387 words	388.8

It's certainly much better than it was before, and thanks for the update. However, regrettably I still think there's some more work needed to get it balanced. Discounting the 70s (when he wasn't yet amongst the elite, so that's fine) it looks like the 90s is now the under-represented era, followed by 2000-2005. All the stuff from 2005 to 2016 is interesting and can be kept, I just think we need more in the 90s. A split into 1990-95 and 1995-2000, so that each section covers five years, and then expand each of those up to the same level as the others. Or, even better, have the length of the early 90s section be a bit longer than the others, since he was still going to the latter stages of tournaments on a regular basis at that point. We need to act as if there was a Wikipedia around at that time with people updating as-it-happened, including the interesting anecdotes such as the glasses and wig-wearing we see in 2010.

I'm really sorry this isn't the answer you're looking for, you've done brilliant work and this article will definitely get there in the end, whether it's at this FAC or a future one (I might also help out with it myself with that later in the year, if you and TRM don't get to it before then, and when I'm not snowed-under with other things). But as I said above FAC is the diamond-standard when it comes to articles, and my honest opinion is that it's not quite there yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. Looking at the section, we cover his world championship results in reasonable detail until 96, and then don't cover 97, 98 and 99. I'll add something on that (not that he did well!) and expand the bit on his 97 Masters win. I think that would probably cover what you are looking for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably last chance saloon on this one, Amakuru, but I think I've just about made it consistent across all of the sections, with the exception of 1985 being larger (and, for obvious reasons, it deserves more WP:WEIGHT), and his 80's sections being slightly longer than the rest. I'm not a big fan of colour for colours' sake, so I've moved the bit about the anniversary match at the Crucible to legacy, which is probably a better fit. If this isn't quite good enough, let me know as I'm out of ideas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll have another look later on tonight. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, back again and it's definitely getting better but I don't think I'm really close to a support yet, I'm afraid. I just think the prose in all of the early years, and I'd even count the 1980s in this, has lots of room for expansion. Just for interest's sake, I've just looked at Milos Raonic, another FA, and I think that gives a very rough clue as to what we might be looking for. Obviously I'm well aware that you can't really compare sportspeople across different disciplines with different calendars, and most likely tennis players play more than snooker players do throughout the year. But in that article, the whole career section (which is 13 years so far) has 35kb of prose in it, compared to around 17kb at present for Davis. And look at Mark Selby, perhaps a player of similar stature to Davis but playing in the 2010s rather than the 1980s. That one is your GA, it has lots of detail and clocks in at 28kb. I'm not saying you have to get it all the way to those levels necessarily, but I want to feel like there aren't gaps or that there's a difference in coverage between pre-Wikipedia and post-Wikipedia subjects. Just to pluck one example, Davis won the International Open six times in the 1980s, several of those as a ranking event, but only two of those are even mentioned at all in the prose, let alone with some detail on whom he beat and so on. What I would recommend is to go through season by season as we see for Selby; pick out the notable tournaments and how he did in them (particularly any tournaments he won), and document it here. Chapter and verse. The post-2005 era is fine, but the 1980s and early 1990s should definitely have more detail in them than post-2005, not less or even the same, because that's when he was among the best in the world and really winning things. I don't think this one is a million miles away, and I definitely hope to be back with a green tick at some point. Also, if other reviewers don't agree with my assessment here and support the FAC now then I won't stand in its way, because I don't pretend to be the expert. And if I'm applying a standard to this that you think I shouldn't be applying, then I'll be happy to listen as well... but at present this is how I see it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Ceoil placeholder

• Waiting for the above to be resolved, which seems on track. Have ready about half the page so far. Ceoil (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate any comments you have Ceoil. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Did you have anything for me Ceoil? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• #CCCCCC text on #F8F9FA background does not meet MOS:COLOUR/WCAG AA. I checked at https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/.
  • With some help, I've changed this. If it's suitable, I'll let the project know the change needs to be made across all our bios. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It seems it would only meet AA if it was large text. It looks like #727272 text on #F8F9FA background is the lowest acceptable for meeting AA, and ideally it would be #555555 to meet AAA. Heartfox (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Tables should have captions per MOS:DTAB; because some are below headings you can enclose those in Template:Sronly. Heartfox (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Covered (unless there's an additional table I didn't see.)
    • All covered Heartfox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry I forgot—The infobox image could use alt text. Heartfox (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I've covered both of these. I must admit, I don't really understand the WCAG stuff, so thanks for being specific Heartfox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Was there anything else Heartfox? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Everything looks good. Heartfox (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Lee Vilenski would you mind documenting what you did to fix this, if you haven't already done so, either at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Accessibility_issue_with_performance_and_ranking_timeline? or somewhere else appropriate. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review, Support from Vami_IV

Placeholder for now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

First comments: There are three books under #Sources, and several books, or at least references with an ISBN, in #References. Of the three books under #Sources, two presently do not have citations pointing at them; of the one that does, it presently has a single citation pointing to it. Some of the books in #References, particularly The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker, are cited many times. There are also a lot of missing page numbers, named below. For consistency, I advise for book citations either sfnrefs, or Template:RP to keep the long-form citations. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, at the time of writing, Citation [9] does not point to any of the books under #Sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is my first source review for Featured content; if I have demonstrated gross incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vami, to make things easier, as I don't really know much about Harvard style citations, I've made everything into regular style references. The two remaining sources are things that help to cover the writing, but aren't specifically cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sehr gutt. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have identified these technical hiccups:

1. There is no instance of Template:Notelist; as a result, all uses of Template:Efn are broken and will not display.
   1. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
2. No instance of citation [65] has a page number. There are additionally several book citations without page numbers. I recommend, for consistency and verifiability, that all book citations be followed with Template:Rp for page numbers.
   1. Might need your help with this, BennyOnTheLoose Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      1. Sure, Lee Vilenski. Can you list the ones you want help with specifically? The Davis pages in Hayton are 343 to 349. A few weeks ago, I checked the first few years of the performance & ranking timeline and added in some refs for events not in that source, like the 1979 Tolly Cobbold Classic, 1982 Australian Masters, and 1982 Highland Masters. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
         1. Basically need page numbers for the CueSport Book of Professional Snooker book. Even if we had a range for the results per year that would be pretty good. Can easily use {{rp}} after each one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
            1. I reviewed the use of the book in the article; the exception where page numbers isn't cited is currently ref 65 (used multiple times) and looking through what it's used to support, pages 343 to 349 are indeed OK for that ref. The book has subheadings in bold for each season of results for Davis, so I think that using a range of a few pages in the citation is reasonable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Citation [175] is broken; there are more than one versions of reference "theg_Stev".
   1. fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
4. Citation [197] is still an sfn Harvard reference.
   1. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Citations [249], [252], [255], [265], [267], [286], [269], [276], and [287] are missing the |magazine= parameter.
   1. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
6. Citation [282] also needs |magazine=.

Additionally, I recommend the changing of #Sources's title to #Further reading. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am ready to support as soon as the page numbers are in place. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries Vami IV - have a page range that covers this now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sehr gutt. Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This has been open for a month and while it has attracted a fair few comments it has no supports and has had an open oppose for nearly four weeks. Unless this changes significantly over the next couple of days, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Little seems to have changed, and so I am archiving this. Can I remind both nominators that "If a nomination is archived ... None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator".

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

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2021 [32].

---

Rockstar San Diego

Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the video game developer Rockstar San Diego, formerly known as Angel Studios. Rockstar San Diego is one of the best-known Rockstar Games studios and has produced highly acclaimed games, such as Red Dead Redemption (2010). It has a 35-plus-year history beginning as a work-fore-hire animation studio, turning into a video game studio, and being acquired by Rockstar Games. I originally wrote this article gradually as a learning exercise starting in October 2017; it became a GA in November 2019. Having exhausted all immediately available sources, I want to take on FA as the next step. Credit goes to the GOCE members Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978, GA reviewer Spy-cicle, peer reviewers Panini!, Rhain and SandyGeorgia, and FA mentor PresN. IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I participated at the Wikipedia:Peer review/Rockstar San Diego/archive1, and will watchlist to go through after independent editors have been through. I am have been extremely busy IRL, and have not yet had time to check whether my prose concerns were addressed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I hope it is not rude to ping for this but I wanted to know whether you have been able to check for these issues. Inbetween the PR and now, there has been a GOCE batch, manual copyedits, and requested edits seen below. Of course, I'd gladly accept further suggestions to improve the article. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Participated in the peer review but didn't say much.

Infobox

• Similar edits at Paper Mario with this one; you can cut "Rockstar San Diego's" because its what the article is about.
• I'd also find a way to cut out one of the two instances of "Rockstar Games". It can be a mouthful.

Lead

• "... and a studio of Rockstar Games that is based in Carlsbad, California." The "that is" can be cut to remove the repitition of is.
• I'd link computer animation
• "It began with a focus of..." I'd change "It" to "the company"; it refers to Angel prior and it seems like you are calling him a thing.

Early years (1984–1993)

• (also spelled Diego Ángel) would work better as a hatnote. I'm an anti-paranthesis person because they look unproffessional if used excessively in my eyes, so there could be other instances where hatnotes could work better too.
• "... Angel's wife invested in Angel Studios and Angel secured a bank loan." Although I'm a Christian, there's too much Angel here. I'd change the second instance to "the company".
• Refer to Hunt and Limber by their full names in their first appearances ("Hunt became the company's chief technology officer and Limber was its chief operating officer..." and then later "Brad Hunt and Michael Limber were among the founding partners.")
• "...which meant he would not accept any offer that came his way..." I would change "any" to "every" because it currently sounds like, "They didn't do any work, but they did work."

Entry into video games (1993–2000)

• "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for Silicon Graphics'..." Repetitive, -> "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's..."
• "... as a partner for the upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, which ultimately became the Nintendo 64." -> "...as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64."

Beyond this point, I got distracted in reading, which in my eyes means you did a very good job.

Miscellanious

• I don't believe stating "the founder of Angel Studios" in the quote box is necessary.
• Not necessary, but any "See also"'s?
• Are refs 7 and 8 the same?

Panini!^🥪 13:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Panini!:, should be all done. Refs 7 and 8 are separate parts of the same story (appearing on different pages, so I had to clip them individually). I see no viable see-alsos that are not already linked within the article (Rockstar North, Red Dead, and so forth would have been good fits). Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I currently have nothing outstanding so no QPQ is needed. Unless if I find something to do in the future. Panini!^🥪 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wait, yes I do, Paper Mario is at WP:TFAR. Panini!^🥪 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Shooterwalker

Lead

• Can drop "The" from Columbian entrepreneur. (Columbian-American?)
• "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s; its first video game projects were Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996), for which the company created cutscenes." -> "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s, creating cutscenes for Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996)."
• I know you mention Angel Studios in brackets right away, but it might add clarity to name the studio in context. For example, "founded the company as Angel Studios", or "As Angel Studios, the company began..." That way it would be less jarring when you start calling it Angel Studios later, and you could easily just call it "the company" or "the studio".
• "Angel Studios fully developed games in association with" -> "The company developed its first full games by working with..." or "They soon began developing full games with..."
• Also consider putting the cutscene sentence next to the full game sentence, changing the paragraph structure for better context.
• Is there a clearer word than "housed"?

Early years

• Consider naming "early years" to include something to do with art / animation, just as the second heading mentions video games.
• Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? If so, was he investing in his own studio? If it wasn't money, maybe there is a better word.
• "receive a job" -> "find a paying client"
• For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year...
• "was films and music videos" --> "was for films and music videos"
• "The studio was most successful with" --> "The studio's biggest successes came in 1992, with"
• "adaptation of its scenes for the movie" --> "adaptation of its scenes from the movie"
• "It further produced" --> "The studio further produced"
• "The agency Spear/Hall & Associates was contracted to handle marketing services for Angel Studios" --> "They also contracted the agency Spear/Hall & Associates to handle their marketing services." (passive voice to active voice)

Entry into video games

• "Angel Studios cooperated with the technology company Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's high-end computers and receive some of the computers in exchange." -> "Angel Studios collaborated on technology demos for Silicon Graphics computers, in exchange for high-end computers of their own."
• "He requested an appointment with the company the following day and three days later signed it as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64" -> "He met with the company the next day and signed an agreement just three days later, making them a partner for their upcoming console."
• "The studio shifted its focus to the video game industry and in February 1995, it was announced as joining Nintendo's "Dream Team", a group of third-party companies that would develop games for the Nintendo Ultra 64" -> "The studio shifted its focus to video game development, and Nintendo announced them as one of the studios on their "Dream Team" for the Nintendo 64."
• "Angel stated he decided to stop seeking projects in fields in which the company had already succeeded if the field involved a "high-risk, capital-intensive business", even if it offered rich potential" -> "Around this time, Angel consciously steered the studio away from "high-risk, capital-intensive" projects, even if they offered rich potential."
• "Annunziata was pleased with the result and invited" -> "Pleased with the result, Annunziata invited"
• "As part of the Dream Team" -> "As part of Nintendo's "Dream Team""
• "Still in conjunction with Nintendo, Angel Studios worked with video game designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a Nintendo 64 vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie" -> "Angel Studios continued their work for the Nintendo 64, collaborating with designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie"
• "For the first meeting with Miyamoto, Angel and some designers spent 45 days creating a "design bible", which Miyamoto rejected upon confrontation, asking the team to spend the next three months working on the game technology and to "find the fun"." -> "Angel Studios spent 45 days creating a "design bible" for their first meeting with Miyamoto, but he rejected it and asked them to "find the fun" over the next three months."
• "The company fit a game taking up two compact discs for the PlayStation version onto one Nintendo 64 cartridge, which had less than 10% of the original data storage" -> "The studio condensed the game's data to less than 10% of its original size, fitting the original version's two compact discs onto a single Nintendo 64 cartridge".
• If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired.
• "The Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98 exhibited Angel Studios' film Oceania, which was described as a "virtual journey", throughout 1998" -> "The studio's film Oceania was exhibited at the Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98"
• "The June 1998 opening of the first DisneyQuest interactive theme park in Orlando, Florida, debuted Virtual Jungle Cruise, an adventure ride to which the studio had contributed"
• "The studio also contributed to an adventure ride called Virtual Jungle Cruise, which debuted at the June 1998 opening of the DisneyQuest interactive theme park."
• "He decided his employees should work on their own and find their own ways to produce a full-fledged video game, a policy that was considered a major factor for the product's quality. Some workers developed a sense of ownership of their respective parts" -> "He encouraged his employees to work independently and take ownership over the game's different parts, and this policy was considered a major factor in the game's quality."
• "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend known as XGirl. The game was planned as a launch title for Microsoft's Xbox console but was canceled" -> "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend. The game was planned as an Xbox launch title called Xgirl, but was cancelled."

Other notes

• At the end of the article, you have a list of games, but Oceania is described as a film. You should decide whether you want to include the studio's video work (e.g.: Lawnmower Man, Peter Gabriel), or just focus the list on games. Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue.
• I haven't checked any sources for accuracy. On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that.
• I'll come back for the last couple sections. On the whole the article is quite good, and don't let the notes detract from what's clearly on its way to FA. Great work so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Thank you so much! The issues should be addressed now. Some direct responses:

• (Columbian-American?) – Sources describe him as Colombian. I don't think that he has US citizenship.
• Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? – The source only says "invested". To avoid unclarity, I removed that part instead.
• For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year... – This must have been 1986-ish but the source unfortunately does not provide a year.
• If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired. – This is never explicitly stated in the sources; the news just stopped after the acquisition and the game never came out. It is know that there were some shake-ups at Graphix Zone shortly after the purchase.
• Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue. – Good catch. I removed Oceania, though I believe the first two games are fine as they are proper games with Angel Studios providing additional work, even if that additional work was art and not code.
• On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that. – The 2018 controversy centered around Rockstar Games more broadly, rather than R*SD alone. The Kotaku feature briefly mentions R*SD briefly in connection with this. I will look into adding some of these details soon. Red Dead Redemption 2#Controversies covers this comparably.

Lastly, I was taught to generally use 'it' for companies instead of 'they', which you use. Do you know whether this is MoS'd in any way? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to overstate the "it" thing, since the grammar is up for dispute, and this is a situation where I choose style over grammar. Grammatically speaking, a company is a singular genderless proper noun, so "it" is grammatically correct. But "they" is also grammatically correct, because "they" can also be singular and genderless. The spirit of "it" is to refer to an inanimate object, where the spirit of a "they" is to refer to an intelligent entity, which is why I prefer "they". People don't like "they" because they see it as ambiguously plural or singular, but in its ambiguity, it's fine to use it for singular. TLDR: I prefer "the studio", "the team", "the company" because it's clearer, and my distaste for "it" is really a matter of style. If someone with stronger feelings on it comes along, you should listen to them.

• "companies' combined expertise" -> "company's expertise" (not multiple companies?)
• "which was owned by" -> "a licensed game for"
• could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name?
• "Development of the sequel, which was titled Oni 2: Death & Taxes, was eventually halted" -> "However, Oni 2: Death & Taxes was cancelled during development."
• "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to. The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse." -> "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer. When he didn't respond, Rockstar then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse, and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted."
• Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? Becoming Rock Star San Diego is a big turning point, and it will also prime the reader to stop thinking of them as Angel, and start thinking of them as a subsidiary under the Rockstar brand.
• "Angel Studios began work on the game in 2000, while Capcom oversaw it, funded it, and announced it in March 2002" -> These are probably separate thoughts, and should be separated into two sentences.
• Maybe make it clearer that Rockstar bought the rights from Capcom, and not just abstractly.
• "a stealth game with an open world" -> "an open world stealth game"
• "The development team leadership, led by producer Luis Gigliotti, was inherited from the studio's Transworld Surf (2001)." -> This might be a little unclear as to how the leadership transferred, let alone why it's important. Comparing the teams between games might not be that important.
• "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? If it was after launch, does it make sense to place this sentence later, after launch?
• "In both cases, police detained artists; the situation in Washington, D.C., was quickly resolved in but the one in Cairo took significantly more time. After both teams returned with their photographs, the development continued. " -> "When police detained the artists in both Washington and Cairo, the situation was eventually resolved. But Cairo took significantly more time, and development continued once both photography teams had returned."
• "RAGE remains in development and is used in" -> the tense here is a little jarring, though I get that you're speaking to something that will persist for a long time. Maybe "RAGE would go on to be used..."?
• "Since the acquisition, Angel had been working"... -> "Founder and CEO Diego Angel had been working..." (more important to remind folks that the founder is leaving than to explain the timing since the acquisition)
• "The Houser brothers tried to persuade him to stay" -> add a comma for flow
• "settle in Colombia" -> "return to Colombia"
• "In Medellín, Angel created game development opportunities that ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area." -> "In Medellín, Angel tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area."
• "by January 2006" -> can probably drop this as it's implied, considering it follows on December 2005.

In the home stretch here. Take a stab at those and we can hopefully wrap up in the next day or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Re:

• (not multiple companies?) – This refers to Angel Studios and Rockstar Games, each with expertise on their own. I changed "the companies'" to "their" for hopefully better clarity.
• could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name? – I chose to keep the full name because both "Rockstar"s are mentioned frequently, making confusion between the two somewhat possible. I hope this does not pose too much of an issue.
• Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? – Not sure whether an additional header is the best choice here as the section is mostly about how the acquisition came to and what happened immediately thereafter. Only the first paragraph does not strictly tie into this, though it discusses how the relationship between Rockstar Games and Angel Studios built up. Should I move that to the previous section? I could also rename the section something like "Acquisition and transition to Rockstar San Diego" to make it more obvious what it is about.
• "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? – This refers to any launch, not a specific game. As in, after each release, all staff would get two or so weeks off, which Rockstar Games scrapped. I'm not sure where to put this but I moved it up to the actual acquisition.

Thanks again! IceWelder [✉] 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The vacation part is now clearer, so that helps. The other stuff seems more clear now too. Do consider adding another heading, as it's one of the strongest and most helpful cues for the reader. I don't think there's any harm in breaking the acquisition out into its own section, as that section is already five paragraphs as is. But I wouldn't insist and you should take your cues from other reviewers when they come along.

• This is a style thing, but I find "controversy" to always be vague and euphemistic. "Labor issues and Red Dead Redemption" would be shorter and clearer.
• "Former Rockstar San Diego 3D artists Terri-Kim Chuckry and Garrett Flynn filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and over one hundred other ex-employees against the company on August 26, 2006, over unpaid overtime compensation." -> "By 2006, two former Rockstar San Diego artists filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of over one hundred ex-employees, claiming unpaid overtime compensation." (The timing is a good way to start the section, and we can be less wordy since the actual names of the claimants aren't as important in a class action.)
• Add "Even after the settlement, the wives", for better flow and context...
• The Rockstar quote is one where I think it's important to state it in their own words, rather than paraphrase, for readers to have the most accurate sense of their response. "...saddened if any former members of any studio did not find their time here enjoyable or creatively fulfilling..." is a good place to start.
• "; other key employees" -> a hard stop "." would be better here.
• "Take-Two Interactive's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, named it one of the company's strategic permanent franchises" -> considering the last sentence, it feels like you could improve the context and flow here too. Even as simple as "Speaking to investors, Take-Two's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, announced that the game would become one the company's strategic permanent franchises."
• For the 2011 section, I think the timing is a little confusing that you jump from 2011 to 2018 in the first sentence, then jump back. I might move this sentence to later, closer to the release, or at least split this sentence into separate thoughts.
• The second sentence about two games would probably be appropriate to separate into two separate thoughts too.
• Without any context, the part about hiring for an untitled open world project feels kind of meaningless. I'd drop it, or find a way to make it more relevant, either explaining what happened to the project, or dropping the project to focus on the simple fact that the company was growing (which you could connect to them leasing a massive office space).
• "Martin left Rockstar San Diego in July 2019; he joined the Chinese conglomerate Tencent in December that year and opened a studio called "LightSpeed LA" for the company in July 2020." -> "In 2019, Martin left Rockstar San Diego to join Chinese conglomerate Tencent, opening a subsidiary studio called "LightSpeed LA" the following year."
• This last section is well written, but feels short. Not in the sense that it's one paragraph, but in the sense that it lists a lot of projects and doesn't really give much context about how they turned out, or their significance to the studio.
• The N/A in the tables isn't the worst thing, but it feels like the theme park would be as much of a platform as a console. Would make the table feel more complete.

The article was already in good shape and it's already in better shape. Keep it up. You're very close IMO. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

[33]. I think the lawsuit filers are somewhat relevant, even in a class action, and one of their names appears again in the case name, which I would like to retain at least for flow. I reordered the last section to make for the order of collaborations->expansion->collaborations->departure, chronologically for the most part. I also expanded it with a bit on the over-hours controversy you noted earlier. I'm not sure whether GameWorks and DisneyQuest fit into the platforms column as they were merely the place where the games were used; the underlying systems were not disclosed. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support thanks to all your revisions. The prose is on the whole better and clearer. I'm hoping that other editors will take a closer look at the references, so I suppose my support is conditional on that. There's a few outstanding questions, like how much to expand the last section, or how to include the VR games in the table. But let's see what other editors say, since the article otherwise meets the FA criteria, from what I can tell. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Spy-cicle

Did a pretty thorough GA review a while ago, and glad to see it is making its way to FAC (also great to see a free image of Angel). Not sure if I'll have time to do a full review, but here are some intial comments.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• he company as Angel Studios in January 1984 after studying film in Chicago, where he grew fond of computer animation. The company... Maybe change the second use of the company to business/firm to avoid repetition, especially as sentence are back to back. This also goes somewhat for the body sometimes if you can repleace with studio/developer/it/firm, etc slightly more engaging and less repetitive
• Is it worth linking to "Kiss That Frog" to album it is from (Us (Peter Gabriel album))
• In the infobox "RAGE Technology Group" surely this should be spelled out in full "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group" since RAGE is not a common acronym
• "and continued with commercials for Nintendo, Polaroid Corporation, Asiana Airlines, and Cobra Golf, among others" So was the "educational video" a commerical as well? Continued makes it seems as if is but it is not clear or when they started doing commericals. Slightly awkward wording unless I'm missing something

  @Spy-cicle: Thank you! I fixed the duplication, linked the song (now a redirect to the album), and slightly reworded the commercials bit. Regarding the RAGE Technology Group, the division is known in full by that name (cf., for example, the Grand Theft Auto V credits). I am not aware of a source that refers to it as "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group". Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh okay I understand thank you for clarifying the bit about RAGE Technology Group, I might be able to leave some more comments if I get enough time.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Okay should have some more time now, ping me in two weeks if I have not done a full review by then. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Anything more from you Spy-cicle? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Ian Rose: Thanks for the ping I have a couple of comments but it is pretty well in good shape in my view.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done another scan through and few copyedits. The only two comments I can suggest now are:

• Could possible add an explanation (possibly in an efn) that the Agent project San Diego worked on is not be confused with other one Agent (developed by Rockstar North). Polygon ref looks good to use
• Could possibly replace a number of instance of "Rockstar San Diego" in the body with "firm/company/studio" to avoid repetition.

That is pretty well all I have to suggest. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I added a short sentence on Rockstar North's Agent and removed some instances of "Rockstar San Diego". It now appears, on average, 1.5 times per paragraph. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Great thanks, I have added an efn in the game section to avoid confusion have added a link. Happy now to Support, good job on this. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• The FUR for File:Angel_Studios_Logo.png needs improvement - it claims to identify Rockstar San Diego, but it's not their logo. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria, I adjusted the "Purpose of use" field to more refer to Angel Studios. Does this suffice? Related to this, does a non-free former logo run afoul of the NFCC? Or is this logo in particular PD-ineligible as simple text and shapes (of US origin)? I would remove the image in the former case and move it Commons in the latter. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That's always going to be a bit of a judgment call. In my opinion the answer to both of the latter questions is no, but others may disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally I do not see anything wrong with using the the logo as it stands, but I am not an image expert.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Spy-cicle, are you happy that the images are in shape for Nikkimaria to have another look at them? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: I am guessing you meant to ping nominator @IceWelder: instead (I just gave my view around one said image)?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I did. I did. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: The images did not change much; I amended the rationale of the Angel Studios logo as mentioned above and uploaded a new version of that image that fixed some compression artifacts. If another image review is required, I'd be happy to have one. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

While I am somewhat familiar with this studio, and I have played their Red Dead Redemption games, I am not too familiar with its history or structure. Please consider me a non-expert.

• "The company soon began developing full" perhaps "The company developed full"
• "with the studio's work on Midtown Madness and approached Angel Studios with a long-term partnership in 1999," Perhaps "an offered them a long-term partnership in 1999"
• "Angel Studios was acquired by Rockstar Games' parent company Take-Two Interactive in November 2002 and became part of Rockstar Games as Rockstar San Diego." Lots of the word "Rockstar" in this sentence. Perhaps, "Angel Studios was acquired by Rockstar Games' parent company Take-Two Interactive in November 2002 and became Rockstar San Diego." I think their name implies they became part of the Rockstar group.
• " Red Dead Redemption (2010), and the expansion pack Undead Nightmare" -> "and its expansion pack"?
• "Within a few days, he met with the company" Within a few days of what? I actually don't think that phrase is needed and could be deleted.
• "considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to." -> "and did not respond." or "and did not respond to it."
• "The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse. When he did not respond, Rockstar presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted." Is the repetition intentional, and there were three offers, or was the first sentence supposed to be deleted?
• "leading to crunch at the studio." -> "leading to a crunch"?
• "When police detained artists is both locations, Why were they detained?
• "In Medellín, he tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area. He also opened a restaurant in the city with his daughter Carmen and her husband." I think this is off-topic for an article about the studio, and instead belongs in an article about Angel.
• Is there any information on what the company is currently working on? Anything about the company's history in 2020/2021?

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Thanks! I made some changes and would like to answer directly to some points:

• Within a few days of what? – Takeda inquired Angel Studios' details from SGI, met with the company the next day, and signed an agreement three days thereafter. Over time, this context was reduced to "Within a few days", which I have now struck. Should I reinstate it with the full context?

• No, I think that would be too much detail. What is in the article is good now. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is the repetition intentional – Good catch! That is indeed a leftover from a previous copyedit and should be fixed now.
• "leading to a crunch"? – I'm not sure whether this an English language quirk but I always understood that "crunch" in this context is uncountable. I believe the relevant section at Video game developer#"Crunch time" (particularly the sixth paragraph) uses it in the same way. Is this wrong?

• I think crunch is a singular noun referring to an uncountable unit of time, which is why I think the word "a" should be before the word. I would compare this to the word drive in "going on a drive". Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Why were they detained? – The source implies that they were detained merely for taking pictures. How would you phrase this? "When police detained artists for their work in both locations, ..."?

• Specify that they were detained for taking the photos. Perhaps, "Police detained the artists at both locations for taking numerous photos;" Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is off-topic for an article about the studio – I removed the portion about the restaurant but feel like the game development one should remain as a way to show what Angel made of his experience at Rockstar San Diego. Would you agree?

• I don't know what "game development opportunities" means. Did he start a company? Were these opportunities with Rockstar San Diego? Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anything about the company's history in 2020/2021? – Not that I know of. Rockstar Games has a high level of secrecy, though, so this is not surprising.

IceWelder [✉] 07:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's understandable, many game companies like to control the messaging and production in their studio. If this article is promoted, I suggest that you continue to monitor news outlets and publications for news on the company to keep the information updated. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Sorry for the late response. I added an example for the development opportunities (in this case, a master's program) and fixed the other two issues.[34] Regards, IceWelder [✉] 06:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I can support.

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Archive links are not needed for GBooks, and generally the publication dates provided by that site are overprecise
• FN24: what's the specific article being cited here?
• FN23 has a misformatted page, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source in this context?
• What makes Siliconera a high-quality reliable source? Gamers' Republic? VG247?
• FN47: is there no independent source for this claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:

• Archive links are not needed for GBooks – Would it be an issue to keep them in? I like to have as much archived as possible, even if it is just meta information on Google Books.

• It looks rather untidy but I'm not going to fuss over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• FN24: what's the specific article being cited here? – I cannot tell since I do not own the issue in question and can only view the snippet found via the Google Books search, which contains some of the credits for the film The Swan Princess. If this poses a problem, I would not mind removing it entirely.

• You could perhaps get the article via WP:RX? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I opted to remove it instead, given that it appears to just be a credit listing and not an edited text providing context. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I reduced Google Books' dates to years and changed Starlog's "pp." to "p.".
• Siliconera and VG247 are covered by WP:VG/RS's list of reliable sources. The Gamers' Republic website was part of an eponymous magazine published by Hearst Communications and edited by Dave Halverson, both generally considered reliable (the other two Halverson-edited publications (GameFan, Play) also appear on WP:VG/RS's list).

• What was the editorial policy of that magazine?

• I cannot immediately find the policy in the printed magazines (via Archive.org) and most of the former website is inaccessible due to the shutdown of Flash. I would assume its reliability based on Halverson heading it. I could put it before the WikiProject if required. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the discussions linked from VG/RS regarding Siliconera, and am not convinced it qualifies as generally reliable - the determination seems to have been situational instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• IIRC, Siliconera was originally a situational source but upgraded to general-reliable in the most recent discussion in 2015. Should I put the source before the sources board again? IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes please. I'm not seeing much in the way of explicit reasoning at that link - just voting. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am not too familiar with Starlog (as I only found it by chance) but it appears to have been long-running and staffed. Other FAs (e.g. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, The Thing (1982 film), and William Gibson) use it as well. I would not mind removing the source, though.

• I would consider it generally reliable for sci-fi, but the content it's supporting here doesn't seem to fall into that category. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I removed the source for now and might put it before the RSN in the future, but it should not hold up this process. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• FN47: is there no independent source for this claim? – Not that I know of.

• In that case, does it warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would say so, yes. It is a minor detail but it does not appear a controversial enough claim to me that it could not be cited with a primary source. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 00:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Siliconera and Gamers' Republic are now listed at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Based on the initial discussion for the prior, I have removed both uses of Siliconera from the article. IceWelder [✉] 19:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Similarly with your image review above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Images are fine; waiting on conclusion in discussion around a couple of the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

At the current stage, it appears that Siliconera and Gamers' Republic will be classified as borderline-reliable and reliable, respectively. Of course, Siliconera has already been removed. Do you want to give the usage of Gamers' Republic an interim reassessment or do you want to wait for the discussion to be formally closed? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi IceWelder, does this address the last of the source review comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Gog the Mild. Yes, the reliability of Gamers' Republic is the last outstanding question in this source review (and, at the moment, the last of the FAC). I think the ongoing discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Gamers' Republic is already reflective of its outcome but I'm waiting for a formal reply from a reviewer on this matter. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria and sorry to bother you again. IceWelder seems to think that everything has now been addressed. ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• Is Diego Angel not notable enough for a WP:REDLINK? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think so. If anything, he would be a redirect to the company. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE) - RAGE isn't used again in lede, no need to put the acronym Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• US$5,000 - MOS:CURRENCY, no need to link to well known currencies Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• As this is the 80s, is it worth using the convert template on this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds plausible. Added in both 80s revenue instances. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• 6.5-minute (either six-minute thirty, six and a half minute, or 6:30. Decimal time isn't a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• video game publisher Rockstar Games - two links next to each other - any way to reword this? We already mention publishers earlier in the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• The last ten years feels a bit short, considering the size of earlier subsections Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Most of the content was written from restrospectives and there hasn't been much converage since 2010/2011-ish. Doubtful that there is much we can do about this at the moment. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• any reason why there's no table for cancelled games? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, we have barely any information on most of these. Even with just Platform/Publisher, the table would be highly fragmented. I toyed with the idea of removing the list completely but I think the bullet points should suffice for now. Maybe there will be more information in the future to allow for a table or a {{Video game titles}} format. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you for your comments! See individual replies above. I will likely QPQ after my current exams. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support. I realise there is some outstanding things others have brought up above, but in terms of prose, I have no issues Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe all other points (aside from the separately ongoing reliability review for Gamers' Republic) have been addressed or discussed. Could you clarify which points you see as outstanding? There might have been a miscommunication on my part. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 July 2021 [35].

---

Santería

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a religion that formed in Cuba, drawing upon both traditional West African religions (primarily those of the Yoruba) with elements of Roman Catholicism. It has since spread to various parts of the Americas and also to Europe. Having previously brought Heathenry (new religious movement) and Rastafari up to FA status, I'm hoping that I've done enough to allow this currently GA-rated article to become an FA too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review+ other comments

• Length is an issue with this article. It's 10524 words. Personally I think its readability would benefit a lot from reduction around 20% by increased use of summary style. (t · c) buidhe 10:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've taken out a few sentences in the "Demographics" section and will try and trim a few more bits here and there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've done some general pruning, so the article now contains less than 10,000 words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• File:Ellegua.jpg Dubious licensing. People often upload photographs as "own work" even if they're not the copyright holder of the underlying work. This is a fairly sophisticated piece of artwork and I think it would need OTRS for me to be convinced it's freely licensed.

• Fair enough. It's a shame to lose it as I think it definitely helps with the illustration of the article, but you're right that the licensing here is far from water-tight. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• File:Cuba rel94.jpg worst of both worlds, it's too small to actually read and it doesn't inform where Cuba actually is, unless the person already knows where Cuba is. File:CUB orthographic.svg may be better.

• I've gone with the latter image, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• File:Statuo de Elegua en santeria vendejo (Mantilla, Havano).jpg I don't think this image is free either. The main subject in the photo is clearly the figurine so you can't claim de minimis applies and generally photographs of artistic statue-like objects are protected by two copyrights, including the one for the underlying object. (t · c) buidhe 15:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have now removed it; hopefully another image of Elegua will emerge in future that can be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Other images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Some sections such as "Definitions" and "Olodumare and the oricha" are longer than ideal for readability, especially for mobile viewers, and should be considered for trimming or splitting into subsections. (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have split "Olodumare and the oricha" into several sub-sections and will look at doing the same for "Definitions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have also added a sub-section into the "Definitions" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Buidhe, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Image review is a pass. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This seems to be attracting little attention. If there is not considerable movement towards a consensus to promote by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Vaticidalprophet

This is a great topic and a great article, and I'd hate to see it archived for lack of interest. I don't have my sea legs about FAC yet, so I'm approaching this quite cautiously, but I've read through and have an eye to support. I'll come back to pick some nits. Vaticidalprophet 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Vaticidalprophet

Beliefs It features 16 prominent deities, some female and others male I'm not sure that these clauses are best combined. "features 16 prominent deities" seems best-paired with the currently-choppy first sentence on polytheism, while the gender of the deities slots in with the later-in-the-paragraph discussion of their characteristics. I've made the change you suggest here, merging the "16 prominent deities" part in with the opening sentence and moving the mention of gender to a later point in that same paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Practitioners believe that some oricha were created before humanity, but that others were originally humans who became oricha through some remarkable quality This is not, I think, a "but" matter. They're combined ideas, rather than contradictory ones. "...were created before humanity, while others were originally humans..." That's much better. Good suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC) he is the messenger between humanity and the oricha and most ceremonies start by requesting his permission to continue This feels to me as though it's missing a comma after 'oricha', but may be personal style. I can certainly add a comma in here, that's no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC) The religion maintains that all people have multiple egun accompanying them at all times, and that these can be either benevolent, malevolent, or a mix of both Superfluous 'either'. A fair point. I've taken out "either" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Several academics have described Santería as having a "here-and-now" ethos distinct from that of Christianity, and the social scientist Mercedes C. Sandoval suggested that many Cubans chose Santería over Roman Catholicism or Spiritism because it emphasizes techniques for dealing with pragmatic problems in life There's a set of ideas here that doesn't quite emerge in the article and feels like it wants to emerge. You discuss earlier that Santeria is not an orthodox religion. Here, you stop just short of calling it an orthoprax one. The article doesn't drop the word 'orthoprax', simply heavily hints at it. Do any sources discuss orthodoxy vs orthopraxy in Santeria explicitly? Not in so many words, unfortunately. I think that we could maybe throw in a wikilink to the Orthopraxy article in-text somewhere, but perhaps not use that word itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Practices Santería is a practice-oriented religion; ritual correctness is considered more important than belief Same as for before -- this is almost, but not quite, explicitly saying 'orthopraxy' and comparing the concepts. Orthopraxy is a pretty unfamiliar theological concept to a lot of people in English-speaking regions, and I think it's worth explicitly discussing more what that means, and what makes Santeria different -- even unfamiliar -- through the lens of people working off Christian assumptions. As I don't think any of the sources actually use the term "orthopraxy" (I would have incorporated it if they did) I'm not sure if we can explicitly include the term here, but I've added a wikilink to our article on the topic here, which hopefully does the trick. I'm open to expanding the text here, but not quite sure how to do so, given the constraints imposed by what is in the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Wikilink is fine. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Most of its activities revolve around the oricha, although it also displays a focus on solving the problems of everyday life Are these actually distinct ideas in orthoprax religions? "Although" sets them off as counters. I've changed this sentence to the following: "Most of its activities revolve around the oricha and focus on solving the problems of everyday life." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Since at least the 20th century, some initiates have kept libretas, notebooks in which they have written down material relevant to the practice of Santería The article does not make clear the relevance of this sentence. "Some initiates" beginning in relatively recent years, and without later discussion of the concept, doesn't explain why this is encyclopedically relevant. I thought it appropriate to discuss the notebooks (and their connotations of literacy) straight after mentioning the oral component in Santería teaching. I don't have a problem with moving this sentence elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where they might go that might be more suitable. Perhaps at the bottom of the "Initiation" sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC) That sounds like a better fit -- it's a bit disjointed where it is. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I have now moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Most Cubans do not understand the Lucumí language, barring a few words that have filtered into Cuban Spanish, the daily language of most practitioners Is the last clause of this sentence necessary? The needed ideas are expressed without it. I've removed "the daily language of most practitioners." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC) The casa will typically also include a place to store ritual paraphernalia So...this article uses the term 'paraphernalia' a few times (including in the caption of the image right here). It is, in the abstract, a perfectly respectable word, and likely to be the best one possible. But -- the common association with the term is drug paraphernalia, to the point if you google the word alone you get this. Considering there are already drug-culture associations with Santeria in the popular consciousness, I'm not sure this wording won't attract snickers from peanut-gallery readers. Difficult one. I'm certainly open to using a synonym here, but "equipment", "utensils", and "implements" all also have connotations of other types of activity (indeed, more so than "paraphernalia", at least in my experience). Terms like "stuff" and "things" are just too vague. On the balance of things, I'd say "paraphernalia" is our best option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Altars or shrines to the oricha are typically found both within the igbodu, and in practitioners' homes Not sure this needs a comma. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC) anthropologists have observed practitioners who have included Taoist figurines, or statues of wizards, on their altars As above re. comma. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC) There are specific rules of engagement that are laid out for taking part in the toque de santo; dancing poorly at the ritual is considered an insult to the oricha This is a great line, exactly the kind of thing that catches a reader's attention in a long article. Is there anything more on the bad dancing? In her ethnographic account, Hagedorn discusses how one practitioner she observed began doing the moonwalk. Other participants thought that this individual was basically just trying to show off rather than being genuinely possessed by an oricha, and were disapproving as a result. I don't know if that's the sort of thing that we could add here or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Oh, that's a great line -- I'd definitely add it. Human interest, y'know. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Some practitioners have also reported becoming possessed by an oricha in non-ritual contexts, such as while sleeping or walking through the streets, or in some cases during drumming performances carried out for non-religious purposes "In some cases" seems superfluous. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC) History They largely adhered to what is now known as Yoruba traditional religion -- is this WP:PLEONASM? There may be a better way to discuss the Yoruba religions. I'm not sure about this. Today's Yoruba are largely Christian and Muslim, so it would not be unreasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the chronologies of Abrahamic conversion in West Africa to assume that a lot of the enslaved Yoruba who were taken to Cuba were Christian or Muslim too. Explicitly stating that they were largely adherents of traditional religion just keeps things crystal clear for those readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I get where you're coming from, but I think it sounds off how it's currently phrased. "They largely adhered to their traditional religions, rather than the Abrahamic religions they would later convert to" ...that's a quick rephrase and not necessarily a good one, but that's the sort of idea I think it's better pointed at. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I'm a bit concerned that introducing Christianity and Islam among the Yoruba here might be a little off-topic; I've had a go at rewriting this sentence, merging it into the subsequent sentence. Do you think that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC) In the 1920s, there were efforts to incorporate elements of Afro-Cuban culture into a wider understanding of Cuban culture, such as through the afrocubanismo literary and artistic movement Should Afrocubanismo be capitalized? It certainly can be. I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Regarded largely as a U.S. phenomenon rather than a Cuban one I'm not sure how relevant it is to this paragraph, then. The rest of the section seems to focus on Santeria as practiced in Cuba, rather than as practiced in the United States. I've deleted this part of the sentence; it is not essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC) One of the most prominent figures in this revival, Ava Kay Jones, had for instance previously been involved in King's Orisha-Voodoo "For instance" seems either superfluous, or needing to be moved forward in the sentence. I've taken out "for instance" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Demographics However, there are a greater number of people who are not initiates but turn to santeros and santeras for assistance on practical matters Strike "however". Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC) This section broadly seems to use older numbers, although I recognize it may be a limitation of what sources exist. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any more recent data on this subject. After a big rush of scholarly research on Santería coming out in the 2000s, things have died down a bit in the past ten years (academic fads moving on, I suppose) so there's no contemporary discussion of demographic information to draw on. Hopefully some more work will be done on this topic in future, which we can then incorporate into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Reception I think there may be room for expansion here, particularly in the last paragraph, which has a lot of ideas and seems to be compressing them. There's at least one very long sentence trying to deal with multiple different ideas ("the Catholics and the animal welfare activists both opposed" type stuff). The Reliable Sources haven't really dealt much with the broader social impact and reception of Santería, strangely enough. (Whereas the sources on Haitian Vodou tend to dwell on these issues to a greater extent). I'm certainly open to an expansion of this section, although the article is already pretty much at the upper end of its recommended WP:Article Size at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Overall, this is a strong article. I'm hoping these can be resolved so I can support. Vaticidalprophet 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Thank you so much for taking the time to read through this article and offer your thoughts, Vaticidalprophet. I hope that you enjoyed doing so and found it informative. I believe that I have responded to all of your points but let me know if any more come to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Looking good -- just made a couple replies. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. I need to go back and look at the Hagedorn ethnography but I've responded to your other two points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

All significant concerns I have are resolved, and I'm happy to support this outstanding work. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support (incl. source review) from A. Parrot

To avoid taking up time and space on the FAC page, I've made a lot of prose edits already. They're numerous but very granular, so it should be easy to check what I did; feel free to undo or rework them if you see fit. The article seems pretty comprehensive, so my questions are few.

• Creyente seems to be used as both singular and plural in the article body, as per Lucumí, but the lead uses "creyentes". Should that be corrected?

• Linguistics and languages are not my strong point, but (having done some delving on a search engine) it does seem that the plural should be creyentes in the Spanish language, so I have standardised that spelling throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "…between a few dozen through to hundreds" is awkward.

• You're right. I've changed this to "tens or hundreds". Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fernández Olmos & Paravisini-Gebert 2011 has oyugbona instead of oyubona (which is in Mason 2002). Should oyugbona be added as an alternate spelling?

• I've re-checked Mason, and he definitely uses the spelling oyubona, but I'm happy to add oyugbona too. With a lot of this terminology, different authors seem to favour different spellings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a distinction between the necklaces that are laid on the soperas and those (aside from the distinct collar de mazo) that are given to initiates? The text lists three terms for the latter but only one for the former, making it seem like there are two types with somewhat different terminology. Also, it's not clear how many necklaces initiates receive, though the comment about their colors seems to suggest each initiate receives one for each oricha.

• In all honesty, I'm not completely sure about the distinction between these two different types of necklace; I believe they are effectively the same, but I could be wrong. I am not an initiate of Santería, so my knowledge relies on the secondary sources, none of which go into particular detail regarding these necklaces. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

OK.

• If santería is a semi-formalized version of a cluster of longstanding Afro-Cuban beliefs and practices, as the history section indicates, how did it come to be regarded as distinct from the other Afro-Cuban traditions?

• As I understand it, that varies depending on the tradition in question. Palo, for instance, arises primarily in the east of Cuba and has a system of belief and practice that it very distinct from Santería, largely because it derives from Kongolese, as opposed to Yoruba, traditional religion. Abakuá operates as a sort of closed or secret society, which thus distinguishes it from Santería in an organisational manner. The situation with Arará is a bit more complicated; it is sometimes regarded as being part of Santería, and sometimes as something separate. The article used to mention that, but I removed it when trying to get the word count down. Would you like me to re-add it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the distinctions need to be clarified as much as possible. The fluid nature of these traditions raises the question of how they came to be regarded as separate traditions with distinct names. Also, do the sources say anything about how these traditions came to be concentrated in the geographic regions that they are? A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've restored mention of the different interpretations of Arará's relationship with Santería. As for the geographical dispersal of these traditions, I can't recall anything specific in the literature; I would imagine that it may have something to do with where certain ethnic/national groups from West Africa congregated on the island, with Kongolese being predominant in the east and Yoruba in the west, but it could be a good deal more complicated than that. There's a chronological dynamic at play here too, with Kongolese predominantly brought to Cuba in the eighteenth century and Yoruba in the nineteenth. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "…Argüelles Mederos and Hodge Limonta…" I think their full names and (if possible) academic field should be supplied.

• I've added the personal names of these two and described them as "scholars of religion." I'm not sure if that is the specific field they are most closely associated with; I couldn't find a great deal of information on Argüelles Mederos, but Hodge Limonta appears to have a doctorate in social history and now works in a Center for Psychological and Sociological Research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review

I'm not acquainted with the scholarship on this topic, but the all sources cited seem as strong as one could ask for, especially given the difficulty of studying religions of this type. Although many of the sources are inaccessible to me, I've spot-checked 15 citations to those I can access, and all check out, which is impressive. Here is my only point of concern:

• Citation 203b: Some of the wording of this passage is a bit uncomfortably close to the source, but it could be reworded to shorten it and reduce the resemblance: "Many practitioners will also enshrine their family ancestors on the floor under the bathroom sink. The ancestors are thus located below the water pipes, allowing the spirits to transition between the realms via water, their preferred medium for travel."

• Fair point. I've gone back and reworded this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work, and I'm very close to supporting. A. Parrot (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks for reviewing this, A. Parrot. If you had any responses or other queries then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My last point: the further reading section is pretty extensive. That brings up a question about the FA criteria that editors rarely discuss: "thorough" in criterion 1c could be read as meaning "including everything", which is impractical for large topics. In practice, editors treat 1c as if it said "extensive and representative", which means that leaving RSes unused is OK as long as the coverage is neutral and discusses everything it needs to at the appropriate level of detail. But Flores-Peña and Evanchuk 1994 seems like it might answer my question about necklaces. I'm assuming you didn't cite the book because you haven't been able to obtain it. If so, it's not a major problem, but it's worth keeping in mind in case you or some other editor is able to obtain that source—even an FA can be improved. A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right; where I haven't included a source it is because it proved impossible or highly impractical to obtain a copy. That does not mean, however, that I (or someone else) will never be able to access said sources at a later date, and if so, information from them could be utilised in this article. David H. Brown's Santería Enthroned, which has been out of print for nearly twenty years now, but which I believe is set to be reprinted, would be one definitely worth drawing on here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. A. Parrot (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Z1720

Please consider me a non-expert.

Many of my comments below regard the citations. Most of the citations are completely necessary, but a large amount of footnotes in the prose makes the material hard to read. I suggest consulting WP:OVERCITE (specifically WP:REPCITE) which, although is an essay, explains my concerns in better detail and describes why too many footnotes can be distracting to a reader. I have listed places below where I think the refs can be merged or deleted which I hope will be considered. There are other concerns listed, so please read each bullet point.

• "regarded as subservient to a transcendent creator deity, Olodumare. Olodumare is believed" It's weird when the same word is put twice in a row. Perhaps, "regarded as subservient to Olodumare, a transcendent creator deity. Olodumare is believed"

• I've made this change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The three facets of this divinity are understood slightly differently; Olodumare represents the divine essence of all that exists, Olorun is regarded as the creator of all beings, while Olofi dwells in all creation.[50] In taking a triplicate form, this deity displays similarities with the Christian Trinity.[50]" These can possibly be merged.
• Is this Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert the same person that is referenced in the Ache section? If so, wikilink in the prose.

• Oh, I hadn't seen that we had an article on her. Good find. I'll add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The casa will typically also include a place" Delete also

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The casa refers not only to the building where ceremonies take place, but also the community of practitioners who meet there.[155] In this sense, many casa trace a lineage back to the 19th century, with some santeros and santeras capable of listing the practitioners who have been initiated into it.[155]" Perhaps merge
• "greater importance, sacrifices are often of four-legged animals,[68] including dogs.[220]" Why are dogs given a special mention here?

• No particular reason. Ideally, I'd have found sources to allow us to list the four-legged animals that were commonly used, but I didn't. I'll remove "including dogs". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "this varies depending on the client,[237] but is often equivalent to a year's wage.[238]" Since both of these citations are to Hagedorn 2001, can they be merged to prevent OVERCITE?

• In this instance, I agree ,as we are dealing with to parts of the same (short) sentence. In other instances, I am (following Aza24's comments below) more cautious about any such merger. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Each initiation varies in its details,[239] which are often concealed from non-initiates.[240]" Both [239] and [240] reference Mason 61, so 239 can be deleted.

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "During this preparation, a misa espiritual will typically take place to gain the blessings of the ancestral egun,[247] and an ebó de entrada ("opening sacrifice") will be made to the oricha or the egun.[247] " Delete the first [247]

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 265 needs a page number for Fernández Olmos & Paravisini-Gebert 2011.

• Ah, I've fixed the error that was concealing the page number here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "An animal sacrifice usually follows,[269] involving at least five four-legged animals and 25 birds.[270]" Since these are all cited to Mason, they can probably be merged.

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The following day is el Día del Medio ("the middle day"),[271] when guests—including the initiate's family and friends—pay homage to them.[272] It includes drumming and a feast.[272]" These references can be merged.

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "This baptism entails washing the drums in omiero and making sacrifices to Osain.[294] It also involves affixing an afoubo, a small leather bag containing items including a parrot feather and glass beads, to the interior of the drum.[294]" first 294 can be deleted.

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Praise songs are sung for the oricha,[305] with specific songs associated with particular deities.[306]" Since both cited to Hagedorn, these can be merged.
• "Particular focuses of Santería healing include skin complaints, gastrointestinal and respiratory problems, sexually transmitted infections, and issues of female reproduction;[324] some practitioners provide concoctions to induce abortion.[324]" the first 324 can be deleted.

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Practitioners believe that each species of plant has its own aché which holds healing power; medicinal plants are deemed more powerful if harvested from the wild rather than being cultivated, for the latter can lack aché.[132] Adherents often believe that different types of plant have different temperaments and personalities; some are shy or easily frightened and thus need to be approached with the appropriate etiquette.[132]" First 132 can be deleted.
• "Charms and amulets are also used as a general prophylaxis against illness; one example are ears of corn that are wrapped in purple ribbon and placed behind a doorway.[344] Other rituals are designed to protect against sorcery, as for instance with the scattering of petals of the gálan de día in the house or the placement of okra by the door.[344]" first 344 can be deleted.
• "During the session, offerings will be given to an overseeing oricha;[355] the diviner will then cast small objects onto a board or table and interpret the way in which they fall.[355]" Delete the first 355

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Obi, also known as biagué, involves the casting of four pieces of a dried coconut shell, with the manner in which they fall being used to answer a question.[358] Any practitioner can utilise this technique,[203] which is also used in Palo.[358]" These can be merged, as they are cited to the same author and successional similar page numbers.
• "Dealing with the dead" I find this title a little awkward. Perhaps "Death ceremonies", "Death rituals" or something similar?

• Tricky one. I agree with you that "Dealing with the dead" is a little awkward. However, finding an appropriate alternative is also difficult. The section discusses not only funerary rituals but also various practices designed to facilitate interaction with the spirits of the dead. How about "Funerals and mediumship" as a title for this sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• What about "Funeral rituals and mediumship"? Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This brings me to History, which I will continue later. Thanks for considering my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with most of these citation suggestions. Citing each line for FAs is common—otherwise people come in later and add a "citation needed" tag to a sentence that is cited later in the paragraph. Also things like "These references can be merged." is extremely counter productive... why on earth would we ever want to decrease the ability for readers to verify information? I don't see how any of these has to even do with the FA criteria, it seems nothing but the insistence on (good faith) personal preferences. Aza24 (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've adopted some of Z1720's suggestions, but not others (and would like to thank them for taking the time to read and review the article). Where a specific citation recurs in a single sentence, as happened a few times in the "Initiation" section, I agree with Z1720 that we would be better getting rid of one of the citations. In other examples, such as where there are two consecutive sentences that give different pieces of information but share a common citation, I have agreed with Aza24, that it is better for the citation to recur at the end of each sentence. Otherwise, as they noted, it won't be long before someone comes along and slaps a "citation needed" tag onto the former sentence. In those instances where I have agreed with Z1720, I have left a comment; where I have disagreed I have not written a direct response. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Per WP:CITETYPE, a inline reference can be placed at the end of a sentence or the end of a paragraph. If other editors add citation needed to sentences then they can be removed if it is cited in the next sentence. There are exceptions to this of course: direct quotes need a citation, as well as controversial statements or extraordinary claims that are likely to be challenged. Per WP:CITEBUNDLE, sometimes citations can be merged or bundled to help the flow and readability of an article. I won't oppose if the citations remain as-is, but I am highlighting this concern so that the nominator can make a decision on if these citations are necessary. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, thanks for your response. I think we both know I did not say you couldn't put refs at the end of paragraphs, I rather gave a very specific rationale for why not doing is valid option. I will make it clear that the primary reason I even brought this up is because you yourself adding a lot of cn tags to Chinua Achebe for FAR, even though almost all of them were cited later in the paragraphs. I don't say this to try and go "got you!" but merely to highlight that even experienced editors can be mislead by such a citation style, so choosing to make it clearer is in no way a negative thing. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I want to reiterate what I've told Aza24: I won't oppose if references are not bundled, merged, or deleted. I appreciate that you have already considered some of my suggestions, and fully support your disagreement on any of my comments. I consider the nominator to be the "expert" of the article and I usually default to their judgment (and if I disagree, I will try to cite the policy or guideline I am using to justify my comment). I am going to continue reviewing the article now so expect more comments soon. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• "In Cuba, traditional African deities perhaps continued to be venerated within clubs and fraternal organizations made up of African migrants and their descendants." Do the sources express doubt in where African deities were venerated? If not, delete "perhaps".

• As far as I understand the sources, there is very little evidence for what the Afro-Cuban clubs and fraternal organizations actually got up to, as they did not generally document their activities in written form. Historians surmise that it was in these groups that orisha continued to be worshipped clandestinely, although this has not been conclusively proven. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Although drawing on older West African orisha cults it was, as described by Clark, "a new religious system"." Awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "Although it drew on older West African cults, Santeria was, as described by Clark, "a new religious system". I'm not thrilled with my suggested phrasing because it uses too many commas, so feel free to improve upon it.

• I've changed the text to your proposed wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Santiago de Cuba—which lies at the eastern end of the country—" Is it important for the reader of this article to know where Santiago de Cuba is? This might be especially unnecessary if, as stated in the demographics section, the religion is predominately practiced in NW Cuba. If this statement isn't needed, delete the info in the dashes.

• I included it so as to try and demonstrate the general drift of the religion from the west of the island to the east over the course of a century or so. I think that without mentioning the general location of Santiago de Cuba, few readers would be aware of where it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Priests of Santería, Ifá, and Palo all took part in government-sponsored tours for foreigners desiring initiation into such traditions,[421] while Afro-Cuban floor shows became common in Cuban hotels.[421]" Delete the first [421]?

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1991, the Communist Party approved the admission of religious members,[429] and in 1992 the constitution was amended to declare Cuba a secular rather than an atheist state.[429]" Delete the first [429]?

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Based on their research, the scholars of religion" Delete Based on their research. If the article introduces a scholar's opinion, it is self-evident that this would be based on their research.

• Good point. Deleted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Wedel noted from his research in the 1990s" delete from his research, as the reader will assume a scholar's statement is based on their research.

• Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are all my comments! Once everything is addressed I will take another look. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look at the article, Z1720! Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my concerns! I'll highlight some things mentioned above that need to be resolved:

• "Dealing with the dead" heading can be changed to one of our suggested titles above, or something else.

• I've gone with "Funerals and mediumship". Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• The mention of Santiago de Cuba is included in the article because it is demonstrating the drift of the religion to the eastern part of the island. I did not intuitively comprehend this information (probably because the preceding information talked about the religion's spread to the countryside) so this should be more explicit in the article.

• I've reworded all of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• There are some places where the same citation is used multiple times in a sentence. I won't withhold my support over these concerns below, but per OVERCITE I highly suggest that, in the examples below, one of the references be deleted unless there is a justification for keeping it. The examples are:
  • " Practitioners believe that the dead must be treated with respect, awe, and kindness;[118] they are consulted at all ceremonies.[118]"

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• • "Funeral rites, called itulu,[203] are designed to appease the soul of the deceased.[203]"

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• • "A year of additional rites for the dead individual follow,[203] a period ended with the levantamiento de platos, the breaking of a dish, to symbolise the deceased's final departure from the realm of the living.[203]"

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Another readthrough did not produce other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, Z1720! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• "cowrie shells" – link?

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Most casa are established" – Should it be "casas"?

• Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• a person's own obi – What is an obi?

• Ah, this is a spelling error. It should read "ori", which was introduced earlier in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• a misa espiritual will typically take place – maybe translate this term, difficult to understand from the context what precisely it is.

• I've added a translation: "(spiritual mass)". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was asking myself if the drums (batá) are traditional African instruments, or if they have been invented in Cuba.

• They arose in Africa; I've added a link to Batá drum for those interested in reading more, although do you think it important that we discuss its origins in this article itself? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• protective charms known as resguardos. – I do not quite understand what kind of charm these are. Potions?

• No, the resguardos are physical objects. Wedel calls them "talismans" rather than "charms", which is probably the better term to use here given that a "charm" can often connotate a verbal device for healing or protection, so I'll replace the term "charms" with "talismans" in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• most slaves were either convicted criminals or prisoners of war captured in conflicts with neighbouring groups – This seems to be valid only before the large-scale slave-trade conducted by Europeans? It sounds as if a majority of slaves brought to Cuba were convicted criminals; I doubt this is the case.

• This is a big issue and one that obviously needs its own Wikipedia article to be dealt with properly. We really need better coverage of issues to do with the slave trade and its relationship with older European and African systems of enslavement; the current Slavery in Africa article, which is linked to here, does not really do the job in a precise enough fashion. I'd agree that those captured in conflict would have represented the majority of enslaved Africans who were transported to Cuba, but if I understand the sources correctly there would have been some individuals among those transported who had been forced into slavery as a form of punishment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe, as a quick fix, just switch to "prisoners of war or convicted criminals", to put more emphasis on the prisoners? Something like "mostly prisoners of war, and to a lesser extent convicted criminals" would be even better I think. The current wording is a bit misleading in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• this reached a fever pitch in 1904 after two white children were murdered in Havana in cases that investigators speculated were linked to brujería. – Maybe briefly add what the consequences were?

• In both cases, male Afro-Cuban suspects were arrested. In one case, the accused individual was sentenced to death but found hanged in his cell prior to the execution; in the other the police arrested two men, who were then garrotted. I'm not really sure how to integrate this into the text without it going a bit off-topic, but am happy to discuss this further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info, ok then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks for taking the time to read the article, Jens. I'm glad that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I will be away for the next days, so I am supporting now, but note the suggestion in my reply above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Jens! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2021 [36].

---

1999 Football League First Division play-off Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is another dive into the single most valuable association football match in the world. Obviously a disappointment here since the Tractor Boys didn't quite make it, but a fun ride nevertheless and some big names of English football involved too. As always, sensible and constructive criticism is welcomed and will be actioned as soon as practicable. Thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What about unconstructive criticism? Therapyisgood (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be interesting. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude

Comments on the lead

• The top division should be referred to throughout as the Premier League. "Premiership" was a sponsored name.
• "Bolton Wanderers ended the season in fifth position while Watford sixth" - missing word near the end I think
• "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining as Watford won the match 2–0" => "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining and Watford won the match 2–0" ("as" suggests they won with two minutes remaining)
• "since its inception in 1992–93 season" => "since its inception in the 1992–93 season"
• "It also meant that Watford were promoted second successive season" - missing words I think
• Putting this here partly as a placeholder - I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  All done Chris, thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the next bit

• "Michael Johansen volleyed the ball past Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal, and securing....." - bit of a grammar issue there. Probably best just to remove the "and"
• Frandsen is mentioned for the first time without his forename or a wikilink
• "despite Holland's 20-yard (18 m) strike making it 4–3 to Ipswich in the 116th minute, the tie ended 4–4 on aggregate" - the tie didn't end 4-4 on aggregate despite Holland's goal, it ended 4-4 on aggregate because of his goal. Suggest a re-wording here.
• "Watford faced Birmingham City in their play-off semi-final and played the first leg away at Vicarage Road" - Watford played away at Vicarage Road??
• "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland had hit" => "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland hit". Also suggest the second "before" in this sentence be changed to "and" to avoid repetition..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  All done Chris, thanks again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the rest

• "Watford manager Graham Taylor last managed a team" => "Watford manager Graham Taylor had last managed a team"
• "Bolton's top scorer in the league was Taylor who had fifteen goals for the season" - as a completely different Taylor was just mentioned in the last sentence, might be worth giving his full name to make this 100% clear
• "Despite Bolton dominating the midfield, in the eleventh minute Steve Palmer's long ball forward was allowed to bounce before Kennedy's shot was high over the bar" - this is a bit unclear. Does all of the bit after the comma refer to a single move or two separate moves? Also, how does this relate to Bolton dominating the midfield?
• "On 13 minutes, Eiður Guðjohnsen was defended by Robinson and Page" - not sure I have ever seen the wording that Player X was defended by Player Y......?
• "Guðjohnsen had another chance after breaking free but was defended by Page" - same again
• I would write Bolton Wanderers in full in the details section
• "Elton John had watched the match live from Seattle said" => "Elton John, who had watched the match live from Seattle, said"
• "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, and losing 26 of their 38 matches" => "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, losing 26 of their 38 matches"
• Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Third tranche done Chris, many thanks. Let me know if anything else remains to be done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up

• "On 13 minutes, Eiður Guðjohnsen was marked by both Robinson and Page, but the ball fell to Johansen" - apologies, but I still find it hard to figure out what happened in this incident - did Guðjohnsen pass the ball to Johansen? I'm guessing not, based on the wording "the ball fell to....", which doesn't imply an intentional pass.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  So you can see the source for yourself, it says "Eidur Gudjohnson is crowded out of the Watford area by Paul Robinson and Page, but the ball breaks to Michael Johansen who flashes the ball across the face of the goal." I could just ditch the first clause altogether and go for Johansen shoots wide, but I thought the first clause added flavour. Suggestions appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Maybe say that Guðjohnsen was challenged by the other two players? That's presumably what happened. Simply saying that he was marked by them conveys the sense that they were just hovering near to him and then somehow the ball wound up with Johansen, if that makes sense....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

    As you like, done! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Coming up to the three week mark and this has only attracted one general support. If there are not further signs of a consensus to promote building over the next two or three days I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sure, remind me, am I or am I not allowed to seek the views of others because different co-ordinators say polar different things. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• @FAC coordinators: I need explicit guidance on this please. One of you has, on numerous occasions, suggested "calling in favours" while one of you has explicitly told me not to go off to seek reviewers when a FAC got stalled. Which is it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It is fine to draw other editors' attention to a FAC, so long as this is done in a neutral way. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Good to know, perhaps all the co-ordinators should get up to speed with that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep -- while I don't think I use the expression "calling in favours", I've often suggested that nominators seek reviews in a neutrally worded manner when necessary, and haven't changed my position on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• "gained automatic promotion to the Premiership", noting what Chris said above regarding the use of Premiership, is this a deliberate usage or an oversight?
• Could perhaps link overhead kick to Bicycle kick in the lead and the match summary.
• "before a 50 yards (46 m) run", should that be yard rather than yards?
• What is the source for the captains in the match details section?

In all honesty, I'm struggling to find much to complain about. I'll be supporting either way really but there are a handful of very minor points to look at. Kosack (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Kosack thanks for the review! I addressed all your comments and as for the captains, no sources, so that's sadly gone. Cheers, let me know if there's anything else I can do? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to support, this is another high quality piece of work. Kosack (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• Probably subjective but "played on 31 May 1999 at Wembley Stadium, London, between Bolton Wanderers and Watford.", perhaps "played on 31 May 1999 between Bolton Wanderers and Watford at the Wembley Stadium in London". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  It follows the format of most of the other FA/GAs I've written of this nature, and we'd never say "the Wembley Stadium"... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1999–2000 season in the Premier League. - I feel like this has been said before, and doesn't quite work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  It follows the format of most of the other FAs/GAs I've written, can you suggest an alternative if you feel like it doesn't quite work as it is? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think the issue is The top two teams of the 1998–99 Football League First Division season gained automatic promotion to the Premier League, while those from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; Bolton Wanderers ended the season fifth in the table, one position and one point ahead of Watford. The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1999–2000 season in the Premier League. Birmingham City and Ipswich Town were the losing semi-finalists - that we mention the remaining two teams after mentioning the structure, which is a bit odd. Maybe "The top two teams of the 1998–99 Football League First Division season gained automatic promotion to the Premier League, while those from third to sixth place in the table took part in a play-off competition. Bolton Wanderers defeated Ipswich Town and Watford defeated Birmingham City in the play-off semi-finals. The two teams met in the final of the play-off, the winner receiving the final place for the 1999–2000 season in the Premier League. Bolton had ended the season fifth in the table, one position and one point ahead of Watford. or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Do we have a link for "overhead kick"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I feel like a sentence or two on how the media/teams felt about the results in the lede would help a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Added that Watford were considered relegation favourites and that Elton John loved it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• Watford finished ten points behind Bradford City (who were promoted in second place) and twenty-eight behind league winners Sunderland.[1] - is it worth using 10 and 28? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  MOS allows for either. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe the 6-6 in penalties is worth expanding on, as it's reasonably rare to go that high. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  If it was the final then I'd agree, but this was the semi-final. The goals were scored, and that's what's significant. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Watford were immediately installed by William Hill as favourites for relegation from the Premier League the following season - is there any reason why we are using William Hill specifically? Were they the sponsors? Also, we should define who they are "i.e. Bookmakers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's what I have in sources, I can't pick and choose which bookies remarked on things in 1999...! Added bookmakers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski I've responded to and/or actioned all your comments, thanks so much for the review. Let me know how to proceed with those I haven't satisfactorily addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski hi Lee, just checking in to see if there's anything else I can do for you here? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I have come up with some additional wording if you fancy, but fine to support regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

from me. Only minor thing I think would improve is this (which I undid) as it introduces the 2nd tier one sentence earlier. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Casliber thanks for taking a look. I'll have a look at your suggestion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Amakuru - Passed

General points:

• Noting the use of Soccerway as a source for the league positions. Discussions at WT:FOOTY have mostly concluded by saying Soccerway shouldn't be used as a secondary source, or for certain purposes, but this league table looks OK as no independent commentary is being used.
• Ref 24 should have the usual "AFS Enterprises" for 11v11.
• Nothing else I can really see.

Spot checks:

• [1] - both the league table and the contents of the first paragraph of "Route to the final" are confirmed by this ref.
• [2] - mostly checks out, although pedantically, the source doesn't actually say the winning goal was volleyed past the keeper; for all we know he might have been somewhere else entirely.

  Stuck to source, perhaps an old memory of mine... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• [3] - the link seems to be wrong. It points to the same article as ref [4].
• [4] - checks out.
• [6] - checks out.
• [7] - checks out.
• [9] - checks out.
• [10] - checks out for both.
• [11] - checks out.
• [12] - checks out.
• [14] - checks out.
• [16] - checks out.
• [17] - checks out for both.
• [20] - looks fine, I checked a few of the minute-by-minute things although I didn't look at every single one of them!
• [21] - fine for the quote; it doesn't say they were "favourites" for relegation though, only that they were 4/7. Unlikely perhaps, but there might have been another team with even shorter odds than that.

  Add that they were odds on to get relegated and that the guy writing in the Irish Indy said they were favourites, hopefully covering the concern here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• [23] - checks out.
• [24] - checks out. Although I know they did beat Cov on the last day of the season to deny us a single away win from that campaign, because I was there.
• [26] - checks out.

Just a couple of minor things then, and this one will be good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru addressed the two issues you noted, thanks for scouring those sources. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice one. You missed the things about AFS Enterprises, but I've taken the liberty of doing that one myself. Otherwise all good so I'm passing the source review.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, and thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: as this is in good stead now, with three supports, a source review and an image review, can I now start another nomination? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [37].

---

Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon

Nominator(s): Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the debut posthumous studio album by American rapper Pop Smoke. It was executive produced by American rapper 50 Cent after Pop Smoke was murdered at the age of 20 during a home invasion. After months of researching the topic, I think it is FA status. I would like to give a huge thanks to Gerda Arendt after she helped me with the peer review. Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• For full disclosure, this is TUB back under a different name. Their userpage is currently marked "semi-retired". (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Two very quick comment before I do a full review: The release history table is missing release dates and regions
  • CD: July 31, 2020 (Germany)[38]
  • Dlx. 2xCD: November 20, 2020 (Germany) [39], South Korea (January 22, 2021)[40]
  • There a bunch of different release dates in Japan, including a casette version not mentioned at all[41]
  • I would just check some countrys record store, to see if some are still missing.
• I don't see a reason for the deluxe edition album cover. It is basically the same. See Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra album cover and WP:NFCCP. More comments soon.--Lirim | Talk 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Lirim.Z: I have to disagree with you on that. The deluxe edition is not the same as the standard edition, if you compare these two album together, they are different [42] [43]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @TheAmazingPeanuts: The Deluxe ed. cover is a dove carrying the rose from the Standard edition cover. The template states, in accordance with the guideline: "Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc., should not be included."--Lirim | Talk 04:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Lirim.Z: Okay, thank you for pointing out, but will it be okay to add the |caption= parameter with a note for the deluxe edition cover? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless it clearly doesn't meet WP:NFCC which requires significant increase in reader understanding. There's sourced commentary on the original cover but not the deluxe one. (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Lirim.Z: How does the release history section look? Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(←) Hi reviewers, I've just begun the copy-edit of the article the nominator requested at the GOCE Requests page. This will probably take me a couple of evenings to complete and reviewed text may change during this time. I'll post again here when I've finished my c/e. Please check the article's edit history for progress and feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

My c/e is now Done. Thanks for your patience. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: It looks like there has been no review in almost two weeks. Do you think this should be closed? Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shoot for the Stars, should I take that as a request for withdrawal? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild give it like 2 or 3 more days to see if it gets any comments. And if it doesn’t. Just archive it.

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

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 June 2021 [44].

---

Singer Building

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.

This was promoted as a Good Article nine months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Eddie891. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Accessibility — the infobox image is missing alt text and image_alt parameter. Heartfox (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Heartfox: Thanks. I have added an alt accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Epicgenius, you could do with attracting some reviewers to this. More than two weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote promoting. If this doesn't change over the next two or three days I am afraid that it liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have let this go another two weeks, but sadly it still shows little sign of building a consensus to promote. If this doesn't change over the next two days I regret that it will be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Unfortunately, I don't expect this will see any more comments. I'm OK with it being archived, but for the future (i.e. after two weeks have passed), would you have any recommendations for how I can draw reviews? It seems like some topics tend to just draw less attention than others. This is at least the third time I've nominated an article which had few reviews. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

With the caveat that I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, here are some comments you may consider:

• Infobox says Beaux-Arts but the body does not mention this
  • I added a mention to the body. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Infobox says demolished 1968 but body says start in September 1967 and finished in 1969
  • Done.
• Infobox says 15 elevators, lead says 16
  • Fixed the infobox.
• I'm not convinced about the lead's last paragraph. The content is fine, but I find it odd that the original building is described last in the lead, I would expect it to be the second paragraph. Is there a reason why straightforward chronological description isn't used?
  • The last paragraph of the lead is chronologically arranged. The first buildings on the site are described in the first sentence. The second sentence is about the tower expansion and the annex to the two original buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault, I failed to make my point clear: I was wondering if it would be better if the second paragraph starts with "The original 10-story Singer Building was erected between 1897 and 1898, while the 14-story Bourne Building was built adjacent to it from 1898 to 1899." and so on, all chronologically. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. I have rearranged it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I expected the article to start with a background section about early skyscrapers, probably about Manhattan specifically, but definitely including which building previously was the tallest. And maybe consider putting in a bit about Singer as well. Just to set the stage rather than jumping straight into Design.
• I'm also not sure about the History section coming after Design. It may just be personal preference, I just like a chronological approach. In the current approach there is lots of detail about the original building and the Bourne building in the Form section, and then a bit more in the History section. But no doubt there will be issues with a chronological approach as well, so as I said, I'm not sure. But something for you to consider.
  • You have a good point on both counts. To me, it seems like a background section would be suitable. However, it would be more suitable as the beginning of a history section. As for why the design section comes first, I do this in many of my articles because I feel the design elements are most relevant to the subject, followed by the history. I'm fine with changing the order around if there's a better reason why the history section is more relevant to the subject. I am currently working on writing a background section. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I see your point and agree that the design elements are more relevant than the history. If this follows the structure of other articles, we should not deviate. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lead uses Singer Manufacturing Company but Design section uses Singer Sewing Machine Company
  • Fixed.
• previous headquarters at 561 Broadway.[b] The previous --> repetition of previous
  • Removed.
• was also referred to the "Little Singer Building" --> insert as?
  • Done.
• Otto F. Semsch,[12][4]--> I believe the convention is to list refs in ascending order
  • Fixed.
• Contemporary sources at the time ... to the entire structure. --> Perhaps it would be better to end the section with this, to keep things in chronological order?
  • Done.
• The base of the building filled the entire lot. --> there's an earlier lot that is not linked
  • I moved the link. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• There was a gap of 10 feet (3.0 m) --> this is a bit puzzling to me, as The tower was set back 30 feet (9.1 m) behind the base. Is it set back 30 feet on one side and 10 on another?
  • Yes. The tower was set back 30 feet on Broadway, which is to the east. The adjacent building to the north was 10 feet away from the tower. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• The narrowness of the gap was because the columns required to support the Singer Tower would have been too large to place atop the original Singer Building. --> Sorry, I don't get this
  • The original building was at the southeastern portion of the lot. The original building couldn't support the weight of a large tower. Instead, when the northern annex was built, the tower was built atop that northern annex. That portion of the building was close to the City Investing Building. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• 4,280,000 pounds (1,940,000 kg) of limestone --> we go from square feet to million bricks to cubic feet to pounds: it would be nicer if the unit of measurement could be consistent. Not sure if the sources allow you to do that of course.
  • These measurements are from the source. I wish there were a source that was more consistent, but sadly I haven't found one. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• There was extensive ornamentation used --> that's 3 times used in short succession
  • Fixed.
• After the 1906–1908 modifications --> In the Form section it was From 1906 to 1907. Is this a typo or is there another set of modifications I missed?
  • Yes, this was a typo. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• between the 7th floor and the three-story roof --> earlier we had seventh story. Be consistent with MOS:NUM
  • Done.
• self-glazed --> what is that?
  • I have rephrased this to "glazed tiles", which are a type of ceramic tile. Not sure why "self-" was included. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• supported by brackets on the 35th floor. Cantilevers supported the balcony. --> would it be better to combine these 2 supports into one sentence?
  • Done.
• Though the top of the lantern --> Why "Though"?
  • Fixed.
• The tower was lit at night --> the whole tower or just the top?
  • The entire tower was lit. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• except on the basements, first floor, and 14th through 16th floors --> I assume there they were 1 story?
  • They were one to three stories, due to the irregular construction. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• H. W. Miller--> earlier we had J.J. Spurr without a space between the capitals
  • Fixed.
• 9.5 acres --> can we have this in square feet, like all the others?
  • Done. The original source gave the measurement in acres for some reason. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• a combined capacity of 15,000 U.S. gallons (57,000 l; 12,000 imp gal) --> don't need to do the conversions again I think
  • Removed.
• The boilers had to generate 150,000,000 pounds (68,000,000 kg) of steam pressure to meet demand. --> pounds doesn't seem to be the right unit to me
  • That's what the source says. I'm not sure whether it's a typo or whether this was intentional. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can have an FA article with pressure expressed in pounds. If there is no other source it seems to me the sentence will have to go. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. It seemed out of place to me, in any case. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The lobby was characterized as exuding "celestial radiance". --> by whom?
  • Added.
• There was also retail space --> repetition of also
  • Removed.
• The Singer Company's main offices on the 33rd through 35th floors, where there was a plethora of ornamental plaster --> verb missing
  • Fixed.
• equivalent to $14 in 2020 --> perhaps update to 2021
• $25,352,000 in 2019 --> perhaps update to 2021
  • For both of these, the conversion was conducted using the last full year of inflation data that is available, which should be 2020 for small dollar amounts and 2019 for large dollar amounts. The figures for the current year are not readily available in the template because of frequent changes in inflation rate. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• the Singer Company's offices on the center stories and rental office space on the middle six stories. --> aren't the center stories the same as the middle stories?
  • Yes. There was a typo, the Singer Company's offices were on the two upper stories. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Bourne bought three five-story structures --> Bourne personally? or for the company? I assumed Bourne personally but then a little further it says "By 1905, the Singer Company controlled most of the block along both Broadway and Liberty Street;" so now I'm not sure
  • These were on behalf of the company. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Flagg was retained to design the fourteen-story Bourne Building --> a bit earlier it was 10-story .. please check for MOS:NUM consistency throughout
  • Done.
• In conjunction with the tower's construction, in late 1905, Flagg --> It reads as if the year is referring to the tower's construction, which is not the case. Do we need this first clause at all?
  • We do not. I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• The Singer Building was the tallest in the world for a year after its tower's completion --> surpassing which building?
  • I've added a mention of Philadelphia City Hall, the previous tallest building. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• In 1961, Singer announced it would sell the building --> Huh? But they had already sold it in 1925 to the Utilities Power and Light Corporation .. did they back it back at some stage?
  • I investigated the sources again. According to the newspaper sources from that period, the sale in 1925 was in fact only an agreement. The list of deed transfers does not indicate that any sale took place at that time. Presumably the buyer backed out. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Diagram of the world's tallest buildings from 1908 to 1974 --> I like this diagram but can't read any of the text in it
  • I resized it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• have setbacks as they rose --> this is not the first use of setback, so move link
  • Done.
• mid-20th century --> is 1916 already mid-century?
  • It was the early part of the century, but most of the subsequent skyscrapers built under this resolution were built from the 1920s to the 1950s. I've rephrased it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would add a few links: Roof lantern, dome, cornice, Indiana limestone, pediments, belt course, bracing, girder, water level, monogram,
  • Done.
• After my first scan of the article I thought it could be trimmed as I was under the impression it contained quite a bit of unnecessary detail. However, when reading closely, I found most of the material relevant. For instance, it was interesting to read about the elevator operators, and the complexity of expansion. And I even got interested in what happened to the original entrance.

That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am glad you found the article interesting. I'll respond to these comments in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed all of your comments now. I added a little context under the "history" section, in regard to your note about context. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice work on the new background section. Just check for MOS:NUM issues in this new text. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done so. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

References formatting check (using this version):

• Check for missing publisher locations (just a few examples: Wiley, Amberley Publishing, Taylor & Francis, University of Chicago Press)
• #9: since we have J.J. in the body of the text, we should also have no space between initials here in A. M. Same issue in #170
  • As this would break formatting consistency in other featured articles I have written, I have instead added back the initials consistently. Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• #103: why does this not simply read Condit 1968, p. 119 ? Or actually a better question is Why is the Condit book listed in sources, since it is referenced only once, and all the other books referenced only once do not appear in Sources?
  • I removed the redundant ref from the sources section.
• #112: It looks like you link publications on first mention only. So Brooklyn Daily Eagle should link here but not in #128
  • Removed.
• Willis, Carol (1995). Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-5689-8044-7. --> I don't think that p.50 should be there
  • Removed.

That's it for now. I plan to do a source spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks (using this version):

• #1 #16 #18 #19 #24 #25 #31 #47 #49 #74 #127 #141 all ok
• #7: mostly ok, but it just says East 23rd St, nothing about Madison or its district
  • Fixed. Since I am around the Metropolitan Life Tower so frequently, I just took it for granted that this was a known fact. I have added another source. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• #20: I couldn't quite find the "30 feet"
  • On page 10, the quoted text is "About the same time the project of extending the front of the original Singer Building northward on Broadway and erecting a tower of some forty odd stories, 30 feet back of this front, was accepted by the Singer Company, and the plans for this part of the building, henceforth called the 'Singer Building Addition,' or the 'Tower,' were begun." However, this is the setback of the tower, not the length of the additional frontage. I have corrected that now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the source review and spot checks. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Support from me. I hope you can attract some more reviewers soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2021 [45].

---

Level Mountain

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive and well-researched account of Level Mountain, one of the largest volcanoes in Canada and one of the more obscure volcanoes on Earth. In late 2015, I rewrote and expanded this article greatly which was followed by a lot of copyediting that has lasted into this year. I have significant knowledge regarding the volcanoes of British Columbia, having researched them for the last 14 years or so. I have also brought other BC volcano articles up to FA class in the past and look forward to bringing this article about Level Mountain up to that standard. Cheers, Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cropped clear betula pumila.png the caption needs to say that this photo is not taken at Level Mountain

Done. Volcanoguy 01:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg How was this map created? Is it automatic generation or is there any creative element? I think this would make a better lead image than the one you currently have, as it's much more clear (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen an FA article with a topographic map as a lead image. It also doesn't show the entire mountain. As for the map, it is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus

Going point-by-point through WP:WIAFA:

• 1a: With the caveat that I am not necessarily known for my prose skills, this seems fine to me.
• 1b: As far as I can tell, every topic I'd expect to be covered is covered here. Maybe details on climbing/mountaineering would be cool but in my experience reliable sources for such topics are hard to come by.

There is nothing about climbing/mountaineering at Level Mountain, which isn't surprising due to its remoteness. Volcanoguy 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• 1c: I see some sources mentioned here are not used in the article - from the summaries I think many say too little about Level Mountain or only bespeak technical details, but I assume we checked this? I have to AGF on some sources as I don't have access to them. Inline citations used through the article.

Yes I have already checked those sources. Most mention Level Mountain only briefly and aren't very useful to use as sources. A few in that list are already used in the article. Volcanoguy 15:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• 1d: I see no indication of NPOV problems, keeping the caveat about source access mentioned above in mind.
• 1e: Fits.
• 1f: The "drop a couple of sentences into Google" technique finds nothing untoward.
• 2a: Seems to fit; topics mentioned in the article also in the lead.
• 2b: Seems to fit.
• 2c: I see some citation errors and some citations have retrieved dates and others don't.

What citation errors and citations are you referring to? Volcanoguy 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Several show "Cite journal requires |journal=" errors, such as Holland 1976 and Gabrielse 1982. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

How about now? I didn't have those errors so I'm not sure if they're still there. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• 3: I think the ALT text on most images here is a little too much about what the image is and a little too little about what information it conveys. Does File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg have a source map? Images are appropriate for the sections they are in.

The map is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I did some improvements to the alt texts. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• 4: Seems to fit.

Parking an uncommitted !vote here for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, provisional support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ceranthor

• Lead

• "It is located 50 km (31 mi) north-northwest" - should be endash for north northwest

Done. Volcanoguy 23:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "extensive north-south trending volcanic zone" same note as above.

Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• "An extensive wild animal community thrives in the area of Level Mountain." - a very vague statement to make; I think this would read much better as "A wide variety of animal species thrives in the area of Level Mountain, with caribou being the most abundant."

Agreed. Volcanoguy 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Humans had arrived at Level Mountain by the early 1900s, followed by geological studies of the mountain from the 1920s to the 1970s." - does including "had" before arrived add anything here? I'm not sure it does

Removed. Volcanoguy 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Geology

• "The rocks of these two terranes are displaced and autochthonous in nature.[7]" - maybe misunderstanding, but aren't displaced and autochthonous opposites? If so, what are you trying to convey with this sentence

You understood it correctly. It just meant that the Yukon–Tanana and Cassiar terranes consist of both displaced and autochthonous rocks. Since that sentence isn't needed, I've deleted it. Volcanoguy 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The most common and best mechanism used to explain NCVP volcanic activity" - best according to whom?

Rewarded. Volcanoguy 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "This volcanic edifice forms a broad, oval-shaped, north-south trending lava plateau" - same note as above

Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• "although some estimates of its areal extent are as much as 3,000 km2 (1,200 sq mi).[3][4]" - is there any brief explanation in these two sources about the discrepancy here? If so, I think it's worth noting here

No there isn't. Volcanoguy 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The other planar fracture, Nahlin, is an east-dipping thrust fault" - what do you mean by east-dipping? Unclear to me.

Dipping is already linked in the article; see strike and dip. It's basically a thrust fault that is tilting towards the east. Volcanoguy 17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "A series of U-shaped valleys have been carved into the volcano" - Since you say "a series OF ... valleys" this should be "has been carved"

I don't think so. "A series of" implies that there's more than one, thus plural. Volcanoguy 15:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Level Mountain has experienced volcanic eruptions sporadically for the last 15 million years, making it the most persistent volcano of the NCVP." - Not sure how I feel about the use of persistent here; is there a better term we could use instead? Maybe the longest living or something more along those lines?

Replaced "persistent" with "long-lived". Volcanoguy 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Renewed volcanism sent a series of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit and have a total thickness of 76 m (249 ft). " - second half of the sentence does not match grammatically

Reworded to "Renewed volcanism deposited a 76 m (249 ft) thick sequence of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit." Volcanoguy 01:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "These lava flows, comprising the third unit, are spheroidally weathered." - spheroidally weathered? What does that mean?

Linked. Volcanoguy 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The liquidus temperatures of these flows were in excess of 1,200 °C (2,190 °F) with viscosities as low as 100,000 poise." - Link liquidus

Done. Volcanoguy 04:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Geography

• "The caribou at Level Mountain form a herd that is part of a larger population ranging west of the Dease River " - ranging doesn't work here

Changed "ranging" to "extending". Volcanoguy 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Human history

• "there is a human population of more than 630 who live within 100 km (62 mi) of the volcano.[2]" - any more details on this?

No. Volcanoguy 02:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Level Mountain was demonstrated in the 1920s as a possible source" - need a better verb than demonstrated

What would be a better word to use? Volcanoguy 21:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The recognition of Level Mountain as a long-lived volcano in contrast to the small Tuya field volcanoes has given it status as a separate volcanic centre.[27]" - I think you're missing an "its" after "it" and before "status"

I don't think so. Volcanoguy 15:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Accessibility

• Looks fine.

• Monitoring and volcanic hazards

• "Like other volcanoes in the NCVP, Level Mountain is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." - too wordy, just say "it is not monitored closely enough to ascertain its activity level"

Done. Volcanoguy 00:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

All this from my first pass. Think the geology section is a bit jargon-y and dense for a lay reader. Will try to keep making small changes while these are discussed/addressed. ceranthor 00:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I've already tried avoiding jargon as much as I could but it's not possible. Geology is a technical subject, something not everyone can understand. This ain't Simple English Wikipedia. Volcanoguy 02:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Support will try and run through and copyedit once more, but I think this is well-written and comprehensive. ceranthor 19:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

Jargon will be a problem. Several other similar FACs have stalled/failed on their inability to bring explanations within the article to the readers, and that's a MOS issue, one which a FAC co-ord has picked up on. You'll need to expect to be asked to explain a lot of the things you believe are "common terms" within this article I'm afraid, and while I note you refute that position above, it's currently non-negotiable per MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, footnotes like on Huaynaputina that explain certain jargon terms might resolve the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: What terms need to be explained exactly? I could add footnotes. Volcanoguy 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox has many entries separated from their references by a space.

That is an issue with {{Infobox mountain}} itself that I cannot fix. I have brought it up on the template's talk page. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Spaces have been removed. Volcanoguy 05:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "E-W." shouldn't that be an en-dash?

Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "lava flows; these lavas created" no need for "lavas".

Deleted. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "includes slab windows, mantle plumes, crustal extension and deglaciation." I think I can guess at what the last one means, but the others need explanation.

I've deleted that sentence since it isn't important. Volcanoguy 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "discontinuous breccias, sporadic tuff horizons and local lenses of fluvial, lacustrine and" way over-jargon.

Deleted. Volcanoguy 00:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• "that local streams flow on" on which local streams flow.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "appears remarkably flat" tone issue there, is that someone's opinion?

I fail to see what is wrong with the tone here. It isn't someone's opinion. Volcanoguy 17:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard of an encyclopedic stating that something was remarkable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Would "unusually flat" work? Volcanoguy 17:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Smaller but related volcanoes" excuse my ignorance but what makes them "related"?

They were formed by the same geologic processes and are part of the same volcanic zone. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Phonolites are vesicular and pumiceous in nature, although phonolites with trachytic texture are also present" essentially meaningless to someone without clicking away or without expert knowledge.

Added notes for "pumiceous" and "trachytic". Volcanoguy 20:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "of Tertiary basalts along" odd time to link basalt.

Agreed. I have moved the link to a spot earlier in the article. Volcanoguy 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "stone stripping" what is that?

I am no expert but I assume it is the fracturing of rocks as a result of freezing and thawing of groundwater. There appears to be no article for "stone stripping", nor could I find a definition. So I do not know what to do here. Volcanoguy 16:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggest we find an expert to explain it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the source again and it appears "stone stripping" was just a typo on my part for "stone striping". I have fixed this and added a link to the stone stripe article. Volcanoguy 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• "confined to nivation and solifluction" more unexplained and unguessable jargon.

Added notes for both nivation and solifluction. Volcanoguy 21:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to Volcanic history. Hopefully you can begin to see the kinds of terminology jungles that are in here which are intractable to all but the most learned readers, which contravenes MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have added notes all throughout the article. Volcanoguy 04:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "0.0001 km3..." etc, why are we using such tiny fractions of cubic km when we could more easily (and better for the readers) use cubic metres? Especially when later you have "to 94,000,000 m3 (3.3×109 cu ft) in the" which arguably could be in cubic km!

Because that is what the sources use. Volcanoguy 18:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

But that's fine for the sources, it makes no logical sense here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "the mafic shield-building stage.[3] ... Lava flows of the mafic shield-building stage" reptitive.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 20:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "columnar jointed" should be hyphenated.

Done. Volcanoguy 18:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "the headwaters of Kakuchuya Creek were the site of" struggling to parse this.

Problem? Volcanoguy 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "peralkaline trachyte and comendite" do these not have articles?

Yes they are already linked. Volcanoguy 18:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "0.0117 million" why not 11,700 years? (although the linked article says 11.650...)

I did that for consistency since all the other dates are in millions of years. Volcanoguy 20:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Holocene article says the epoch began approximately 11,650 cal years Before Present but 1950 is considered the commencement year of Before Present. So 11,650 cal years BP + 71 years = 11,721 cal years. Volcanoguy 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "a subsurface horizon " I don't understand this.

How is this difficult to understand? Horizon is already linked in that paragraph. Subsurface is below the surface. Volcanoguy 22:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "temperatures and precipitation gradients" temperature (singular).

Fixed. Volcanoguy 19:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "June 22, 1900 from" comma after 1900.

Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "there is a human population of more than 630 who" repetitive, perhaps "but more than 630 individuals live..." or similar avoid repeating "human population".

Done. Volcanoguy 20:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "30,000 ha" needs adj=on to add the required hyphen before "acre".

Done. Volcanoguy 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "More definite evidence" definite or definitive?

Definitive. Volcanoguy 19:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "the crash mapping program" what's one of those?

Removed "crash". Volcanoguy 23:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "December 21, 1944 as " comma after 1944.

Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "August 14, 1952 upon" ditto.

Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "of 1890s fame" doesn't feel encyclopedic in tone.

Reworded. Volcanoguy 21:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'd expect ISBNs to be consistently formatted.

All ISBNs are formatted the way sources use them. Volcanoguy 19:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Just convert them to one consistent format. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I convert them? Volcanoguy 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

isbn.org has a 10 to 13 and reverse converter. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I've converted all ISBNs to use 10-digits. Volcanoguy 21:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi TRM, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay, been working away on other things. I'll try to take a look tonight. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I had another look, and although not all my comments were necessarily addressed, I can see that one or two of them (on a second/third read of the article) are probably just about okay. So with that in mind, I'll support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• #1, 4, 5, 17, 25: Add archived URLs as backups?

The source templates do not allow archived URLs. Volcanoguy 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #2: Is the Ministry of Environment and Parks the same as the Ministry of Environment and Parks? If so, I'd add the link.

No it isn't. I've linked it to the correct article. Volcanoguy 14:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #8, 9, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33: Retrieval dates not needed, since you're relying on the archived URL.

Removed. Volcanoguy 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #10: I'd link Canada Department of Mines to Minister of Mines (Canada). And this is a 95-year-old work; any chance it's available online?

Linked. I couldn't find it online. Volcanoguy 15:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Where did you find the copy of the work you relied on? At a library? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• #10, 13, 15, 19, 29: Are there any identifiers for these works, such as OCLCs or ISSNs, that you can add?

No there isn't. Volcanoguy 15:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was able to find an OCLC for at least one of these by searching on WorldCat. Odds are, if a copy is in a library, it has an OCLC. Take a look at WorldCat. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I was referring only to ISSNs; didn't know what OCLCs were. Volcanoguy 02:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I was able to find OCLCs for all of these sources. Volcanoguy 03:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Volcanoguy, OCLCs aren't worth much if they aren't connected to books held by libraries; their main use is that they link you to a list of which libraries hold a book. Thus, for Bilsland 1971, I would use OCLC 1131206258 (listing 20 libraries) rather than OCLC 866011885 (listing one library). The other three you added aren't linked to libraries at all. But there is another OCLC available for Gabrielse 1998 (linked to a copy held by Stanford). Hamilton & Scarfe 1977 does not have an OCLC linked to a library, but this is because the work is miscited; it is actually a chapter within a book, and, as luck would have it, the book is available online (with a DOI, to boot). Mark 1987 (for which you did not actually add an OCLC) does not appear to have one—understandably, since it appears to be grey literature—but it is available online here, so a link should be added. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Volcanoguy 06:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• #11, 14: Are "S.", "T.", and "G." middle initials? If so, they should go in the |first= parameter, not the |last= parameter.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #12: Greystone Books could be linked.

Linked. I'm surprised I missed that. Volcanoguy 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #23: I'm a bit confused by this one. Should the Archives of Manitoba be the publisher, and "Hudson’s Bay Company Archives - Biographical Sheets" be the website? Also, the link is still live here, so reliance on the archived URL (other than as a backup) isn't needed.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 16:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #27: Does the publisher really have the exact same name as the journal?

That's what it seems like according to the American Journal of Science article. Volcanoguy 15:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #29: What is Ash Fall?

Ash Fall was a newsletter of the Volcanology Division of the Geological Association of Canada. Volcanoguy 15:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Added the url and archived url for this source. Volcanoguy 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• #31: Is a library really the publisher?

Fixed. Volcanoguy 15:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• #2, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 27, 28: Why initials rather than first names? I generally prefer first names over initials; it can become a real pain to try to figure out later on who initialed authors are.

Simply because the sources use initials rather than first names. Volcanoguy 15:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hamilton 1981: Same points re: initials, and identifiers such as OCLCs.

• Added OCLC. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• General: For works with multiple authors, you might get some traction with the "|name-list-style=amp" parameter. Up to you.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Volcanoguy, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Volcanoguy, further comments above. In going through the second comment, I realized that it appears a number of the materials you cited are available online, even if they don't have links in the article. Some examples are mentioned above, but there are more, such as Fenger et al. 1986, which is available here. I would go through your references again, to make sure that what is available online carries a link. After you do that I'll take another look. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find many of the sources online but not all of them. I have added urls and dois to those I found online. Volcanoguy 06:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Volcanoguy and Usernameunique, where are we with this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, I'm still intending to review the remainder of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, just a reminder while I was checking this. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild, the sources are generally good shape, but I'm going to take a further look at them and follow up. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Volcanoguy, I was able to find a number of the remaining sources online quite easily. I've added those that I found to the article—in the future, it would help if you made an effort to add URLs/DOIs to sources as you write articles, rather than attempting to do so at the end. For #18, is the cited work this source? If so, I would add the URL, and correct the page range. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique, yes that is the correct source. I've added the url and correct page number (not sure how that happened). Volcanoguy 20:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. Gog the Mild, just an update that I'm signed off on sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2021 [46].

---

General Motors companion make program

Nominator(s):  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Gee our old LaSalle ran great, those were the days."

General Motor's former "five brands" (the current three plus Olds and Pontiac) seems like a lot by today's standards, but back in the late 1920s GM tried to do even more. For a few years it had "companion makes" to fill in four of the classic five. Two of them, Viking and Marquette, you've never heard of because they were quickly killed in the Depression. You might have heard of LaSalle, since it carried on for another decade and gave Harley Earl, who invented the Corvette in the 1950s, his start at GM. You've definitely heard of Pontiac; this companion make program is the reason Americans (used to) have it instead of Oakland. We don't have a whole lot of car FAs on Wikipedia, and this is a fairly obscure niche of automotive history, but I've tried to do it justice here.

Thank you for your consideration of this FAC. If it passes, it'll be my first non-Four Award FA and my third overall. As always with my FACs, minor cleanups and tweaks (lint, ref number swaps, etc.) are encouraged to be done yourself rather than explicitly resolved here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported by the text. For example, the lead claims that "companion makes were also used to increase the sales of their respective divisions by selling cars that cost less to produce"; the text states that they would increase sales AND cost less, which is a slightly different claim
  • I feel like the difference is minor, but if you insist I can reword it.
• Work titles like Automobile Magazine should not be in |publisher=, and publishers like National Museum of American History shouldn't be in work-title parameters
  • Those two specifically have been fixed, let me know if anything else of that nature needs addressing.
• How are you ordering Works cited?
  • By alphabetical order of short cite
• Is there a reason to use "Encyclopedia" as a short cite rather than authors?
  • Changed to Ludvigsen et al.
• How are you deciding when to include publication location?
  • I explicitly decline to include it in newspapers where the location is already in the title and well-known (in this article the Ottawa Citizen but not the Grand Island Independent, but in general the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times are other examples) per the spirit of USCITIES, and I omit it when I can't reasonably deduce the location (websites, for one). Thanks for asking!

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility - add row headers (!) and row scopes (scope="row") to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done, I think.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I added the row headers for you. Heartfox (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5

• Is it necessary to clarify that GMC were owned by GM at that time? Have GMC ever not been owned by GM?
  • I just wanted to set the tone for the era; I've removed it.
• I'm not really sure how it would be best to handle the confusing American "model year" concept. I think the initial footnote does a lot to help though.
  • Agreed, and thanks. There's a lot about car culture, especially American car culture, that is confusing to the uninitiated, and I tried to strike the balance between not explaining enough and loading unnecessary details onto the page.
• When the lead mentions "GM's hierarchy" is that referring to the pricing of the cars or their priorities in terms of marketing, R&D budgets, etc.?
  • Pricing, duly clarified.
• It might help to clarify that the archaic sense of "coach" is being used since this is a motor industry focused article.
  • I added "horse-drawn" to it.
• Is there a particular reason why the companion make cars would cost less to produce or do sources not go into detail about that?
  • The source does not go into such details, I'm afraid, although Vikings were above Oldsmobiles.
• There's a large number of jargon terms when discussing the LaSalle body styles that earlier links don't really help explain, particularly regarding the different types of sedans (the sedan article probably needs a substantial overhaul).
  • I tried to link Car body style (itself an orange-tagged mess) to slightly clarify what I'm talking about here, but ultimately I am not responsible for articles other than this one I'm afraid.
• I understand that the "six-cylinder inline engine" is used the first time for the sake of wikilinking; but I do have to ask whether this is the standard usage in American English? In British English "straight-six engine" would almost always be used.
  • "Straight-six" is also used in America, and in the sources themselves, but I thought "six-cylinder inline engine" is clearer and less jargony for non-car people.
• Since I can't access the sources I'll take it on good faith that the source is referring specifically to brake horsepower and not to some other variety of horse power. It's worth being careful with engines of this vintage to check that they're not referencing some now obscure units when power comes up.
  • I rechecked Kimes and trimmed the "brake" parts where necessary.
• Some more context might be needed for the Death Valley to Pikes Peak drive. Was this just a successful marketing claim or was the car particularly praised by independent sources for its ability to climb hills without issues relative to its competition?
  • The claim comes from Kimes, which is the "Standard catalog" of American cars, so I think the latter.
• A brief explanation of Opel's relationship to GM at the time might be helpful when they come up; particularly given Opel are now owned by Peugeot.
  • I just said it was GM's European subsidiary.
• Is the "dean of design" reference regarding Harley Earl describing a position he held within GM?
  • It's an honorary title; duly marked as such.
• Is "[Pontiac] remained in production until 2010" standard usage in American English? This comes across as saying that the original 1920s Pontiac model was in production until 2010 to a Brit, which obviously is untrue.
  • Slightly changed to clarify.

Mostly nitpicks from me. Provided this passes source reviews and the like I would gladly support raising this to featured status. A well written and interesting article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mr.choppers

• Support — Not an expert reviewer, but I know a bit about the topic. Thanks for calling me "prominent," flattery will get you everywhere. The article reads well and there are ample citations from authors with whom I am familiar. I added another Ludvigsen reference as I find it interesting that the Marquette engine went on to power the Opel Blitz, which ended up the workhorse of the German armed forces during WWII.
• I do have two questions, which may or may not actually be answerable:

• 1. What were the reasons for the market positionings of the various new brands? All except Viking were priced lower than their "mother brands," was this merely a result of the price gaps to be filled?
• 2. Why was there no Chevrolet companion make?

• It might be worth pointing out that in the 1920s, many US brands (including the GM roster, obviously) did not have models within the brands. I.e., Buick or Oldsmobile or Oakland were single lines of cars, using one chassis (often in two different lengths) and one engine. This seems odd today, when we are used to there being a Yaris beneath the Corolla beneath the Avensis beneath the Camry beneath the Crown and so on. This would go some way towards explaining GM's perceived need for different brands rather than just creating a smaller line of Buicks or a more Senior Oldsmobile.
• I am aware that there may not be any references for these (and my view of the matters may be incorrect), but my support for FA status for this article is in no way contingent on your answering these particular ramblings. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for your support! As for your comments:
  • I don't know the market positions, but would probably assume that they were simply due to the gaps to be filled.
  • I also don't know why Chevrolet didn't receive one, but my speculation (which I don't find likely to find a source for) is that GMC already existed as a "companion make" of sorts; either that, or Chevrolet was too cheap to have anything "below" it.
  • I considered adding the "one model per make" info but couldn't find a good source for it unfortunately; I considered a Car and Driver article from 2000 that the original Thunderbird was Ford's first "second car", but that seems like synthesis.

Otherwise, I'm glad you liked it!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Well past three weeks in and this has only picked up the one general support. Consider this a heads up that it needs to move further towards a consensus to support by the four week point or I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Does the two-week rule still apply if archiving is due to lack of participation rather than any opposes?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get more reviewers

@Sammy D III, Eddaido, and Mr.choppers: You seem like prominent car Wikipedians. If you are interested in this, please look at the article at your earliest convenience. If not, it would be great for you three to ping other Wikipedians who might be interested in reviewing this article. @Epicgenius, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt: are also FAC regulars I know who could provide feedback, even/especially if they are not car people, although if they are too busy that is more than understandable. I've also put this on the WP:FACURGENT.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I will give a review, but it may be several days. My time is limited at present.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: I can also take a look, but since I have real life commitments, it may also take me a while, perhaps a week or so. Epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Comments I've made a few hands-on edits; feel free to revert.

• "to appeal to different consumers with different incomes" I might strike the first "different" as unneeded.
  • Done.
• "Durant was expelled from GM in 1910 after over-aggressive expansion; he had over-leveraged the fledgling company in making these acquisitions, and was removed by the board of directors at the behest of the bankers who backed the loans to keep GM in business." The end of this sentence seems a bit muddled.
• "The action of the bankers was partially influenced by the brief Panic of 1910–1911." I might be more direct, thus: "The bankers acted in part because of the brief Panic of 1910-1911."
  • I merged those two sentences.
• "daily driver and racecourse tester" What might these be?
  • A "daily driver", in common parlance, is the car you use to just get around on a daily basis. Don also used the Viking to test the terrain of his (ultimately unsuccessful) record attempt; I have reworded the sentence to clarify.
• "Death Valley, the lowest point in California," Or in the US, actually.
  • I didn't add that information and think it's a bit extraneous; I have removed it unless you have strong feelings to the contrary.
• " It possessed distinctive styling, with a portly shape that led to its sobriquet of "the pregnant Buick" and a herringbone radiator to distinguish it from other GM makes.[18][38]" Consider adding at least one comma (after Buick and/or radiator)
  • I put one after "radiator" since that logically makes more sense even though my diction "wants" to put it after "Buick".
• " ill-suited to build" odd phrasing
  • I think that was already fixed by you.

That's about it. Interesting. Some awkwardness of phrasing remaining which is surprising this late in a FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'll try to look into that, thank you for your comments.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Wehwalt, do you feel able to either oppose or support this nomination? There is, of course, no obligation to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Here are my initial comments.

Lead:

• five car[a] brands, or "makes". - Footnote [a] seems weird to me, I guess you mean passenger cars?
  • I do, and added.
• The companion makes were LaSalle introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac, Marquette introduced in 1929 for 1930[c] to supplement Buick, Pontiac introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland, and Viking introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile - I would reword this using semicolons to separate the different elements of the list. For instance, "The companion makes were LaSalle, introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac; Marquette, introduced in 1929 for the 1930 model year[c] to supplement Buick; Pontiac, introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland; and Viking, introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile."
  • Done
• "at the expense of the Ford Motor Company" - Nothing wrong with this per se, just that from a financial background this initially struck me as a bit strange, since expense does imply a monetary expenditure in that context.
  • I've shortened it to just "Ford" but am fine with either.
    • That works. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• By the late 1920s, it was felt that there were excessive gaps in this ladder - leadership felt this?
  • I don't know, (Turns out it was Sloan, but still) I've said just "GM"
• its popularity exploded after its introduction, and led - The comma is unnecessary, as "led to the discontinuation of Oakland after 1931". If you say "...after its introduction, and it led...", then the comma could be included. However, if the portion after ", and" would not be a separate sentence,
  • Comma removed

Background and concept:

• Durant founded GM in an effort to replicate - Since you mentioned that Durant founded GM in the previous sentence, the reader already knows this. So you can just say "Durant intended to replicate..."
  • I wanted to make clear that he used GM for that, so "Durant intended for GM to replicate..."
• Durant was unable to replicate his business model - The phrase "replicate his business model" was repeated from the previous sentence. Not a big deal, though, just something that stick out to me.
  • • Works for me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to "apply"
• willy-nilly - This does not seem as professional as an alternative such as "arbitrarily".
  • Changed to "arbitrarily"
• Durant created Chevrolet shortly thereafter, and
• By the late 1920s, Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923 - I would suggest reordering this chronologically, e.g. "Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923, detected several gaps in GM's ladder by the late 1920s..."
  • Done, with a comma added.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your feedback so far!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • No problem. Here are some more comments I have. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Launch:

• The name dated back to 1893 - "back" in this case is unnecessary and "dated back" can be just "dated".
  • Done
• By the 1929 model year the engine, a flathead, was able to make 60 brake horsepower (bhp) (45 kW) - For me, the fact that the template wraps is a bit weird, but that's not an issue. I think you can put a comma after "By the 1929 model year" or move it to the end of the sentence.
  • I tweaked it slightly
• "custom cars for Hollywood actors and producers on the side" - Not really an issue, but "on the side" sounds somewhat colloquial.
  • Changed to "also made"
• spring 1926 - Per MOS:SEASON, "spring" should probably be avoided unless it is from the source. I know it's a North American spring, but still.
  • It is from the source, which says "early spring", and I think it helps chronologically.
• with either a 128 in (3,300 mm) or 134 in (3,400 mm) wheelbase - I would rephrase this as "with a wheelbase of either 128 in or 134 in", as the current wording does seem a bit unwieldy. These are two versions with slightly different wheelbases.
  • Done
• It was initially priced at $1,595 but by the end of 1929 had become worth $1,695. - I would put {{inflation}} or a similar template. I know you include it below, but it may be useful here too. Also, has it "become worth" $1,695 (which implies a context such as on the secondhand market), or did the sale price change?
  • It "had" become worth that, meaning that it became more expensive during the year. Inflation footnotes added.
• from Death Valley to Pikes Peak - Do you know how far that is?
  • I don't, and I don't think it's particularly important; the scale of the achievement can be deduced from clicking on the links.
    • I only mention this because for readers who aren't familiar with US geography, a journey from California to Colorado may not mean much. But I agree with you - it wasn't important to me so much as I was just curious if you knew. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Demise and legacy

• having failed to resuscitate Buick's sales,[46] it was discontinued at the end of the 1930 model year - While "it" refers to the Marquette, the layout of the sentence makes it appear as though this refers to the Depression. I would thus say "The Marquette similarly suffered from the Depression" or something similar.
  • Tweaked
• Pontiac would have the opposite destiny. - I'm not so sure how encyclopedic the tone is; I get what the sentiment is, but it sounds unusual to me. Personally, I would also say something like "In contrast, Pontiac was profitable...".
• Pontiac earned the distinction of being the only GM make - Here you can just say "Pontiac was the only GM make..."
  • I like these two phrases, they seem to have some character for me.
    • I understand. I'm just saying it could be pointed out further down the line, but for me it isn't such a big deal. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That is all I have. I should note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, and good luck on the Cup.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No problem. I will support this nomination now. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy

Nothing major, mostly nitpicks:

• Do we need the first note explaining that GMC is not excluded?
  • I think it couldn't hurt, and is slightly more specific.
• Sloan's role is not well-defined - he's described as du Pont's assistant, but all of a sudden he's calling the shots for GM. Can we get some clarity on what exactly was going on?
  • I believe Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923, is enough context
    • Right, but we don't learn that until the next paragraph - there's also some jumping around in time going on - I assume Sloan is making these decisions after he becomes the president, but the paragraph starts in 1920, then it mentions 1929, and then it jumps back to 1922. Part of the solution might be to just move the last sentence about Scripps-Booth and Sheridan somewhere else, as it feels a little out of place where it is now. It strikes me that perhaps the best place to move it would be "Durant repeated his mistakes once back in GM; by 1921, there were seven different divisions producing ten models for GM. Scripps-Booth and Sheridan had been added to the lineup, though both were discontinued by 1922." Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I decided to put it alongside Sloan's other reforms.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
        • That looks good to me - I think that Sloan's role needs to be clarified - according to his article he was the VP of GM at that time, which answers my initial question. You might say "One of du Pont's main assistants was the Vice President of GM, Alfred P. Sloan," Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Done, with a false title.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
            • I think everything looks good now - great work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Scripps-Booth and Sheridan were removed" - passive voice; if the source specifies who made the decision to cut those brands, we should make it clear
  • I don't think the source is too specific on the matter, and I don't think it really matters since the focus is on the brands' removal rather than who actually made the decision.
• "In early 1926 Lawrence P. Fisher," - need a comma after 1926
  • Done
• "of 110 in" - it's generally advised against abbreviating units like "inch" as it could be read as the preposition
  • The abbreviation would ideally have a period after it, but that's an issue with the template. In any event I believe the context ("wheelbase" and the conversion to mm) is probably sufficient to distinguish it as the unit of length.
• As convertible and cabriolet are generally interchangeable, it would be better to standardize terms so as to not confuse readers who aren't as familiar with the topic. And on a related point, unless you can work in explanations of what the differences are between a phaeton and a sport phaeton, or a convertible landau cabriolet and a town cabriolet, it's probably best to cut all of the very specific types that will mean nothing to most readers and just give general types.
  • Done
• "The encyclopedia of the American automobile" should be in title case
  • Done

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback; I'll try to see if I can provide some review on your FAC.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2021 [47].

---

York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...One of the more obscure of the commemoratives issued in 1936. Still, the coin tells a story, and the only scandal seems to be that Congress let standards drop and chose to commemorate a very local event. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_obverse.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_reverse.jpg
• File:LVPL-1CFD55_Silver_pine_tree_shilling_of_Massachusetts,_North_America_(FindID_285997).jpg should include an explicit tag for the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

First two swapped for ones that areOTRS pending, will advise when permissions come through. License added on pine tree shilling. As for Alt text, I don't feel I do it well, so I prefer to leave it for others who care to. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

OTRS has added permissions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Know York quite well and spent a few days there during my honeymoon in 2014. The town has a rather picturesque and storied graveyard that have visited many times in last 8 years. Maybe so have a COI here, dunno ;)

Quibbles:

• The commemorative coin craze of 1936 - as this is not linked, perhaps "a commemorative coin craze" rather than "the"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• selling the coins to the public asked that the maximum issue of 30,000 coins be struck, but for uncertain reasons the Philadelphia Mint struck only 25,000 for public sale - is the second "public sale" here redundant. Same with "the remainder was sold to the public in the 1950s"

The "for public sale" was to exclude the 15 assay pieces, which were either tested to destruction, melted or sold to the 1937 assay commissioners. Tweaked.

• what is now the state of Maine was at what is now...: change one "what is now" to "today's"

Done, more or less.

• oldest and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States - oldest x 2. Does "first" political units in the United States follow?

I changed the other "oldest" instead.

• Sparked by low-mintage issues which appreciated in value - sparked? Due to a series of...which appreciated...

I like the existing language, which I've used in other articles, better.

• The new pieces then came on to the secondary market - entered

Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to the coin collecting hobby, where they sought to purchase the new issues - speculative buying and collecting are different things, so would re-phsase "drew many" as "brought attention to". where they sought to purchase the new issues - "especially in" rater than "where they sought to purchase"

Tweaked somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• an explosion of ?

Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• more non deal breaking comments shortly Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Have read through, and made minor tweaks rather than listing here....please feel free to revert at will. The sources seem as of the usual quality for this topic and editor. Support. 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I've made the changes per the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 22:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1636, York County was formed, the first and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States" - Is it worth briefly noting that Maine itself technically didn't exist at that time, as it was part of Massachusetts until the early 19th century?

I'm not sure that's necessary here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Do we know why Taber objected?

No. Working directly from Congressional Record there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The original coin holder in which up to five York County half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $50 to $125, and if accompanied by original insert up to $150, depending on condition" - Source is almost ten years old, recommend adding as as of date here.

Did that, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work here; I couldn't find much to nitpick. Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, source reliability, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 01:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Moise

Hi Wehwalt, I'll review this. Here are some comments:

• Lead: "the remainder was sold": I would say "were sold" because coins is plural, but if you disagree this is no dealbreaker for me.

Changed to "were sold".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Background and inception: Does "senior among them" mean "first among them". If so, could I propose "several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, first among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, initially struck in 1926"? (I assume "senior among them" doesn't mean "most importantly among them" as that would sound subjective.)

It means that the Oregon Trail was first struck in 1926, the other coins referred to came along later (1934 and 1935). It's a simple way of saying it I've used in other articles, other ways seem messier.---Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar was one of several early commemoratives issued despite its local significance": I initially was confused what "despite its local significance" refers to, but I see it is explained a bit farther down. I think it would be clearer to reword this as "despite its lack of national significance". Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Design: "The obverse depicts Brown's Garrison, located next to the Saco River... The reverse depicts the York County seal." This seems to repeat details mentioned just a bit above in the Preparation section. I'm not sure what the best solution would be if you feel the details are needed in both sections. One idea would be in the Design section drop the detail of Saco River (I don't believe it's actually shown on the coin?) and say something like "On the obverse four sentries are seen in front of Brown's Garrison, with one of them mounted,[29] making the York County half dollar the third U.S. coin, after the Lafayette dollar (dated 1900) and the Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar (1925), to depict a horse." In this way the repeated detail about Brown's Garrison is mentioned less directly and unobtrusively than "depicts Brown's Garrison". Likewise maybe the detail about the York County seal on the reverse could be slipped in less directly.

Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Release, distributing, and collecting: "Senator White, in a March 15, 1937 letter to Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross, stated that the committee had erred, thinking only 25,000 pieces were authorized": Presumably it was the committee that thought only 25,000 pieces were authorized, but grammatically in the current structure of the sentence it may not be clear whether it was White or the committee that thought this. Also (if one assumes it's clear that it was the committee that thought this), did White know/presume that the reason the committee had only struck 25,000 pieces was because they believed that was all that was authorized, or did his letter only state that the committee had erred, and he found out the reason afterwards? The current structure of the sentence makes the timeline a bit fuzzy, and the reader may wonder.

The letter from Senator White seems inconsistent with the letter to O'Reilly. I can't explain it and commemorative coins are ill-studied, this one in particular. The source presents the letter but does not comment on.it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are all of my comments for now. I'll likely give another quick read-through when you've addressed these. It's a very interesting article; I especially enjoyed the controversy about a commemoration of non-national importance getting a coin, and enjoyed the quotation from William F. Sheehan. Moisejp (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've started my second read-through early since I have time now and you've already addressed some of the points.

• 1. "The commemorative was approved largely due to the connections that many of the coin's sponsors had, including numismatist Walter P. Nichols, who was at the time the Treasurer of the Committee for Commemoration of the Founding of York County"; 2. "By 1936, thanks to enabling legislations put forth by accommodating Congressmen, it was possible—or nearly so—to get a coin struck to observe a town picnic... Although there was no paper trail showing payoffs from local promoters, the fix was in and hardly anyone cared": Are these two ideas (which are far apart from each other in the text) related, and would it be worthwhile to acknowledge (or, as the case may be, clearly refute) a possible relation or similarity of the ideas, for any readers who may wonder about any link. Moisejp (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed this in dealing with the matter below.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion about this, but if you decide to do something with my idea above, there might be an opportunity at the same time to link "The national response to and interest in York County’s 300th anniversary could generously be described as, 'Huh?'" " with what is said about this in the Background and inception section. But I understand the nuance is slightly different here: Rick Sear seems to be saying among other things that nobody cared nationally about in particular the bribing for the York County proceedings because York County was so local and far away. Moisejp (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there was an implication of bribery, just of influence. I've put the quotations together, but it may be overkill.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed these issues. Many thanks for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Your changes look good, and I'm happy to support. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

References

• #9: Is there no volume/issue number? Is 29 the page you're citing to, or is it a one-page article?

I've added the volume/issue number and it's one page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the volume/issue number. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Obviously I goofed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• #12: It's in the public domain, so should be available online somewhere.
• #13: Ditto.
• #16: Ditto.
• #18: Ditto.
• #19: Ditto.
• #20: Ditto. Also, why is Congressional Record italicized here, but not elsewhere?

12 through 20 all addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• #21: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?

Added. One page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• #33: Could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.

(you mean 22). Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I see that one ProQuest source uses the "via=ProQuest" parameter, but the others say "via Congressional ProQuest" in the publisher parameter. I would change these all so that they use the "via" parameter (either "via=ProQuest" or "via=Congressional ProQuest"). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• #27: Coinsite should be the name of the source, not in the name of the page title.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• #28: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?

Added. One page article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• #30: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?

Added. One page article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• Bullowa 1938: Needs ", NY" for consistency.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sheehan 1975: Volume/issue?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Slabaugh 1975: Whitman Publishing could take a link.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• May 29, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.
• March 11, 1936 source: Ditto and ditto.
• May 21, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, is this the same thing as footnote 13, above? And should the United States Government Publishing Office be mentioned?

It doesn't say that. I did searches on each of these and did not see these documents available.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, what's the difference between these three sources and the Congressional Record sources in "References"?

The Congressional Record is the transcript of the debates of Congress. These three sources are transcripts of committee hearings, or reports of committees on bills, and are less widely available.

• Vermeule 1971: Harvard University Press could take a link.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeoman 2020: Any reason there's an LLC at the end of Whitman Publishing here, but not for Slabaugh 1975?

I know Whitman has changed hands over time, no doubt it's related to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I'll work on these probably this weekend. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Congressional Record cites have been italicized and also linked to PD sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Usernameunique? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild & Wehwalt, two minor comments above. Signed off once they're addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

All done now, Usernameunique. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'd move "via Congressional ProQuest" from the "publisher=" parameter to the "via=" parameter. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique That's done too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Usernameunique, are you feeling able to either support or oppose this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild, I'm signed off on sources. Meant to indicate that with the "Signed off once they're addressed" comment. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Usernameunique, as a coordinator it is always tricky for me to know if a nominator saying that something is addressed is the same as a reviewer feeling that they have been satisfactorily addressed, and I feel that I always need to err on the side of caution. Thanks for the clarification, I thought that was what you would say. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Consider me a non-expert

• "authorized by Congress that" Might want to add that this is the American Congress.

Done in the lede. I think it can be skipped in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The first European settlement in what is today the state of Maine was at what is now the city of Saco in 1631, where the fortification known as Brown's Garrison was built." This sentence has a lot of "what is known as" statements. Maybe, "The first European settlement in what is today the state of Maine was a fortification called Brown's Garrison. It was built in 1631 at the current location of the city of Saco." Or something similar, just to break up the language a little bit.

Tweaked a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "no fewer than fifteen were issued for the first time." Do you mean this is the first time Congress issued commemorative coins, or that it was the first time 15 were issued at the same time?

Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "At the request of the groups authorized to purchase them, several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, senior among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, first struck in 1926." Too many commas are breaking up the flow. Perhaps, "At the request of the groups authorized to purchase them, several coins minted in prior years were produced again and dated 1936, including the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar which was first struck in 1926." (I removed "senior among them" because I don't know what that means in this context.)

Clarified and cleaned up, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink "Director of the Mint" to "Director of the United States Mint"?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink "Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures" to "United States House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures"?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "while the dies were reduced" should this be "dyes"?

No. Helpful pipe inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "and provoked much favorable comment." from who?

Nichols did not say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "thought the obverse design "splendid"." -> "thought the obverse design was "splendid"."
• It's weird how the sale of the first 100 coins is presented at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps flip the order so that it is chronological.

Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I support this FAC. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [48].

---

Second Battle of Newtonia

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Having been given permission for a second nom, here comes another minor ACW cavalry fight. On the run after defeats at Westport and Mine Creek, Price's Confederates halted at Newtonia before entering the wasteland of 1864 northwestern Arkansas. Pursuing Union cavalry caught up, attacked, and got a little more than the bargained for before reinforcements came up and the Confederates fell back. Both sides claimed victory, but history has attributed the win to the Union. Hog Farm _Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Source review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• All infobox entries should start with an upper case letter.
  • Done for the "near Newtonia" one, which I think it where the issue is
• "he instead began moving his force west towards Kansas City" seems a little clumsy. 'instead he moved his force west towards Kansas City'?
  • Done
• "Price ordered the withdrawal of his main army, and ordered Shelby". Any way to avoid "ordered ... ordered"?
  • Rephrased
• "Blunt's smaller line". Perhaps "smaller" → 'shorter'?
  • Done
• "supplies and soldiers were lost to capture." "lost to capture" → 'captured'.
  • Done
• "Claims of execution of prisoners" → 'Claims of the execution of prisoners'.
  • Done
• "arrived on the field". A bit jargony, and not very informative - just where did they arrive?
  • Rephrased, and added the direction from which Ford's men reached the battlefield.
• "Blunt personally fought with the 16th Kansas Cavalry during this stage of the fighting." I suggest moving this to the last sentence of this paragraph.
  • Yes, it makes more sense to state that Blunt arrived before it is mentioned that he is fighting - not sure why I didn't notice that. Moved.
• "the entire Union army was upon him". "upon" → 'attacking'.
  • Done
• "Regardless, Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." What is "Regardless" trying to communicate?
  • I have no idea why I added that word. Removed.
• "aligned left to right in the order of" → 'from left to right'.
  • Done
• "Shelby aligned his men". This may be a USEng thing, but I find the use of "aligned" confusing. Here and in later uses. (What does it mean anyway?)
  • In USEng, this would indicate that Shelby formed his men into a line. I've rephrased all instances
• "In total, Shelby had about 2,000 or 3,500 men on the field" This seems to hide a debate. Any chance of some detail as to who said which, when, ideally why, and possibly alterna'e break downs of these numbers?
  • Made a little clearer. No breakdowns of these numbers are really given. To me it looks like two historians spitballing numbers based on vague/unreliable source, as neither explicitly states where they got their numbers, and given what had happened to Price's army in the last 5 days, I don't think anybody really knew or cared exactly how many men were around.
• "The Union lines fell all the way back to the Ritchey Farm" → 'The Union lines fell back all the way to the Ritchey Farm'.
  • Done
• "Even after this lined was formed". "lined"?
  • Fixed. I'm a bad copyeditor.
• "temporarily threw the Confederates into surprise." I don't think that one can be thrown into surprise - although I like the image. 'caught the Confederates by surprise and temporarily threw them into confusion'?
  • Rephrased
• "forced marched". This is a noun, not a verb.
  • Rephrased. I didn't think that was grammar, but I kinda hoped it was for some reason
• "These newly arrived guns fire 22 shots". "fire" → 'fired'.
  • Fixed. Probably shoulda got this copyedited.
• "the artillery advantage growing more disparate". An advantage cannot grow more disparate. A 'differential' can, or an advantage can become more 'marked', for example.
  • Rephrased
• "In addition, the modern historian Mark A. Lause". Delete "In addition". Possibly reinsert after "participated in the action".
  • Done
• "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle." I assume this relates to the earlier part of the sentence, but you don't tell us how.
  • @Gog the Mild: - I have no idea how to address this. Lause states "At least parts of Price's other two divisions [Marmaduke and Fagan] also pitched in to the fight ...[evidence for Fagan's participation] ... At least one commander from General John S. Marmaduke's division also filed a report on its fighting there." So Lause seems to be implying that this report is (basically all) the justification for assuming that Marmaduke's men participated. Lause lumps all of the footnotes for this paragraph together, so its unclear what exactly he is referring to. As other sources do not mention the involvement of Marmaduke's men, this statement is attributed to Lause, but I'm not sure how to draw the connection in the article without OR-ing when Lause is vague on this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would delete "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle". Who cares why secondary sources believe what they do? You don't try to justify every other claim in the article.

I have removed it.

• "they occupied the town itself". Delete "itself".
  • Removed
• "were probably similar or even less than those of the Union". Why "even"?
  • Removed
• "and that Union officer Richard J. Hinton provided a figure of 114 casualties". For which side?
  • Union. Added
• "The American Battlefield Trust estimated 250 and 400". Should that be "estimated" → 'estimates'? Or have they since changed their mind?
  • Yes, it should be estimates. Changed.
• "due to the Price's army's inability to transport them." Delete "the".
  • Done

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

All good. Your one query responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Zawed

This looks to be in good shape. Just a few nitpicks:

• The first two sentences of the 2nd para of the background section uses the word 'war' 3 times. Suggest swapping the 2nd one out for 'conflict'?
  • Done; I've also removed the third one as well.
• Battle: suggest a group of soldiers of his brigade to meet the threat.? This would provide antecedence for the mention of his brigade in the 3rd para of this section
  • Done
• Battle: suggest ...Curtis described as "badly cut up". Curtis He helped to rally...? Curtis is used three times in close succession
  • Done
• Battle: Lause believes that part of Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke's Confederate division participated in the action in addition. I'm not sure what " the action" is here - the move to the woods or the battle itself? Regardless, suggest "also participated" and deleting "in addition".
  • The battle. Clarified
• Aftermath: been driven back 3 miles (5 km)
  • Done

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• • @Zawed: - Thanks for the review; all points have been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox

• "In September 1864, Confederate Major General Sterling Price had entered the state of Missouri" → from where; with who?
  • Clarified
    • I believe you forgot to write "entered" in the sentence "On September 19, Price the state from Arkansas with the Army of Missouri."
      • Yes, added now.
• "Price's column halted" → I think column should be linked; also in "On September 19, Price's column entered the state."
  • I've simply used a different word. Column has a technical military sense, but it's also used frequently in a more general meaning to mean a sizable organized body of troops. Because it's used in an informal sense here, I've simply swapped for a different word.
• "he ordered Shelby to provide a rear guard" → Without reading the lead, I don't know who Shelby is.
  • Glossed
• "McLain's battery"; "helped to rally the Colorado battery" → is "battery" supposed to be capitalized? I'm not really familiar with this.
  • In these two contexts, it's not a proper formal name, so lowercase is fine
• "An armed mob after Marmiton River" → Can "Marmiton River" link to something? Heartfox (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Glossed
  • Heartfox - Thanks for taking the time to review this; I've replied to all points above. Sorry about the lack of glossing in places; this is part of a multiple-article series of mine, and they're all on very similar topics which leads to me forgetting what I've linked and what I haven't in individual ones. Hog Farm _Talk 03:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would add basic alt texts for the map images, like alt=refer to adjacent text. Heartfox (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is done. Hog Farm _Talk 04:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. Heartfox (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Strength "1,500 or 2,000 2,000 or 3,500" should be "1,500-2,000 2,000-3,500". "or" implies that it is not a figure in between.
  • This is an odd case - source provide different estimates without really supporting a range there, so it seems kinda synth-y to try to call it a range
• "As the American Civil War began in 1861". "When" the American Civil War began in 1861" sounds better to me
  • Done
• "This movement prevented Price from sending any reinforcements to Shelby during the ensuing battle, even though they would be requested. Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." This is unclear. If Shelby's was the only functioning force, presumably he could not have been reinforced even if the main army had not retreated?
  • Wood does stress that element a bit (that Shelby wouldn't have received anything useful anway), so I've tried to rephrase to make this clearer, as well as replacing functioning with Wood's exact word of "effective"
• "While the two mountain howitzers helped hold the Union right against Confederate threat". the Confederate threat?
  • went with "Confederate threats"
• "there were now about 1,500 or 2,000 Union soldiers in the fight". Again "or" sounds wrong.
  • Same as above with the "or"
• "The Confederate force, which Castel described as being essentially an armed mob after the October 25 Battle of Marmiton River". Does this mean the main Confederate army?
  • Yes, clarified
• "Curtis' pursuit ended on November 8, at the Arkansas". The Arkansas River?
  • These grammar rules suggest the usage is probably okay since IMO the context seems to indicate that the place being referred to here is the river. I'm also a hick who standardly refers to rivers in this way, though. Gog the Mild - as the resident copy editing expert, what do you think here? Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think it is a matter of grammar. I would refer to the Mississipi or the Thames. I just found it confusing as a foreigner because I had only heard of Arkansas as a state before. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've added the word river. Hog Farm _Talk 21:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The campaign had cost Price more than two-thirds of the men he had taken into Missouri." Is there any estimate of how many he lost through desertion and how many from death, capture etc? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: - neither Castel 1998 nor Collins 2016 nor Lause 2016 provide a breakdown. I'll be hopefully digging Sinisi 2020 out of storage to work on another article tomorrow, but I'd be amazed if such a breakdown is provideable - it was simply a complete disintegration of an army barely surviving, that didn't seem to have been too keen on record-keeping. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine apart from "1,500 or 2,000 2,000 or 3,500". As they are both clearly rough estimates I do not think it is synth to show it as a range. Maybe another point where Gog the Mild can advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Please consider me a non-expert.

• "Sanborn formed on Blunt's left, and the Union troops counterattacked." Counterattacked is wikilinked here, but I'm not sure it is necessary. I know very little about war stuff but I know what a counterattack is. I'll leave this to your discretion.
  • Done. Yeah, everyone probably knows what an attack is, and the formation is probably reasonably obvious that a counterattack is to counter an attack
• "Shelby ordered a retreat, and the Union troops did not begin to pursue until October 30. Once the pursuit resumed, it continued until they reached the Arkansas River." Was there one pursuit, which began on October 30, or was there more than one pursuit, one of which resumed until the river? Perhaps resumed should be replaced with began?
  • Good point. Swapped resumed for began
• "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the conflict." This feels like a very long sentence with lots of commas. Maybe split in two? Suggestion: "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln an advantage in the 1864 United States presidential election. Lincoln supported continuing the war while his opponent, George B. McClellan, favored ending the conflict." (I also replaced "an edge" because that sounds a little too WP:IDIOM to me, but I'll leave that to your discretion.)
  • Done
• "overwhelm Collins;[29] Shelby ordered an attack," I think that semi-colon should be a comma
  • Corrected
• "that Curtis described as "badly cut up"." It takes a couple of sentences to get to a citation; since this is a direct quote, I think a ref should be present here.
  • Done. Especially since the next citation is three citations, and I had to look in the sources to determine where this was coming from
• I also checked the summary and infobox to ensure that their information was also present in the article, and I found no concerns.
• I recommend archiving the American Battlefield Trust references.
  • Done via IAbot run

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• • @Z1720: - I think everything should be addressed. Thanks for the review! Hog Farm _Talk 01:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • My comments have been addressed, I support this FAC. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [49].

---

Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My first Hundred Years' War FAC for over a year - how time flies. A brief campaign typical of those of this phase of the war and for which there are unusually detailed records. It is fresh from GAN and I believe it to be up to FAC standards. As ever, any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review and source review—pass

Image licensing looks good. Sources look OK but I still have to do a full source check (the Rogers 1994 ref is OK though) (t · c) buidhe 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Checking Wagner refs

• Wagner 2006c. Needs pg#

Added.

• Wagner 2006a, p. 20. This pg# must be wrong because it doesn't match the cited entries. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild Did you get to this? (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I did, realised that I had completely missed referencing the final paragraph and then forgot to fix it. Apologies, and thanks for the reminder. Now appropriately cited and I am wondering what I was on when I supposedly did my pre-FAC check of the referencing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wagner 2006c, pp. 142–143. —also does not match the page range given in the source section for Wagner 2006c

Grr! Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• "One of those imprisoned was the notoriously treacherous Charles of Navarre, one of the largest landholders in Normandy" - Is this Charles of Navarre the same Charles II of Navarre the English tried to cooperate with earlier?

Yes.

• Which are the new alliances cemented by the chevauchée? Is it the Norman nobles who are mentioned to be turning to the English in the prelude material?

Rementioned in the first sentence of Aftermath. I have tweaked the language for clarity.

• For the Curry ref, are both the (2002) and the (published 13 November 2002) needed?

Scratches head. It's the 2002 edition. Dunno where 2012 came from. Fixed. Thanks.

• With Jaques, you provide both state and city, while with Madden, you only provide the state. For consistency's sake, would it be possibly to add the city in Minnesota for Madden?

Nope. The place of publication is not given.

• Not seeing the start date explicitly referenced as 22 June in the body except for the indirect statement that the 22 days ended on July 13. Is it possible to work this exact start date into the body?

Done.

Good work, anticipate supporting on most criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability and formatting, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Dumelow

Looks good to me. I had a few minor comments from a quick read through - Dumelow (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• "John attempted to strongly garrison his northern towns and fortifications against the expected descent by Edward III, at the same time assembling a field army; he was unable to, largely due to lack of money to recruit more men" The last part reads a bit strange to me, though I am not sure how to reword it. Potentially the reader may be confused as to whether John was unable to strengthen the garrisons or assemble the army or both

After checking the source I have expanded to "after allocating garrisons the French field army was unimpressive, largely due to lack of money."

• "The English expedition to Normandy was intended to be carried out with the cooperation of the French magnate Charles II of Navarre" this is the first mention of Normandy, we've only previously stated that the English were planning offensives in "northern France and Gascony". Should this be "English expedition to northern France"?

Clumsy phrasing by me when I copy edited it down from something more understandable. Tweaked.

• "Arras rebelled and killed loyalists". Reads a bit strange to me, perhaps "the inhabitants of Arras" or similar?

Tweaked.

• "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender.[36] Charles, as the Duke of Normandy, took charge of suppressing these holdouts.[37] He took personal command of the siege of Évreux, the capital of his holdings in Normandy as Count of Évreux." The reader could be confused here as to which Charles we were talking about (the dauphin or Navarre) as both were mentioned recently and we haven't mentioned the Duke of Normandy title before.

Clarified and introduced better.

• "Houdetot also ordered assaults, which also failed" repetition of also, could perhaps be avoided.

This was deliberate, to emphasis that the same course of action was followed with similar (and by implication) unsurprising results. I could of course change it if you don't like it.

• "Horses transported in the ships of the day needed several days rest to recover, otherwise they would break down" feels a bit out of place. Are we explaining that the English couldn't act immediately upon landing? Might fit better elsewhere

I was explaining why a small number of men arrived in a large number of ships 17 days before the main force, as otherwise a reader might consider that a silly thing to do. So it seems appropriately located to me.

• "When Lancaster marched east, John believed he was striking for Rouen, and moved his army there.[49] He took steps to block the fords across the Seine, in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais." Might be better as "...he also took steps to block the fords..."

Done.

• "The French army, which Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers", ", is this the same French army as was at Condé-sur-Iton? If so, we've already established it was "much stronger than the English force, with perhaps ten times the number of men"

All of the information on the size of the French army grouped at first mention.

• "The three-week expedition had been very successful: The two besieged towns had been re-victualled" maybe "two of the besieged towns" or just "two besieged towns" as Tillières-sur-Avre was not resupplied

Good point. Changed.

Thanks Dumelow, you have picked up a number of issues which I should have, and that is appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose. Changes/explanations are all good for me. I think you're missing an "it" in "It was much stronger than the English force; Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers" with perhaps ten times the number of men"? I think what threw me on the horse bit was that there was no previous mention that the ships were carrying horses, perhaps this could be stated? - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"it" added; number of horses added in appropriate place. Thanks for both.

Thanks Dumelow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Catlemur

I previously reviewed this article at GAN. My comments focus on prose and the parts of MoS I am familiar with.

• "With French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy" - I think this falls under MOS:IDIOM.

Tweaked. ("With French finances and morale low after Crécy".)

• Perhaps you could wikilink dauphin to Dauphin of France.

D'oh! Done.

• "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested sent to Navarre for reinforcements, where Charles' younger brother Louis was administering the country." - I think this sentence warrants an extra comma after arrested.

Done, although in all seriousness that renders it unintelligible to my eye. That said, I am with Liz Truss on commas ;-) . I mean, try reading the sentence without the section which is between the commas.

I am usually of a different school of thought on commas than Gog, but do agree with them that adding the comma after arrested makes it more difficult to read. Hog Farm _Talk 19:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Catlemur, this is good of you. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose. All issues I raised have been addressed.--Catlemur (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: This one has three supports and image and source passes and has been running for nearly four weeks. I realise that it needs a look over by a non-MilHist editor, but meanwhile, could I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mind you I feel like making it conditional on the next one having "chevauchée " in the title as well -- never heard the term before this series of articles and now I really look forward to seeing (and saying) it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support. Seems to meet all the criteria, though I know little of this century. A few minor points.

• "Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal." I might consider moving the 1337 date to the start of the sentence, because to that point the reader has no idea what the timeframe is.

Good point. Done.

• "Lancaster's small army was delayed for several days at Montebourg, setting off on 22 June[45] and arriving in Carentan, 25 miles (40 km) to the south, on the 23rd." I would suggest instead of the final clause, that "the next day" be placed after "arriving".

Done.

• "in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais" Calais is linked to the article on same, but there is a previous mention of Calais that is not linked to anything.

D'oh! Corrected.

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt, much appreciated. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Norman-based French nobles". This should surely be Normandy-based?

It should, it should. Fixed.

• "planned for the Duchy of Brittany under Lancaster to the Cotentin". Perhaps for clarity "to the Cotentin Peninsula in north-west Normandy".

Done.

• "The truce did not stop ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and the Duchy of Brittany, nor occasional fighting on a larger scale." I think that grammatically the second "nor" should be "and".

You may be correct and I will change it if you insist; but IMO that would make things trickier for a reader with 'and the Duchy of Brittany, and occasional fighting'.

• "arrived in Bordeaux, the capital of English-held Gascony, on the 20th". Of what month?

Oops. How embarrassing. Thank you. Fixed. The month had been copy edited out and I read straight past that reference to it!

• "Houdetot also ordered assaults, which also failed; so he drove mines towards its walls in an attempt to sap them. Philip of Navarre, the younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command of his remaining adherents and withdrew to the northern Cotentin." I find this confusing. 1. What does "his" refer to? Did Philip take command of Houdetot's adherents or was he serving under Houdetot and deserted with his own troops? 2. You refer above to Charles's younger brother Louis, so Philip cannot be the younger brother. 3. Why remaining adherents? Had some deserted? 4. "also" is repeated.

Second sentence here changed to "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command those adherents of his brother who remained loyal and not besieged and withdrew to the northern Cotentin." which I think addresses all of you concerns. (And the first brother is now introduced as "where one of Charles' younger brothers, Louis, was administering the country."

• I am still not clear about this paragraph. The first sentence is "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender." Presumably at that stage the Norman nobles were rebelling but not yet allied with Edward, and the French took control of their lands apart from fortifications loyal to the rebels. It would be helpful to spell this out if correct. "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command those adherents of his brother who remained loyal and not besieged and withdrew to the northern Cotentin" It should be "command of those adherents". Presumably Pont-Audemer was a possession of Charles of Navarre and his men were besieged, but some defected to the French ("who remained loyal"). Again it would be helpful to spell these points out. Your account seems to me too abbreviated to be clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dudley, I am struggling a little with this. The previous section ends "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested, sent to Navarre for reinforcements, where one of Charles' younger brothers, Louis, was administering the country. On receiving the news Louis began raising troops. The Norman nobles also turned to Edward for assistance." This to my eye covers your "Presumably at that stage the Norman nobles were rebelling but not yet allied with Edward, and the French took control of their lands apart from fortifications loyal to the rebels. It would be helpful to spell this out if correct." I may be being a bit slow, but barring saying the same thing immediately after having just said it I am not sure how I could be clearer. If you have a concrete suggestion, it would be gratefully received.

"of" added.

Pont-Audemer - good point. I have made this explicit.

"adherents" - sentence simplified. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Loooking at it again the only sentence I find unclear is "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender." It is probably me being thick but you distinguish here between the French and the Normans, whereas above you imply that the Normans were French in such comments as "Much of the north of France was openly defying John". Perhaps "The king's supporters took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications of the rebel nobles which refused to surrender." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dudley, ah, I see. Well, I am not using "the north of France" as synonymous with Normandy; eg the sentence immediately after the one you quote from talks about a revolt in Arras. But I take your point. I have changed the sentence to "John's army took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those rebel-held fortifications which refused to surrender." Does that work? And apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• "On 1 June an initial force of 140 men-at-arms, 200 archers and 1,400 horses left Southampton". You say below that all participants were mounted, so presumably they acquired more horses in Normandy?

"On 18 June 1356 Lancaster arrived and brought the strength up to 500 men-at-arms and 800 longbowmen". Ie a total of 1,300 men for the 1,400 horses. One assumes that other detachments already based in France, English and Navarrese, arrived on their own horses, but no source specifies this.

• 30 em for the notes looks odd with only 4 notes. They would be easier to read if they were not in columns.

I very much disagree, but that may be my failing eyesight, so changed. Actually I find that really difficult to read, you sure about it?

• I find it much easier to read without columns, but let's see what other editors think. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Another fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Dudley, and thank you for reading through it and pointing out those flaws. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Dudley, just letting you know that I will be offline until Friday. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Consider me a non-expert.

• "But after relieving and re-victualling the besieged citadel". I've never heard the word "victualling"; it might be too technical. Perhaps "relieving and providing supplies"

You need to broaden your vocabulary. Changed to "resupplying".

• "Two besieged fortifications had been re-victualled..." Does this sentence describe what happened during the 330 mi march? I was unclear by this.

Immediately before this, in the same sentence, it says "The three-week expedition had been very successful:". Is that insufficient linkage?

• "should be taken back into Philip's hands on" -> "should be given back to Philip" to avoid MOS:IDIOM

That is not what happened. Changed to "should be taken into Philip's direct control".

• "A treaty ending the war was negotiated at Guînes and signed on 6 April 1354." -> "The Treaty of Guînes was negociated to end the war and signed on 6 April 1354." to avoid an MOS:EASTEREGG and name the treaty in the text.

I prefer the existing text. There is no Easter egg: a reader clicks on "A treaty ending the war" and finds an article giving information on a treaty to end the war. It does not "require the reader to open [it] before understanding what's going on".

• "The latest extension to the truce was due to expire on 24 June." Did it expire on 24 June? If so, maybe "The latest extension to the truce expired on 24 June and both sides were committed to full-scale war."

At that point in the chronology it was only due to expire. I prefer to retail an account in the order events occurred, rather than risk confusing a reader by jumping back and forth in time.

• "John attempted to strongly garrison" Delete strongly, I doubt anyone wants to weakly garrison an area.

To the contrary, it was normal practice to weakly garrison fortifications most of the time. Pulling most of their (potential) garrisons out was the normal way to raise a field army. Strongly garrisoning all fortifications would have required having most of the nation in arms most of the time.

• "the modern historian Clifford Rogers concluded" He should be wikilinked here, instead of in the next section.

Oops. Thank you. Done.

• "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested, sent to Navarre for reinforcements," Should there be a comma after nobles?

No.

• "which also failed; so he drove" the semi-colon should be a comma, or delete so.

Commaised.

• "Horses transported in the ships of the day needed several days rest to recover, otherwise they would break down." Is break down the right term to use here? I've never thought of horses as breaking down, as they are not machines. Maybe "several days rest to recover, otherwise they would be ineffective" or something similar?

Break down is the correct term, but you are right that it is technical. I have explained more fully.

• "and Évreux; but by the time he landed" either replace the semi-colon with a comma or delete but

"but" deleted.

• "On the 7th Lancaster rested his men and horses,[56][57] but they did so arrayed in battle order outside Verneuil in case of a French attack.[57]" I don't think I've heard of "arrayed" before. Perhaps, "On the 7th Lancaster rested his men and horses,[56][57] arranged in a battle formation outside Verneuil in case of a French attack.[57]"

You should read more widely, "battle array" gets 270,000 hits on Google. Changed to "they did so in battle order".

• "the French arrayed themselves for battle" same as above, maybe "arranged themselves for battle"?

Changed to prepared.

• "The, by now, Anglo-Navarrese force" This is a bit awkward, maybe "The newly-merged Anglo-Navarrese force" or "The newly-formed Anglo-Navarrese force"

Simplified to "The force returned to Montebourg"

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Z1720. My responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• The caption for John II's image in "Return" is centered. Any reason for this? The formatting looks weird on my computer because the caption is on two lines.

I always centre all captions in all articles I do significant work on. I find left justified cations difficult to read, especially when the last line has a single word. I also feel that centred captions look neater and more professional (criterion 1a). Centring does not change the number of lanes a caption runs over - try it and see.

Can I upload a screenshot of the article on Flickr, and post the Flickr link below to show you the formatting I see on my computer? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Gog and I have exchanged emails, and have resolved this concern. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the ISBN of Kenneth Fowler's source not given? It's available in the archive.org link.

I have the hard copy which only gives the SBN. I was reluctant to include a retroactively designated identifier which was not on the title page of the volume I was holding. I could do so, or I could use the SBN?

I would not add the SBN, because that is a different number from ISBN, so it wouldn't make sense for one source to have an SBN while the others don't. Does an ISBN apply retroactively? I do not know enough about this to determine what to do, maybe Gog can ping an editor you think would know the answer to this? Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, there is nothing wrong with using a retroactively applied ISBN. I have done it several times myself. So I am probably being irrational in being reluctant to do so just because there is an SBN on the title page. I have replaced the OCLC with the ISBN. Which turns out to be the SBN with 978-0- in front. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• In terms of my vocabulary: I'm not well read in military history topics and I prefer reading about other topics such as Canada, political history, alternative religious movements and stage dance. While many Wikipedia readers are military buffs, others are high school students or passerbys whose vocabulary in military topics is not as strong. All I can do as a non-expert is point out when things don't make sense to me; it's up to the nominator to consider my suggestions. I won't oppose unless I feel something is very technical, but I have to be honest when I don't understand something.

Of course, understood. All Wikipedia articles are meant to be broadly comprehensible and reviews by non-specialists are hence especially valued, for much the reasons you outline. The FAC coordinators will not promote a milhist article which has not been reviewed by a non-aficionado and it is especially pleasing to me that this nomination has attracted so many such reviews.

That's my second set of comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720, good points. All addressed, in one case with a query for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. Support. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}}

Older nominations

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 May 2021 [50].

---

Hurricane Olivia (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Olivia, a long-lasting Category 4 hurricane that affected Hawaii as a tropical storm in September 2018, shortly after Hurricane Lane passed by a few weeks prior. Noah^Talk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

• You should link landfall in the second sentence

• Done. Noah^Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Olivia formed southwest of Mexico on September 1. The depression" - you never said it formed as a depression. I suggest either you avoid mentioning depression here, or find a way of incorporating that

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link wind shear

• Done. Noah^Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• You link Category 4 hurricane twice in the lead, but to two different articles. Seems odd

• Removed the second link. Noah^Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Olivia made brief landfalls in northwest Maui and Lanai on September 12, becoming the first tropical cyclone to impact the islands in recorded history." - you mention in the lead that it was the first recorded landfall, not just "impact". Also, you mention the landfall on those islands three times in the lead.

• I removed that mention and kept the opening as well as the one with the wind information. Noah^Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Torrential rainfall occurred on both Maui and Oahu, peaking at 12.93 in (328 mm) in West Wailuaiki, Maui. On Maui" - any way you can avoid saying "Maui" twice within three words?

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "caused thousands of power outages, and caused severe flooding." - can you find a way of writing this so you don't say "caused" twice?

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "most notably Lower Honoapiilani Road where cliffs were eroded along its shoulder; repairs to that road are still ongoing." - still, as of May 2021? The source says January 2021.

• I can't find anything more recent than that. Noah^Talk 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• " United States President Donald Trump" - this makes me vomit a little bit with some mild PTSD, but nothing you can do about that
• "Later in the day, the amount of banding features – significantly elongated, curved bands of rain clouds – increased significantly while Olivia's inner core strengthened" - can you avoid saying "significantly" twice?

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why was Olivia's restrengthening unexpected?

• Explained that models predicted weakening due to dry air and lower SSTs. Noah^Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• You never linked Kalawao County. Conversely, you re-link all of the islands in the last section. Watch for the duplicate links

• Removed several duplicate links and linked that county. Noah^Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• You link the Kamehameha Highway twice. The first time is in Maui, even though the highway is on Oahu.

• Removed the mention of this road in Maui. Noah^Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• What is a brown water advisory? Also, you say - " Previously, the entire island of Maui had been under a brown water advisory." - when was that "previously"? Was it due to Lane?

• Rephrased and clarified based on what was in that source. Noah^Talk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "An elderly woman was rescued by Malia Wong and the latter's husband during the storm. " - usually we don't mention specific people involved in events unless they are significant.

• Changed to neighbors. Noah^Talk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Red Cross helped with recovery efforts. " - you link the Red Cross, but it should probably be the American Red Cross

• Done. Noah^Talk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Wong donated pallets of diapers, water, food, and clothing to people who were severely impacted." - this seems like unnecessary detail from some random person. Is this some philanthropic millionaire? Was this person the only person who donated, and that's why Wong is important?

• Removed. Noah^Talk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a good article overall. Most of my comments are nitpicks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I should have addressed everything. Noah^Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The article had a missing short description, I added it for you, but please be careful about that in the future. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Accessibility: the infobox image would benefit from alt text. Heartfox (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from LightandDark2000

• All of my concerns were addressed in either the A-Class Review or Hurricanehink's comments above. I think that Hurricanehink picked out the last of the issues with this article I didn't find any more issues. The sources also look good to me. I believe that this article is ready for a promotion to FA. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from codingcyclone advisories/damages 15:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from codingcyclone I may make typos as I am on a mobile device. There are just a few minor issues. You need alt text in the collapsible set showing all the season's articles. Navigational templates at the bottom of pages do not need alt text as their sole purpose is to navigate from article to article. The image in the box is purely decorative. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) began a weakening trend could be shortened to began/started to weaken or just simply weakened. Done. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Olivia became a Category 1 hurricane around 00:00 UTC on September 4 while located 575 mi (925 km) southwest of Cabo San Lucas. needs a comma between "September 4" and "while", as well as the advisory as a reference. Added a comma. This sentence and the next are both are supported by the TCR. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) The cyclone continued to intensify, reaching its initial peak intensity as a 125 mph (205 km/h) Category 3 major hurricane at 00:00 UTC on September 5. change to The cyclone continued to intensify, and at 00:00 UTC, it reached its first peak intensity as a Category 3 hurricane, with wind speeds of 125 mph (205 km/h). To be honest, I think breaking it up like that would make it read a bit choppy. NoahTalk 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC) entrained do you have a simpler alternative? Changed. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) The hurricane began to weaken shortly after as sea surface temperatures decreased, wind shear increased, and dry air entrained into the storm. Olivia's eyewall collapsed in the north and convection eroded in the northwestern quadrant. when? Added. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Models had predicted that Olivia would weaken as a result of dry air and lower sea surface temperatures. you have to tie this in. Merge it into another sentence: Despite the predictions of models,[12] Olivia strengthened over the next day, regaining major hurricane status by 12:00 UTC on September 6. I didn't take the suggestion as that would involve removing details about the not-so-great environmental conditions. I split off the part about the unexpected intensification and added it to the end of model prediction sentence. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Cooler, 77–79 °F (25–26 °C) sea surface temperatures change to Cooler sea surface temperatures of 77–79 °F (25–26 °C) Done. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Low wind shear and slightly higher sea surface temperatures allowed Olivia to restrengthen slightly and re-develop an eye feature on satellite imagery later that day. put the "later that day" at the beginning of the sentence. Done. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) The storm turned westward and transitioned into a post-tropical cyclone by 06:00 UTC on September 14. add "then" between "The storm" and "turned." The word "then" is often redundant. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) This system opened up into a trough of low-pressure about 12 hours later. replace "This system" with "It." Done. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) The United States Coast Guard initiated Condition Whiskey what is Condition Whiskey? Same with X-ray and Yankee. I'm going to add in some notes for these. NoahTalk 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Hololani Resort Condominiums and Goodfellow Bros, the company performing the work, was fined $75,000 in that month for violating state and county regulations. what regulations did they violate? Added in state health and county environmental. I don't know any more specifics on what exact regulations got violated. NoahTalk 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC) An elderly woman was rescued by her neighbors during the storm. replace "was" with "had to be". I think "had to be" implies there was no other option (such as waiting for/contacting authorities), which I don't believe the source supports. I consider "was" to be more neutral. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Overall, tourism increased in the month of October, following the two storms replace "following" with "despite". Done. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Great job with this! codingcyclone advisories/damages 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the details in See also warrant citing

• Done. Noah^Talk 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Did you consider including this source?

• Will request access... Likely won't be able to get this added in until at least Monday. Noah^Talk 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Upon looking at the source, it appears to mostly be a briefer regurgitation of the information in the TCR (Only includes the Eastern Pacific portion). I don't really think there is anything worth including here, although it could be a useful source for some general information for the season article. Noah^Talk 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• FN23 has first and last names reversed. Ditto FN46, check for others

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 19:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• FN24 has a date that should be included

• Added. Noah^Talk 19:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• FN28: authors listed don't match up with what's provided at the source

• Two writers are listed at the bottom as having contributed to the article. Noah^Talk 20:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, but is there a reason first author name is different? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Whoops. Fixed that. Noah^Talk 19:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Channels shouldn't be italicized

• I fixed Khon 2 and KITV, which are both news channels. I believe that is it. Noah^Talk 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another example is CNN. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Changed all the other ones as well. Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 19:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether databases are treated as work titles

• I believe all data-base type sources are now works. Noah^Talk 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• FN47: don't see that author credit at source?

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Fn53: is there no better source available?

• Appears another source in the article already covered the information. Noah^Talk 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• FN64: what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• A decent number of news and insurance sources use AON's estimates and other materials: [51], [52], [53], [54], and [55] to name a few. Noah^Talk 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Would suggest in-text attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Noah^Talk 19:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I should have addressed everything. Let me know if there are any other problems. Noah^Talk 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

HF

Never reviewed a hurricane FAC before, so this will be interesting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The fifteenth named storm, ninth hurricane, and sixth major hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season,[1][nb 1] A tropical depression formed southwest of Mexico on September 1." - The back half of the first of these two sentences appears to be missing

• I forgot to fix that when I rewrote the sentence. Noah^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• " most notably Lower Honoapiilani Road where cliffs were eroded along its shoulder; repairs to that road are still ongoing" - needs an as of date here

• Added. Noah^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link Molokai in the lead

• Done. Noah^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Honolua Ditch was clogged with debris; authorities asked customers to conserve water for the remainder of September while the ditch is cleaned out and repaired." - The "is" towards the end of this sentence should be a "was", as this is referring to things from several years ago

• Done. Noah^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• " Hololani Resort Condominiums and Goodfellow Bros, the company performing the work, was fined $75,000 in that month for violating state health and county environmental regulations" - not convinced that the fining of a company doing repair work is really relevant to an article about the storm.

• It is a part of the aftermath of Olivia. We have had cases of company misconduct being included for past storms. It is similar to a country's gov't being criticized for its efforts. Noah^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still not entirely convinced that it quite belongs, but this is minor enough I'm still comfortable supporting this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I feel like 0 fatalities should be directly cited somewhere

• It's generally understood by default that nobody died unless it can be proven that people were killed. Noah^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This one's in pretty good shape; most of my comments are minor prose concerns. Some of the descriptions of the flooding damage remind me of some disaster relief work I did after the 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods along the Missouri River. Hog Farm _Talk 04:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1c (checked Gscholar and ProQuest to make sure that this hasn't been written about in scholarly journals, which it doesn't seem to have been), 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; did not check against others. Hog Farm _Talk 20:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman

I looked through the article and did not see any particular problems that would be objectionable. Nice work! 웃OO 03:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [56].

---

Assassination of Talat Pasha

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

After shooting the main perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide, Soghomon Tehlirian said, "I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer". His defense was so successful that, as noted by one newspaper, "In reality it was the blood-stained shadow of Talât Pasha who was sitting on the defendant’s bench; and the true charge was the ghastly Armenian Horrors, not his execution by one of the few victims left alive." The jury agreed with Tehlirian. But can extrajudicial killing ever "uphold the moral order of mankind"? Raphael Lemkin thought so; he later said that it was this assassination and the resulting spectacular trial that sparked his interest in war crimes, eventually leading to his invention of the concept of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Talat_Pasha_cropped.jpg: for the purposes of the EU tag, on what date was this made publicly available?
  • It appears to be anonymous, or at least Library of Congress doesn't know who the author is. It was published by Neue Photographische Gesellschaft so I used a no author disclosure PD tag.
    • Okay, but that tag requires that it was published over 70 years ago. Do we know that to be the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Neue Photographische Gesellschaft shut down in 1948,[57] so if it was published by them it must have been more than 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• File:Armenian_deportations_in_Erzurum_by_Victor_Pietschmann_03.jpg: which rationale from the Austrian tag is believed to apply, and what's the status of this work in the US?
  • I believe that this is considered a simple photograph as it doesn't "involve artistic interpretations". If so, it was either unpublished or else published in Pietschmann's 1940 book, so the copyright would have expired by 1996.
• File:Talat_Pasha_cable_of_29_August_1915.png: does the source give any further info on the provenance of this work?
  • No, although I'm pretty sure it was found in an archive.
• File:William_Tell_LCCN2003689314_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
  • The source doesn't say exactly, just that it is free use. In this case the author was S. Zickel who apparently founded his own publishing house by 1870.[58]
• File:Ein_Zeugnis_für_Talaat_Pasha.png: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 1950. Added to image description. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will look at this one once I get through a review that's already on my reviewing list. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 02:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long to get to, I had some stuff come up.

• Would it be useful to add a couple sentences about the background between the Ottomans and the Armenians, maybe drawing from a very shortened summary of Armenian Genocide#Background?
  • I could, but I try to keep background short and am not sure of any specific information which would enhance reader understanding of this article topic.
• "directly issued orders to generals in the Turkish war of independence from Berlin" - Would Turkish war of independence be a proper noun that should be capitalized?
  • It's not consistently capped in sources so I believe MOS:CAPS applies.
• Harutian Mgrditichian is identified as Armenian in the lead, but not explicitly as such in the body.
  • removed. I don't believe the sources are clear on this because it's obviously an Armenian name.
• "Ihrig and other historians have argued the prosector's strategy was deeply flawed," - Is this a typo for prosecutor, or is "prosector" a term in German law?
  • Typo
• The prosecutor is always just referred to as "Gollnick", is this a surname with no introduction or a mononym?
  • His first name is not disclosed in the trial transcript or any of the sources.

I've got to take a pause here, ready for Tehlirian's testimony. Hog Farm _Talk 15:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "In the past, commemorative ceremonies were held to honor Talat at the Monument of Liberty, but this practice had been discontinued as of 2013" - Anything more recent for an update on this?
  • I couldn't find anything.
• "Turkish writer Orhan Seyfi [tr] condemned the acquittal of Tehlirian but argued Germany made up for this by transporting his body to Turkey in 1943" - "his" in this formation would be read as referring to Tehlirian's body
  • Reworded
• I'm unfamiliar with the Armenian and Turkish sources used, so I do not feel comfortable assessing them for a controversial topic.

That's my first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hog Farm Was I able to address all your concerns? Thanks again for reviewing, (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. I have a rather cluttered watchlist and sometimes miss changes. Hog Farm _Talk 21:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92

• Why does this use "Talat Pasha" while the biographical article is "Talaat Pasha"? Can't tell why these would be inconsistent. And several quotations have "Talât" but the name could be translated/transliterated just as the rest of the sentence was. These should probably all have the same spelling, maybe with a footnote of alternatives.
  • "Talaat" spelling is historically more common, but the spellings with one "a" have become more common recently[59]. I think they are all similar enough that it's sufficiently obvious that they all refer to the same person. As for quotes, Talat, Talât, and Talaat are all valid ways of spelling the name in English and I believe changing the spelling would go against the principle of minimal change in MOS. I believe all the quotes with Talat's name are from English language sources.
    • Hmm should I start an RM for Talaat Pasha? Still think closely related articles should be consistent. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree with Reywas92. Per WP:CONSUB, the titles should match. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• From a modern American perspective it seems odd that the jury only decided on "deliberate murder" and there was no charge or way to convict on a sort of second-degree murder or manslaughter. Is there any comment on this?
  • In the law in force at the time, there was a provision for non-premeditated homicide (§ 212 as opposed to § 211), but the possibility of charging Tehlirian under that provision was not mentioned during the trial. Sources don't discuss it either.

Thank you for writing this, that was a fascinating history to read. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92 You're welcome, and thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 06:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Coming up to three weeks in and this has only attracted one general support and an image review. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next four or five days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild I don't suppose I can persuade you to review the article? It's a very interesting topic or so I've been told. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You owe me! ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I note the move request for the article but I don't think that should stop us closing this, especially as it seems far from a forgone conclusion that it will go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "he served in the Armenian volunteer units". Delete "the".
  • I don't think it reads better that way and most sources use "the" here.
• "Deciding to take revenge, he joined Operation Nemesis, a clandestine program carried out by the Dashnaktsutyun (the Armenian Revolutionary Federation), and was chosen for the mission to assassinate Talat after he killed Harutian Mgrditichian, who helped the Ottoman secret police, in Constantinople." An over long and complicated sentence, which has its chronological order backwards. In fact, could the whole paragraph be put in chronological order?
  • I had worded it this way because some sources are vague about whether Mgrditichian's death can be counted as part of the Nemesis operation, but now rephrased.
• "The defense strategy in Tehlirian's trial, held 2–3 June 1921, was to". Optional: → 'Tehlirian's trial was held 2–3 June 1921, and the defense strategy was to ...'
  • Done
• ""one of the most spectacular trials of the twentieth century"": quotes, opinions and attribution.
  • Done
• "telling a dramatic and realistic, but untrue story". Comma after "untrue".
  • Done
• "Tehlirian's acquittal brought mostly favorable reactions." Are we still talking about the international media? If so, maybe a semi colon?
  • Done
• "to cause their deaths" seems a little stilted. 'with the intention of wiping them out' or something may flow better.
  • Done
• "after learning about the Armenian massacres Talat ordered, CUP former finance minister Cavid Bey predicted he would be assassinated". Delete "Talat ordered"; "he" → 'Talat'.
  • done
• "the war guilt question". Perhaps a very brief in line explanation of what this was.
  • Done
• "The Foreign Office kept tabs on the goings-on at this apartment". Something more encyclopedic than "kept tabs"?
  • Done
• "Turkish war of independence". Upper case initial letters. [60]
  • Done
• "the March 1920 Kapp Putsch". An in line explanation please.
  • Done
• "viewed Turkey as the innocent and wronged party". "the" → 'an'.
  • Done
• "comparing the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Sèvres". Optional: reverse the order of the treaties.
  • Done
• "mainly young men who either survived the genocide or lost their families". This seems to imply at least the possibility of volunteers who hadn't "survived the genocide"! And were the two mutually exclusive?
  • Tehlirian can't be described as a genocide survivor as he wasn't in Anatolia at the time. Similar to Jews who were in the US during World War II aren't called Holocaust survivors. No, not mutually exclusive so removed "either".
• "where he assassinated Harutian Mgrditichian". Is it known when?
  • sources are contradictory. Hoffman says "March 1919". MacCurdy says it was 1920. From context it must be somewhere in that vicinity.
• "Droshak". An in line explanation please.
  • Done
• "At the Droshak headquarters in Geneva, he obtained a visa" A newspaper office seems an odd place to receive a visa.
  • That's what the source says: shortly after Tehlirian left for Europe, going first to Paris and then Geneva to the Troshag headquarters, an international ARF party center. There, with the help of party members, he obtained a visa to go to Berlin, under the guise of being a mechanical engineering student.

I read "There" as referring to Geneva, not Trosahg HQ.

• "the commandos plotting assassinations". "Commandos"? At best this seems anachronistic.
  • Changed to "conspirators"
• "Tehlirian continued to meet with the commandos plotting assassinations". "continued"; you haven't mentioned that they had started to.
  • Reworded
• "At his trial, Tehlirian denied the assassination was premeditated". Maybe 'At his trial, Tehlirian was to deny the assassination was premeditated'?
  • I tend to err on the side of simple tenses, since complicated ones sound literary. I'm not convinced that this is necessary.
• Dashnaktsutyun/Dashnak. Is there a reason why this is not standardised?
  • The former is the noun, the latter is the adjective form.
• "his actions under German law of temporary insanity under section 51 of the penal code". There seems to be a definite article missing somewhere in there.
  • rephrased
• "Historian Carolyn Dean writes that, "The cynical mission of the German government—to prosecute Tehlirian quickly while using the opportunity to redeem German conduct—inadvertently transformed Tehlirian into a symbol of human conscience tragically compelled to gun down a murderer for want of justice."" I think that this could usefully be paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice.
  • Partly done
• "which revealed his knowledge of the genocide". The judge's or Tehlirian?
  • The former, clarified
• The Expert witnesses section is more quotation than not. Separately, I really don't see what the block quote adds to the article.
  • Ditched
• Could you go through the whole article and weed out some of the excessive quoting. Eg, at random, in Mental state, Ihrig's quotes.
  • Done
• Lemberg/the judge: pick one.
  • I thought it was better to vary phrasing?

OK, in principle I like that; but in practice you introduce the judge as Lemberg at the start of the Trial section. refer to him six times as "judge", then make a single reference to him as Lemberg under Closing arguments, and revert to judge in Verdict. By the time I got to the single remention of him as Lemberg I had forgotten that was his name and had to do a Ctrl-F search, his role not being obvious from context.

Used "judge" consistently.

• What does the block quote in Closing arguments add?
  • Removed
• "A unanimous verdict, it left no possibility of appeal by the prosecution." Why not?
  • Source doesn't say
• "Following his acquittal and deportation from Germany" → 'Following his acquittal Tehlirian was deported from Germany' or similar.
  • done
• "where the editorial board of Hairenik honored him" How?
  • Source doesn't say.
• "of many German newspapers on the same day". The same day as what? Maybe 'The assassination made the headlines of many German newspapers on the day it occurred'?
  • Done
• "In 1922, the Kemalist government ... On 13 April 1924, the Kemalist government". Could the repetition be avoided?
  • Done
• "At the request of the office of the prime minister of Turkey". When was this made?
  • Neither Olson, Kieser, or any other source I can find gives an exact date, although Olson implies that the request was made shortly before it happened.
• "Talat's remains were disinterred and transported to Turkey". Is it known when this happened?
  • 25 February, a few days before the funeral. I did not think that the exact date was important enough to include.
• The article is about the "Assassination of Talat Pasha". Talat's state funeral 22 years later is IMO not "stay[ing] focused on the main topic"; its effect on Turkey and, eg, mention of memorials on longer being held there seem waay off topic.
  • Really? I would think that "Death of X" articles include funeral in their scope. The transfer to Turkey would not have happened without the assassination in Germany. The JFK assassination article has disclosures of documents still ongoing several decades later.
    • OK, I trimmed this section somewhat. The funeral would meet WP:NEVENT so I think it's OK to summarize it here with the expectation that a full article could be written later. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, regarding Talat's first funeral. But his body's disinterment and reburial and the political effects of this in Turkey 22 years later, and even down to today, seemed, at a minimum, to be covered in excessive detail.

• Do you really think that the popular culture section deserves to stay?
  • I mean, it's covered in the sources. I don't feel strongly about it, though, so I've axed it if you think that's better.
• "Westphalian sovereignty". LOL. Seriously? I mean, I know about the three Westphalian treaties and have even visited the Osnabruck Rathaus but I doubt that one in a hundred readers will understand, even after clicking the link. How about 'then-extant concepts of national sovereignty' or something similar.
  • Done. I guess it tripped me up that national sovereignty redirects to Westphalian sovereignty :)

Ah! I did wonder.

• "contrasted both cases from the later". "from" → 'with'.
  • Done
• I am not sure that the last two sentences of the article add any encyclopedia-worthy content.
  • I think it's essential to include Kieser's take as he is the author of the only scholarly biography of Talat. I did move it to clarify how it's relevant.
• There are plenty of images; William Tell seems pretty loosely connected to the article to merit a (fanciful) artist's impression.
  • Removed

That's it for a first rapid run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild Thanks so much for your comments. I believe I've actioned everything. It took me a few days to go through and figure out what could be cut. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple of comments above. If I haven't commented it means that I am content. I will reread the current version now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Second reading

• "in the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian army" Suggestion ' in the Armenian volunteer units of the Russian army'?
  • Done
• "The fourth paragraph of Closing arguments seems unduly quote heavy.
  • Cut down

Erm, and that's all. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Re the visa, I still 'read "There" as referring to Geneva, not Trosahg HQ', but that is open to discussion so I won't let it stop me supporting this fine and important piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Reworded. (t · c) buidhe 10:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Additional thought: shouldn't Kieser (2010) and Yenen have page ranges? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Added for Yenen, can't find Kieser. Thanks for your support! (t · c) buidhe 10:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

pp. 30-44 Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chipmunkdavis

I was impressed by this article when I did the DYK review, which included some source spotchecks. It would be a shame if it got archived, so I hope others will look at it. I will try to find the time for a more detailed review myself. Quick note that the Gyumri statue mention does not have a date, despite dates being given for the other locations. CMD (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I can't find a date for the Gyumri bust. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I note this has three supports already, but some questions/comments:

• Lead has great coverage of the article sections. A minor point, it is odd that "Ottoman court-martial" is a pipelink to a redirect, especially as in the body it pipes to the current article title.
  • Bypassed redirect
• Background has "he ordered a second wave of massacres in 1916", but no timeframe has been established for the preceding massacre.
  • Mentioned World War I and 1915
• It's not fully clear from the article why exactly Germany provided asylum to the CUP leaders. What made them so valuable that even the new German government would reject extradition?
  • The stated reason was that "Talaat has been loyal to us, and our country remains open to him." Added. To be honest, I don't really understand why this happened. It definitely seems to me that Germany had more to lose in terms of loss of reputation than anything it might gain from this arrangement.
• Was the CUP plan to "organize a resistance movement" linked to the Turkish War of Independence? If not, how did Talat Pasha get involved?
  • Yes, this is discussed in Zürcher's book The Unionist Factor: The Role of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement 1905-1926 . Talat wasn't that closely involved since he was forced into exile and soon sidelined by Kemal. Mentioned this connection.
• "He wrote a memoir" should be "Talat wrote a memoir", as the preceding sentence is far-right Germans.
  • Done
• "After it became clear that no one else would bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice". This sentence seems quite wide and sweeping, especially as the preceding section noted Talat was wanted. Do the sources make such a claim, or is this the view of the Dashnaktsutyun?
  • It is a widely held view in all the reliable sources that I read that political will to prosecute and hold accountable the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide more or less evaporated by 1920. It's not just Armenian authors or the ARF that makes this claim. For example, the book Judgement at Istanbul states,

    for a variety of reasons the legal establishment of the fact of the Armenian Genocide did not produce a measure of retributive justice that, in scope and severity, would be commensurate with the magnitude of the crime. Addressing this problem, an American author recently went so far as to declare that “[t]he Constantinople (Istanbul) war crimes trials, had they not fallen apart, would have been remembered as comparable only to Nuremberg and Tokyo.”9 Another author deplored the fact that “this first tentative step toward defining and punishing genocide failed because of Turkish nationalism and Allied indifference.”10 Going one step further, he and the noted legal scholar C.M. Bassiouni attributed the perpetration on a larger scale of many of the subsequent cases of state-organized mass murders to the relative abortiveness of the Turkish courts-martial.

• "the Turkish nationalist movement invaded Armenia". This feels odd, due to the idea of a movement invading something. Is this how sources usually word this information? If so, perhaps it would be better if "Nationalist" and "Movement" were capitalized, as they seem to be in other articles.
  • Yes, the Turkish nationalist movement is named as the belligerent in the Turkish-Armenian war. "Turkish nationalist movement" is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources[61].
• "At first Tehlirian stood over the corpse, but after onlookers shouted, forgot his instructions and ran away." Is this missing a "he"?
  • Added
• "Invitations from Hayriye and the Oriental Club were sent, but the turnout was higher than expected." Why is this a "but" contradiction, surely invitations lead to turnout?
  • Reworded
• The first paragraph of "Trial" is a bit jarring, as the opening few sentences just after the "Trial" header do not specify they take place outside of the trial, before "At his trial" appears.
  • Reworded. I do think it makes sense to keep content about the investigation in this section rather than starting a new top-level heading for it.
• Does Gollnick have a first name?
  • Not stated in any of the sources or the trial transcript.
• "German police looked for Tehlirian's associates but did not uncover them." This sentence was a bit surprising as it sounds from the preceding paragraph that Shahan Natalie was part of the trial defence team.
  • I believe Natalie was in the US at the time. Regardless, this insight comes from internal documents, disclosed decades later. None of the sources say that Natalie or the other Nemesis leaders took a public role in the trial.
• "but the Foreign Office rejected this solution". How was the foreign office able to reject part of the judicial process?
  • Hofmann states that the Foreign Office maybe not rejected, but caused the closed trial to be rejected:

    Gollnick did not prevail against the Foreign Office with his proposal to conduct the proceedings in camera. From the files, we deduce that personal contacts existed between the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office and the German Foreign Office, both before and after the trial.

• Can't access the relevant source page, but it seems odd that Gollnick potentially weakened his case in response to newspaper lobbying, and was rewarded by a post on that newspaper editorial board. Does Ihrig offer an explanation?
  • Ihrig states that it's also possible he was simply incompetent:

    One might even go as far as to speculate that prosecutor Gollnick’s messy, uninspired, and apparently lackadaisical per for mance was perhaps, in turn, motivated by his disgust at Humann’s lobbying. Perhaps he indeed did not want Tehlirian to be convicted and secretly sided with the Armenian cause. Th at would have made his performance actually rather clever; if he did want Tehlirian to be convicted, on the other hand, it would just have been an abysmal performance, nothing more. Perhaps that is all that it was, because it appears that Gollnick was indeed rewarded by Humann, whom he served in the coming months as a member of his editorial board at the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

    WP:OR but the evidence that the DAZ Gollnick is the same Gollnick (based on checking the cited primary sources, none of them gives a first name) seems to be weak. They could also be different individuals, IMO.
• "some leaders were arrested". Were these leaders part of the conscripted men from the previous sentence?
  • No, clarified
• "the general deportation order was given and armed gendarmes forced the Armenians". I think this might be slightly more accessible to those without background knowledge if it was "a general deportation order" and "forced Armenians" (or "forced Armenians in the city" or similar).
  • Done
• I don't fully understand the meaning of the quote "there had been changes in his resolve".
  • Ihrig states: "Again the judge intervened openly in favor of the defendant: when defense attorney Gordon asked him whether he had decided to kill Talât Pasha or whether the doubts about being able to kill a person had made him drop the idea, Judge Lemberg pointed out that “there had been changes in his resolve."" Not sure how I could clarify without going into WP:OR.
• How did Terzibashian's story, which seems to focus on Enver Pasha, have strong bearing on this case regarding Talat Pasha?
  • Her testimony was an important part of the trial and is extensively discussed by both Dean and Ihrig.
• "Talat's telegrams, not entered as evidence in the trial, were nevertheless". This "not entered as evidence in the trial" feels redundant; it is clear they are the ones discussed in the preceding paragraph.
  • Removed
• Could the State funeral in Turkey section provide a timeframe for the remain request? It feels like it was quite a time jump from the trial and press coverage.
  • Neither Olson, Kieser, or any other source I can find gives an exact date, although Olson implies that the request was made shortly before it happened. (WP:OR: The earliest it could possibly have been was mid-1942 when Saraçoğlu went into office).
• "Istanbul Military Museum in Istanbul". Don't think the "in Istanbul" is needed here.
  • Duh! Removed.
• "It is commonly but incorrectly believed that Tehlirian survived the genocide by hiding under his mother's corpse." In the testimony Tehlirian stated it was his brother's corpse, is there a reason suggested that the myth switched to his mother?
  • Not stated in the source.
• "Future Nuremberg trial prosecutor Robert Kempner, who attended the trial". "attended the trial" could be clarified given the last trial mentioned as Nuremberg, perhaps "the Tehlirian trial".
  • Done

Best, CMD (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Most dealt with/answered, so just replying below:
  • The sentences "Natalie saw it as an opportunity to propagandize the Armenian cause.[92] He believed that Tehlirian would likely be convicted according to German law but hoped to secure a pardon." need some clarification based on above. The preceding sentence starts with "The defense strategy...", and the subsequent sentence starts with "Werthauer [the defence lawyer already mentioned above] was more optimistic". Later another sentence says "Their strategy was successful," so the positioning and wording implies to me that Natalie was there as part of the team and involved in crafting the defence strategy.
    • According to the sources, he was involved in crafting the defence strategy. MacCurdy states that he visited Berlin at least once, in March 1921, but it's not clear where he was during the trial. I don't think the article implies his physical presence. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • On "there had been changes in his resolve", I get a much better understanding from your explanation above including the "in favor of the defendant" than I get from the article. Could you put a [Tehlirian] after "his" in the quote? I initially read "his" as referring to the prosecutor. May be worth added that explicit explanation of the judge's intervention as well, but will leave that to your assessment.
    • Both done (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I remain unsure about the statement "no one else would bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice" in wikivoice, perhaps because of hesitation around the "Bring to justice" phrasing. However, if this is the only remaining issue, and no other reviewers see an issue, I will support. CMD (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I can see how that might read as loaded language, but something like initiate criminal proceedings wouldn't work because the problem was as much enforcing judgements as about trying the perpetrators. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
      • While welcoming further input into the above from other editors either way as part of normal article development, I support based on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, and 4. As I mentioned earlier I had done some spotchecks on the article while looking at it for DYK, so while a limited check, I would also support 1c and 1f based on those. CMD (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett

I'll try to get to this in the next day or two. Tkbrett (✉) 00:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "About one million Armenians were murdered." -> fix passive voicing; who murdered them?
  • This is the total deaths of Armenians during the genocide, rephrased.
• link propaganda
• pipe Fake passport
• "an attempted coup d'état." -> "an attempted coup d'état of the German government"
  • Done
• link Coup d'état
• pipe Russian Army to Imperial Russian Army (I think?)
• "Tehlirian attended these meetings even after Despite falling ill with typhoid in mid-December."
  • Fixed
• "At the end of February, the conspirators located Talat." Is there any further information on how they located him?
  • Expanded on this (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• "went to Talat's apartment at Hardenbergstrasse 4, where Ernst Jäckh, a Foreign Office official and pro-Turkish activist, who often met with Talat arrived at 11:30 a.m.": move the comma after 'activist' to being after 'Talat'.
  • Done
• pipe Red Cross to International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
• link Anatolia
• link Ankara
• link imam
• Kaiser should be capitalized, no?

And linked to the kaiser it is referring to, not the title. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• pipe Islamic nations to Islam or somewhere else appropriate
• "he refused to speak Turkish" -> pipe Turkish to Turkish language
• "an Armenian interpreter" -> pipe Armenian to Armenian language
• link editorial board
• pipe gendarmes to Gendarmerie

As you can tell by the above, I don't have much to critique here. This page blew my socks off. Now that I have Ihrig's book on the way to my local bookstore, Harvard University Press really ought to being paying you a finder's fee. ;) Tkbrett (✉) 14:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• User:Tkbrett, Thanks so much for your review and I'm glad that you liked the article. I have added all the links suggested. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • buidhe: Had a read over all the revisions and they look good to me. Happy to offer my Support. Tkbrett (✉) 00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• Date formatting on #201 doesn't match the others, cite formatting otherwise looks good
• Several publishers are redlinked; I suspect that this is an artifact of their links to German Wikipedia articles. I generally don't see a need for links to publishers, but that's just me.
• Date formatting in the Journal articles section is inconsistent
• Some books are part of series. I suggest adding them and the volume # (if any) to the bibliographic information
• Spotchecks of ISBNs and doi's all OK
• Sources are highly reliable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Corrected 1 and 3. I don't feel strongly about linking publishers, but some other editors do believe it should be done. I don't think adding series would be beneficial. None of the series is especially topically focused and it I've never seen it included when the books are cited in RS sources. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [62].

---

Shuttle-Centaur

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a proposed upper stage for the Space Shuttle using the Centaur upper stage rocket. The whole Space Shuttle program was mired in controversy from the start, and this project spent a billion dollars with meagre results. The article addresses several questions and provides object lessons. It has been said that Shuttle-Centaur was a casualty of NASA's increased safety consciousness after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, but as the article shows, this was not entirely true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Text review by Neopeius

I promised to review this article, and I shall, but things are still very busy. I have a few issues I'll want to talk about when I've done the whole thing. Sorry for the delay. Putting this here as a placeholder so mods don't close the FAC for lack of interest -- this is a worthy article. --Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's my review, at long last, but I'm glad I waited as you had a chance to address other issues. There's not too much to be done as we worked together on A-Class. Here's what I've got:

• I bounce off the second paragraph of the lede every time. It's practically a restating of a few paragraphs from the main text and not the most vital ones. I would just delete it. In any event, "Both versions were cradled" would be better phrased as "Both versions were designed to be cradled.." since none were ever actually flown.

  True, but they actually were mated with the CISS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  I won't block FAC for it, but consider making the second paragraph cover more ground than just the truss. I still bounce off of it. :)

  Expanded the intro. Let me know if there are more points you think should be mentioned in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  I think that works, thanks. You may have addressed the points below, but I don't see a reply. Can you go through them and determine their status (including the corrections where I don't say change this for that but instead just post the sentence to be changed with strikeout incorporated in it? Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Should all be done now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Background

Centaur

• Change "Centaur was developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s as an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer." to "Centaur was an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s." -- most defining facts should come first.

  The proposed form makes it sound as if the oxidizer was developed by General Dynamics. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

  How about commas before "using" and after "oxidizer"? I think it's important that people know it's a rocket first and who is was made by second.

  Re-worded to effect this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

*Change "The technical problems were overcome. The development" to "The technical problems were overcome, and the development" (it makes the sentence a little longer, but otherwise, the first sentence just sits there.

• Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Space Shuttle upper stages

• Change "using a series of gravitational slingshot maneuvers around planets" to "using a series of gravitational slingshot maneuvers around other planets"

  No, because the slingshot manuevers were sometimes around Earth. See Galileo project for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Planets other than the destination.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

*"However, the IUS was constructed in a modular fashion, with two stages, a large one" Replace last comma with a colon.

• Replaced comma with colon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Change "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a planetary mission," to "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a direct outer planetary mission," (a trip to Mars or Venus wouldn't need it)

  Sources don't say that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Of course they do. How else would Galileo slingshot? :)

  The source says: Specifically, the Air Force asked NASA to develop an additional stage that could be used for planetary missions such as a proposed probe to Jupiter called Galileo. NASA made Boeing the prime contractor for developing the IUS. went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Deep space probes *"which was interested in the development of autonomous spacecraft that could take evasive action in the face of anti-satellite weapons, and the manner in which the JPL was designing Galileo to withstand the intense radiation of the magnetosphere of Jupiter, which had had application in surviving nearby nuclear detonations." I'm not sure how this relates to Galileo

• As an autonomous spacecraft. Added "like Galileo" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect.

*Change "there was another mission on the cards:" to "...in the cards" (since you're using American English throughout)

• Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The USAF adopted Shuttle-Centaur in 1984 for the launch of its Milstar satellites." Remove italics since it's a satellite series, not an individual satellite.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur

*"NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft," replace comma with colon

• Replaced comma with colon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• change "The second was that while it was more powerful, Centaur generated its thrust" to "The second advantage over the IUS was that while Centaur was more powerful, it generated its thrust"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Congressional approval

*Change "In addition to the funding, it directed NASA and Boeing to cease work on the two stage IUS for Galileo" to "In addition to allocating funding, the Ac directed NASA and Boeing..."'

• Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Centaur G and G Prime avionics were the same as that of the standard Centaur and were still mounted in the forward equipment module. TheyIt used a 24-bit Teledyne Digital Computer Unit with 16 kilobytes of RAM to control guidance and navigation. TheyIt still used the same pressurized steel tank, but with some additional insulation including a two-layer foam blanket over the forward bulkhead and a three-layer radiation shield.[50] Other changes included new forward and aft adapters; a new propellant fill, drain and dump system; and an S band transmitter and RF system compatible with the tracking and data relay satellite system.[53] Considerable effort was put into making the Centaur safe, with redundant components to overcome malfunctions and a propellant draining, dumping and venting system so that the propellants could be dumped in case of emergency."

  Changes suggested because you are talking about two boosters.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Management

*"At first, the engineers at the Lewis Research Center preferred to have it declared a payload" "At first" not followed by an expected "but later"...

• Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Preparations

*"both crews were entirely composed of astronauts who had already flown in space at least once before, and were known to not suffer from it." Delete comma.

• Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• change "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency, one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program." to "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency (in fact, one that never occurred in the life of the Space Shuttle program)."

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Cancellation *I think the paragraph immediately preceding, about the Challenger disaster, would be better as the first paragraph of this section.

• Moved into this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Change "The Centaur team, many of whom witnessed the disaster, were devastated. On 20 February, Moore ordered the Galileo and Ulyssess missions postponed. Too many key personnel were involved in the analysis of the accident for the missions to proceed. They were It was not canceled,"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

*change "When the JPL tried to use its high gain antenna" to "When the JPL tried to use Galileo's high gain antenna"

• Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, italicize Galileo

  Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

*"The Ulysses project scientists had to wait even longer; the Ulysses spacecraft was launched using the IUS and Payload Assist Module on STS-41 on 6 October 1990.[33]" Currently this goes right into the Titan IV sentence. I'd put a carriage return after. It's all right if it stands alone.

• MOS:PARAGRAPH: The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Minimized, but not eliminated. As stands, it's something of a non sequitur.

• In any case, the paragraph has been split as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

---

That's what I got! --Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D

Support Comments by Nick-D As disclosure, I'm reviewing in response to a request from Hawkeye on my talk page. I don't think I've ever given them an easy ride on nominations though, and won't be doing so this time either ;)

This article took six months to get through A-class, so I asked out of fear that it would get archived for want of reviewers like my last FAC submission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the lead should be be re-written to be less technical. E.g. was this a self-contained rocket system, or something which required a space shuttle? (and if so, how?) I'm a space nerd, and I don't really understand this sentence, and as a result the subject of the article isn't really clear on the basis of the lead. I didn't really understand the concept here until I saw the image in the 'design' section (which might be a better choice for the infobox as a result).

  Wait. Hold on. You're a space nerd? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  Surely you're not surprised? The cross over of military nerds and space nerds is about 100%. I'm particularly interested in the Cold War-era space programs. The change to the lead looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Centaur was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s..." - say who developed it, at least broadly (e.g. was this developed by/for NASA and/or the USAF?)

  It says it in the next paragraph. Moved to this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• The first two sentences in the para starting with "Centaur upper stages were used..." are a bit complex and lengthy

  Cut it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto the sentence starting with "NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch" (perhaps split into two sentences)

  Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• "who contended that contamination observed during early Space Shuttle..." - it's not clear what this means

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis were modified to carry the CISS" - were these modifications significant, and were they removed when the program was cancelled?

  Added "These changes included additional plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic propellants, and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur upper stage". Challenger was destroyed before a Centaur mission could be flown; there is no record of the changes being removed on Discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  OK, fair enough. It seems that each Space Shuttle had a lot of unique quirks by the end of the program. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Shuttle-Centaur was certified as flight ready by NASA Associate Administrator Jesse Moore" - do we know when?

  Added "in November 1985". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program" - bit unclear (is the second half of this sentence needed?)

  Yes. The point is that it was a dangerous contingency, but an unlikely one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• "in which he made the case for Moore the Space Shuttle " - should this be "in which he made the case to Moore"? Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt.

• The lead paragraph is rather long. I might try to split it.

  Already split. Just a running issue with the browser. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Someone reading the first paragraph by itself might not be clear on whether the Shuttle-Centaur actually happened, since you open by saying it was "proposed" but say two versions were produced.

  Deleted "proposed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• "during a demonstration to United States Air Force (USAF) and NASA officials.[6]" I would say "for" rather than "to" as more common in AmEng.

  Take your word for it. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Budget cutbacks in the early 1970s led to the termination of Saturn V production" When did the Saturn V production in fact end? Just makings sure dates are correct.

  The decision to cancel was taken in 1969; the last one was delivered in 1972. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Added that the decision was taken in 1969. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• "When the USAF questioned NASA's determination that all US space launches, civil and military, should use the Space Shuttle, NASA Administrator James M. Beggs insisted that expendable launch vehicles were obsolete, and that any money spent on them would only undermine the Space Shuttle's cost-effectiveness." This might be dated better since Beggs was Administrator under Reagan and you've just been discussing events in the early 1970s.

  Moved down to the a better place chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow. Here's the rest.

• " Whereas the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, Congressman Ronnie G. Flippo, whose district in Alabama encompassed the Marshall Space Flight Center, supported the OMB decision." Seems an odd sentence, with the whereas.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• " its experience with Centaur was the greatest of all the NASA centers" I might say "any of" rather than "all"

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The cover sported the logo, with the project motto, co-opted from the movie Rocky: "Go for it!"[68]" Are we sure it's Rocky rather than Rocky III?

  The source says: "For the front cover, he combined Ross's symbol with the trite but effective catchphrase from the popular movie Rocky: 'Go for it!'". However, the line appears in Rocky III, which came out in 1982. So, I'm changing it to "Rocky III" (The quote became the catchphrase and theme tune of Rocky V, but that did not come out in 1992.) How do you know these things? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  LOL. Have seen Rocky a few times over the years and was fairly sure the line was not from there. So I googled.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Centaur was declared to be a payload in 1983, but the backs soon became evident" backs?

  Drawbacks. Accidentally deleted four characters. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The main safety issue involved what would happen in the case of an aborted mission, a failure of the Space Shuttle systems to put them into orbit. In that case, they would have to dump the Centaur's propellant and land. " Who is they/them?

  The crew. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Centaur team, many of whom witnessed the disaster, were devastated. " I think "were" should be "was" in AmEng.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is it "stop work orders" or "stop-work orders"? And can the mentions be consolidated?

  @Wehwalt: Mentions of what? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Of the stop work order. You mention them twice in consecutive paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

    Oh. Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Continuity would be improved if you mentioned Lewis's change of name to Glenn.

  Good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

Like Nick-D, Hawkeye7 requested this review on my talk page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "liquid oxygen as an oxidiser" The rest of the article uses MOS:AMERICANENGLISH, so I'm assuming this should be "oxidizer".

  Oooh. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "This was an attractive prospect in the early days of the Space Race" The advantages of using liquid hydrogen are clear with the higher energy/mass ratio over kerosene, and this makes it seem like the advantages of liquid hydrogen were only relevant in the early days of space travel, rather than beginning then and continuing through present day.

  Deleted "in the early days of the Space Race" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "rocket engineers had to first overcome enormous technological challenges" Many of the engineering problems for these rockets were presumably difficult and it's not clear how the hydrogen tank issue was notably difficult relative to the other technical challenges. This could be shortened as added to the previous sentence, something like "A rocket utilizing liquid hydrogen as a rocket fuel can theoretically lift 40 percent more payload per kilogram of liftoff weight than one with a conventional rocket fuel like kerosene, but this capability required new technology to be developed."

  It really was rocket science. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel, meaning that it assumes liquid form only at extremely low temperatures and therefore must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from evaporating or boiling." This states multiple times that liquid hydrogen must be very cold to remain a liquid. Since the boiling point is the temperature given, evaporation doesn't need to be mentioned, as that would happen in a colder environment. My take is "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel that must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from boiling."

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "It adopted the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family: a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized, with the hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; there was no internal bracing and no insulation surrounding the propellants." The intro here makes it sound like there were multiple weight saving measures from the Atlas rockets, but then just lists one major feature, which was the unpressurized and unbraced fuel and oxygen tanks.

  It lists three: (1) a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized; (2) hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; and (3) no internal bracing or insulation surrounding the propellant tanks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Aren't #1 and #3 the same thing? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Centaur-G added insulation while retaining the pressurised steel shell. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• "It must therefore be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, particularly the rocket exhaust, atmospheric friction during flight through the atmosphere at high speeds and the radiant heat of the Sun." I would add that the hydrogen needs to be insulated from the relatively warming liquid oxygen. To keep the sentence from getting too long, I would remove the atmospheric friction phrase and instead link aerodynamic heating. Additionally, remove "particular" as that implies there are other significant but unmentioned sources of heat.

  Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The tiny molecules of hydrogen can leak through microscopic holes". Per Dawson and Boles, it seems like the concern for a lack of insulation is the buildup of pressure as liquid hydrogen turned to a gas that necessitated venting (and thus the loss of hydrogen fuel). They make it sound like lost of hydrogen through microscopic holes was a design defect but not the primary issue with keeping hydrogen in liquid form, so I would mentioned the venting here regarding hydrogen loss once it boils.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Paved the way" is figure of speech; maybe use "allowed" instead?

  Changed to "led to" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• "its use in the upper stages of the Saturn V Moon rocket and later by the Space Shuttle." This should link the upper stages that used liquid hydrogen. Additionally, the RS-25 engine's should be linked as well. "Moon" can be taken out, as that wasn't part of the name of the Saturn V.

  Linked. Removed Moon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• This lists the Viking, Helios, and Viking missions as among the Titan III-Centaur missions, but as far as I can tell, they were the only successful launches for Titan-Centaur. Saying "including" makes it sound like there were other launches/missions that Titan-Centaur successfully supported.

  There was one unsuccessful mission as well, Sphinx (satellite). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  I saw that when I was looking up the Titan III-Centaur launch history; my point is that the paragraph comes across like those missions are some of the successful missions, when in fact they represent all of the successful missions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's been re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Titan IIIE was viewed at the time to be the last expendable launch system; John Noble Wilford from The New York Times wrote that it was "expected to be the last new launching vehicle to be developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration until the advent of the reusable Space Shuttle which should be ready in 1978."" I know it's mentioned later in the article that this was viewed as the last uncrewed vehicle by James Beggs/NASA leadership; is there a quote/reference from them that could be used here? I know Wilford is a respected journalist, but since he was not a decision maker at NASA, I think it would make more sense to be referencing someone who was.

  Deleted this, as we have Begg's opinion later on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "It was hoped that the Galileo spacecraft would be able to make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route." Was there any research group hoping for this, or just JPL scientists? I would state who was hoping for the asteroid flyby.

  JPL. The idea arose naturally as they plotted a course to ensure that the spacecraft would not crash into an asteroid. I don't want to get in too deep here, so I have written: "In December 1984, Galileo project manager John R. Casani proposed that Galileo make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route.It would be the first time a US space mission visited an asteroid. NASA Administrator James M. Beggs endorsed the proposal as a secondary objective for Galileo." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• " One such change was to allow the Milstar to have a direct connection with Centaur that would be separated using explosive bolts. This required additional testing." Is there any additional information about this testing, such as time or cost increases? If not, I would combine the sentences, since it's a short and abrupt sentence at the end of the section.

  All classified I'm afraid. Combined sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Lewis Research Center pointed out that Centaur provided four advantages over the IUS." How did the Lewis Center point this out? Was it a press release, Congressional testimony, discussion at a NASA meeting, etc.? I would state how it was communicated (such as "The Lewis Center released a statement of the four advantages that Centaur had over the IUS"), since it's not like the Lewis Center can be pointing out advantages like a person can in a conversation.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "they had 25 times the Centaur's fuel" I'm not positive this is grammatically incorrect, but shouldn't this be "they had 25 times the amount of Centaur's fuel" instead?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Thus, a total of $959 million (equivalent to $1935 million in 2019) had been spent with nothing to show for it." I would remove most of this, and tack on the overall cost to the previous sentence. While there wasn't a Shuttle-Centaur launch, the system was still developed and flight hardware was created, which I'm assuming also affected Centaur G development, not to mention all of the jobs and experience gained from the development, so I think "nothing to show for it" may be a little too harsh/not entirely accurate. Maybe something like, "Shutting down the project cost another $75 million (equivalent to $151 million in 2019), bringing the total program cost to $959 million."

  Deleted "with nothing to show for it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "To this had to be added the cost of launching satellites and space probes by other means." I would remove this, since it falls outside of the scope of the Shuttle-Centaur programs, and will always be the case for retired/abandoned projects that leave a need to be filled.

  Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• " most likely from vibration during overland transportation between the JPL and Kennedy Space Center three times or during the rough launch by the IUS" I would make this start with "likely from" or "potentially from" as I would only provide one option in the case of using "most likely" and this lists two.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is the Glenn Research Center display using Shuttle-specific hardware, or just the Centaur G Prime in general? If so, I would state that, since the mention of the Titan IV mission manager makes it seem like it wasn't about Shuttle-Centaur.

  This is uncertain. "One of the Centaur-G Prime stages built for the shuttle is believed to have been modified for the launch of NASA's Cassini probe to Saturn atop a Titan IVB rocket in 1997. The Space and Rocket Center had labeled the Centaur-G now being moved as a mockup, though there is some data that points to it being the other stage originally built for the program. Glenn Research Center's records identify it being a high-fidelity ground test article." [63] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Notes

• #12: Should this be "NASA History Division" rather than "history.nasa.gov"? And is the date March 30, 2009?

  Changed to "NASA" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #23: Link The Washington Post?

  Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #39: Link The Washington Post?

  Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #44: Looks like there's an editor, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #58: Looks like there's an author, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #65: Looks like there's an editor, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #77: Link Los Angeles Times?

  Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #79: Looks like there's a "curator" (editor?), and date, listed at the bottom of the page.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #88: Link Orlando Sentinel?

  Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #91: Link Los Angeles Times? Link Associated Press?

  Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #92: Link The New York Times? Looks like there's an author, too.

  Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Author omitted by an error. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #99: Page range should take an en dash.

  Changed dash to endash. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• #104: Looks like there's an editor, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Bowles 2002: Link The University Press of Kentucky?

  Don't link publishers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dawson 1991: The link gives me the following error message: {"statusCode":404,"message":"Not Found"}

  NASA seems to have recently removed the NASA history publications from the document server. Substituted [64]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dawson 2002: Link The University Press of Kentucky?

  Don't link publishers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Heppenheimer 2002: Does T. A. Heppenheimer normally go by his initials?

  Apparently he did. His name is in that form on all his publications. (I have a hard copy of the book.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hitt & Smith 2014: Link University of Nebraska Press?

  Don't link publishers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Johnson 2018: Does Johnson normally go by an initial? And link The Journal of Space Safety Engineering?

  Added. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Martin 1987: Does Martin normally go by an initial? And link Acta Astronautica?

  It is the form that it appears on his journal articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Waldrop September 1982: Link Science?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Waldrop October 1982: Link Science?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Welzel et al. 1992: Link Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement? And surely they don't all go by their initials?

  Linked. It's the form that they appear in the journal articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Usernameunique, are Hawkeye's responses satisfactory? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild & Hawkeye7, it generally looks good. Hawkeye, is there a reason you didn't add the date for 44, 58, 65, 79, and 104? And unless it's someone like Heppenheimer, where it's clear they go by initials, I'd recommend using full names; it can become a real pain trying to figure out who initialed authors are, so you may as well spare an interested reader that trouble. But initials are ultimately a point of preference, and assuming there is an intentional reason for not adding the dates, then I'm signed off on the source review. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't normally add dates for web pages, as not all of them have them. I've added them here (although one is a guess). In the case of academic papers, the authors are normally referred to in the form of their initials and surnames, that's all there is in the papers except an identification of the institution they work for, and often I don't have any way of finding out what the initials stand for. In the case of (for example) R. E. Martin, all I know is that they worked at General Dynamics in the early 1980s. The interested reader can find the paper simply by clicking on the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

Lead

• "Milstar satellites" our article doesn't italicise Milstar.

  Missed that one. De-italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like it's back to being reitalicized. osunpokeh (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Removed again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• "half the cost of Centaur G." do you mean half the development cost?

  Design and development. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis" -> "The Space Shuttles Challenger and Atlantis"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "two launches would only have a one-hour launch window and there would be just six days between them, so separate launch " triple "launch" can we separate and/or revise.

  Tightened prose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "in Kearny Mesa, San Diego on" comma after San Diego.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the Space Shuttle Challenger accident" i don't think you need to remind us it was a Space Shuttle having already said it in the lead.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link gravity assist.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "G-Prime" or "G Prime"?

  The former. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "66.80 kN" article says 66,700 N.

  Good catch. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Background

• You link liquid H2 but not liquid O2, why?

  Hydrogen is more interesting. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "challenges of utilizing" repetitive, perhaps just "using" here.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "loss of excessive amounts of fuel.[4] Fuel could also be lost " jarringly repetitive.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""for United States Air Force and" put (USAF) here and not later.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "and NASA officials"" link NASA as I don't think you link it at all.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Huntsville, Alabama to" comma after Alabama.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "were eventually overcome" is there a reason for this? Better management/engineering/design teams?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "1960s and 70s" 1970s

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "55 times with only two" comparable figures - all numerals or all words, perhaps "55 times, only failing twice".

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "needed to be in higher orbits" to avoid orbit three times in a sentence, can we just say "needed to be higher"? Or similar?

  Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The space tug became" say what?

  I don't understand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "As a hedge against" link hedge.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "that the United States Air Force (USAF) would"" just USAF

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "space tug" or "Space Tug"?

  Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Could link Galilean moons.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "for budget cuts" to avoid repeating budget, maybe "for cost savings"?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "What saved Galileo from cancellation was" I find this construction clumsy, perhaps "The intervention of the USAF, which ..., saved Galileo from cancellation"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link Anti-satellite weapon.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Could link launch window in the lead since you link it in the main text.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• " Galileo project manager" shouldn't Galileo be in italics here?

  Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "route.It would" space.

  Spaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "power level.[18] Running at this power level "' repetitive.

  Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1979, NASA's" following the chronology, we're already in late 1979.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""would cost money " seems overtly obvious. Perhaps "the cost of modification was worth it" or something.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "avoid as much as posiible"" typo.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "mission in the cards" we say "on the cards"" but either feels colloquial.

  We say "on the cards" in Australia too; the Americans had me change it (see above). Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the ecliptic plane" what's that?

  The plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• "secure phone lines" remove phone.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Decision to use...

• "Congressman Edward P. Boland. Boiland considered" He considered.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "a gravity assist from" this was already linked as "gravitational slingshot".

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "more than it had budgeted for" just "more than budgeted" is probably ok.

  Deleted "for" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "time.[19][18] Longer" order.

  Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• ""hydrogen.[19][18] NASA" order.

  Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• " 2019).[41][40]"" ditto.

  Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "the two stage IUS" two-stage.

  Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "classified Defense satellites" why the capital D?

  Because the department is meant. Changed to "department of Defense". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "It was 6.1 meters (20 ft) long, allowing for large USAF payloads up to 12.2 meters" how does that work, were they folded in half?

  You have to fit both the upper stage and the payload into the 60-foot cargo bay, so if you have a 20-foot upper stage, you can only have a 40-foot satellite. This is why Centaur-G is shorter and fatter than the regular Centaur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  That needs proper explanation in the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "forward and aft adapters" what were these for?

  Docking. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "the tracking and data relay satellite system." overlinked.

  Wow. That didn't show up in the duplicate link detector. Changed to "TRDS" and unliked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis were" same as before: "The Space Shuttles Challenger and Atlantis..."

  Changed as in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Shuttle-Centaur project logo." fragment, no full stop.

  Removed full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Logo and project organization chart probably ought to go in same order as they are described in the article.

  Swapped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• "trade off" is usually hyphenated (or unspaced).

  Hyphenated and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a really good read. I'm up to "Preparations". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Preparations

• "and James Van Hoften and" our article has him at van not Van.

  Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• "170 kilometers" adj=on.

  Adjectived Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• "to allow for astronauts ... and allow for a ..." repetitive.

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• "would be just six days between" earlier it said 15 and 20 May?

  Well spotted. Corrected to "five days". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• "in Kearny Mesa, San Diego on 13 " comma after Diego.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• "arrives" caption doesn't have a period, "addresses" caption does have a period. I think they're both fragments so neither needs one.

  Removed full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• ""The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was" no need to bring back "Space Shuttle" into the description, we've got it by now.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• ""NASA and the Air Force had " ->"NASA and the USAF had "

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 92 needs a pp.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'd expect to see ISBNs consistently formatted.

  As far as I know they are. I had the MilHistBot check the formatting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Individually I'm sure they're fine and functional but I think you have five different ISBNs and each of them is differently formatted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Only two formats are used - ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, because I normally copy the ISBN from the indicia of the book. The ISBN-13 consists of five parts, which are separated with a hyphen:

  1. The first part is always "978"
  2. The group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers, which is normally 0 or 1 in the English-speaking world;
  3. The publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group, which is of variable length;
  4. The title identifier, which is again of variable length; and
  5. The check digit at the end which validates the ISBN.

  So for example, we have 0-8032 is University of Nebraska Press, 0-8131 is University Press of Kentucky and 1-937219 is the National Reconnaissance Office. You can look them up here

  I've reformatted the ISBN-10s as an ISBN-13s. This involves putting 978 on the front and recalculating the check digit, since ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 use different algorithms. (Calculations don't count as original research per WP:CALC.) Normally a Bot comes along and does this. So now there is only one format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

An excellent piece of work, gets my support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [65].

---

Deutschland-class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This article covers the last class of German pre-dreadnought battleships, which were built in the early 1900s. Interestingly, most of them were completed after the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought rendered their design obsolescent, but three of them outlasted Dreadnought by more than a couple of decades. I initially wrote this article a little over a decade ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at that time. I've since thoroughly rewritten it with new sources, and it went through a peer review last month that helped to iron things out. Thanks to everyone who takes the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Have added alt text
• File:Niemiecki_pancernik_szkolny_"Schlesien"_podczas_ostrzału_Helu_(2-64).jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The source lists the author as "Zell"; I can't find out whether that's a last name or a company. I wonder if @Piotrus: might have some familiarity with who or what that might be. If not, I'll have to replace it (with this Bundesarchiv image, which should not be a proble). Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Can't help with Zell, very generic, but the next line mentions German WWII newspaper published in Poland ([66]). This means that Template:PD-Poland may be applicable - granted, Poland was occupied at that time, but Poland obviously did not accept the fact (that's an interesting issue when it comes to copyright). Further, based on some discussions in Commons I remember, since the file was officially uploaded here under PD by the Polish National Archive, similar discussions when it comes to Bundesarchive generally ended with saying that "even if some facts are not clear/dubious, Bundesarchive has made the legal declaration this is PD so that's their responsibility, not our problem". So I think the picture is fine, as we have both the Polish-PD plus the backing of the official Polish institution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I have returned... Will get started on this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• one thing in the lead, decap Invasion in the final para
  • Done
• suggest "marking a significant increase in firepower"
  • Works for me
• you could put "oa" in the infobox to specify which length is being shown
  • Done
• "Deutschland had had a larger forward conning tower"?
  • Fixed
• "equipped with three-shaft triple-expansion steam engines that each drove a screw propeller" is confusing. Would "each equipped with a three-shaft triple-expansion steam engine; each shaft drove a single screw propeller." work?
  • I think just removing the "-shaft" bit might solve the problem?
• there is some repetition regarding the boilers
  • Replaced one of them
• instead of the minimum, you could put the speed range in the infobox
  • Works for me
• "carried an 147.5 kg"
  • Good catch
• you could add the barbette armor to the infobox
  • Done
• "four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with four 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns"
  • Fixed
• "like her sisters'"
  • Good catch
• "for four 8.8 anti-aircraft guns" rm excess space
  • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the new armored ship Deutschland" armored ship? Wasn't she a heavy cruiser?
  • Yes, though the Germans initially classified them as "panzerschiffe" - but I suppose we should use the classification that we use in their article for consistency
• fn 23 should be pp.
  • Fixed
• author-link Friedman
  • Done
• Koop & Schmolke doesn't have any unique detail?
  • I assume that it does, but it's not readily available so I haven't been able to consult it.

That's all I could find, nitpicks really. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PM, and welcome back! Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

All good, and thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Well over three weeks in and this has only attracted one general support and an image review. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next couple of days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Parsecboy, this could do with a prose review by a non-milhist editor to wrap it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can scare up. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Lots of support but unless I missed something (or someone), nothing outside the MilHist fraternity yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing as of yet, unfortunately - I did a couple of other FAC reviews the other day with the hope of securing a reciprocal review, but so far no luck. I'll do a couple more and see if I can find anyone with the time to look at this one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will take a look at this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Do we know why the machine cannons were removed?
  • Unusually, I can add a reason! Not usually the case in things like this.

It's rare for me to review and not have significant comments, but I'm supporting on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dumelow

Looking good to me. Only a few minor comments, some may be my personal preference and can be ignored, as you please - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "After the battle, the four surviving ships were removed from front-line service and used for coastal defense through mid-1917. Hannover alone remained on patrol duty, while the rest were used as barracks or training ships." Is there an "afterwards" missing here? The main text indicates the barracks and training duties were post August 1917
  • That could probably use clarification - I added a "thereafter" to clarify we're talking after mid-1917
• " Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." Missing "installed" or similar after "torpedo tubes"?
  • Good catch
• "During the operation, the ships operated under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Franz Mauve." "operation ... operated" is a bit repetitive, is there another wording that could be used?
  • Swapped the second bit for "were commanded by"
• "Being significantly slower than the rest of the German line of battle, the ships of II Squadron saw no action during the first stages of the battle.", likewise, maybe "during the first stages of the engagement"?
  • Done
• "Toward the end of the fleet battle on the evening of 31 May, the five Deutschland-class ships came to the aid of the mauled battlecruisers of I Scouting Group, when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts in the British Battle Cruiser Fleet." Should be "placed", I think?
  • Fixed - a typo no doubt
• "Hannover was modernized in the late 1920s", modernized again? We've already said that "All three ships were heavily modernized in the early 1920s"
  • Yes, twice - have added an "again" to make that clear
• "During this period, Germany came under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy that led to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." Something a bit off here, is it better as "a rearmament strategy and an aggressive foreign policy" or similar?
  • That works for me
• " After the end of the Polish campaign, the ships returned to training duties, and in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea", the commas feel a bit off, perhaps: "After the end of the Polish campaign the ships returned to training duties and, in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea"?
  • I think the commas are right - at the very least, the one should come before the "and", not after - I'm a little more iffy on the first one, but we might cut that knot by rewording it to "The ships returned to training duties after the Polish campaign..."
• "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." maybe "Hannover was broken up between 1944 and 1946"?
  • Done, thanks Dumelow. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose. No big deal on the comma point - Dumelow (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

I have provided my initial review below. I'll come back to the service history section later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Review complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Design: Do we clarify what the "fiscal year" is being referred to here either by the sources or by the German state of that time period? Fiscal years vary between countries and over time. Some follow the calendar year from January to December while some others use April to March. This could be resolved by linking to the article on fiscal years; it may encourage other editors to add a section on Germany to that article.

   That I don't know - I haven't ever seen a specific reference to how Germany defined it at the time (though I suspect it involves the 1 April date specified in the naval law. I've added a link to fiscal year.

2. Design: "The naval command had originally intended to build ten battleships of the Braunschweig type, starting with the 1901 fiscal year with two ships built per year, but ultimately they only built five. During construction, a series of minor improvements were incorporated into subsequent designs, and by the time work began on the second vessel of the 1903 fiscal year, a more significantly altered design had been prepared." That implies the second ship in 1903 was ship number 6. I am guessing number 6 is the SMS Deutschland mentioned in the next paragraph but there is a slight disconnect there. Would it be better to phrase it as the first of the 1903 would be the last of the Braunschweig type and that the second of the 1903 would follow the new Deutschland design?

   Reworded a bit to provide clarity

3. General characteristics: "The ships handled less easily than the preceding Braunschweig-class ships, though they suffered less marked weather helm." Do we have any details on how or why the ships handled less easily than the previous class? If sources are silent on this, it is fine to leave the statement as it is.

   No, unfortunately - the ships were essentially the same size and weight, and I'd assume the hull forms were more or less identical as well.

4. General characteristics: "When one of them was a squadron flagship, the crew was augmented by 13 officers and 66 enlisted men; while serving as a second command ship, 2 officers and 23 enlisted men were added to her standard crew." I am assuming that is an "or" statement; the ship was either a squadron leader or a second command ship but not both at the same time. If it is an "or" statement, would it be better to give the total numbers for a squadron leader and the total numbers for a second command ship? That way readers don't try adding the 3 sets of numbers together.

   Yes, an "or" - see if how I reworded it is an improvement

   Yes, that is much clearer, thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

5. Machinery: "These were divided into three boiler rooms, each of which was ducted into a funnel." I would tend to say "each of which were" as we are talking about multiple boiler rooms. However, this could be one of those regional rules of English similar to the collective noun problem, so feel free to ignore if the sentence is gramatically correct in the style of English used for the article.

   Yeah, that's a British/American thing

6. Machinery: "though on trials all five ships exceeded both figures..." Out of curiosity, do we know where the trials were conducted? The choice of testing location can affect the results of the speed test, due to efficiency of the engines in different depths of water. If sources are silent on this, feel free to ignore.

   Nothing specific to these ships, but I have seen references to other vessels built during WWI having been constrained to the western Baltic for their trials (which resulted in lower trials speeds), so I'd assume further out in the Baltic or in the North Sea

7. Machinery: "Schleswig-Holstein was the fastest member of the class." Do we know if that was under trial conditions or actual service?

   Clarified this was from the trials - I haven't seen any references to their service speeds (which of course can change at various loadings)

8. Machinery: "Deutschland was designed to carry 700 t (690 long tons; 770 short tons) of coal and the other members could carry 850 t (840 long tons; 940 short tons), though additional spaces could be utilized as fuel storage, which increased fuel capacity to 1,540 to 1,750 t (1,520 to 1,720 long tons; 1,700 to 1,930 short tons)." For the figures related to the additional spaces, do the figures follow the same pattern as the first half of the sentence? As in, Deutschland had 700t normally but could increase to 1,540t, while the others had 850t normally but could increase to 1,750t? Or does the range for the additional fuel capacity apply equally to all five vessels?

   The former is correct - have split the range for clarity

9. Machinery: "Electrical power was supplied from four turbo-generators that supplied 260 kilowatts (350 hp) each at 110 volts." Is it worth linking to Turbo generator?

   Good idea

10. Armament: "The primary armament comprised four 28 cm SK L/40..." Are we missing a link here? All the other guns are linked in infobox and the first mention in the article; this one just has an infobox link.

    It's linked in the first paragraph of the design section

    Ah, I see. I did a word search for "SK L/40," so didn't spot the earlier link on "28 cm (11 in) gun." From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

11. Armament: "These were placed in casemates in hull sponsons, in embrasures in the superstructure, and in open mounts." I assume this is trying to say that the guns were arranged in three different types rather than them being in hull sponsonsons with embrasures and them also having the mount open. I would suggest rephrasing the sentence, perhaps by replacing that "and" with "or."

    Done

12. Armament: "The ships were temporarily fitted with four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) machine cannon, but these were quickly removed." Do we have a time period for this temporary placement? Were they there at the time of commissioning but removed in the first year, or were they added and removed later?

    That's all I know, unfortunately - they're mentioned in Groener and Gardiner, but Dodson doesn't discuss them at all. The ten ships built a decade earlier (the Kaiser Friedrich III and Wittelsbach classes) carried a dozen of them, and I'd assume they were retained in the next set of ten ships due to inertia, but Germans realized quickly that guns of that caliber were useless against the latest torpedo boats and got rid of them to save weight.

13. Armament: "These weapons were 5.15 m (16.9 ft) long and carried a 147.5 kg (325 lb) TNT warhead. They could be set at two speeds for different ranges." By "these weapons" I assume that we have switched from talking about the torpedo tubes to the torpedoes themselves; it wasn't until I got to the setting of speeds that I realised the subject had changed slightly. Perhaps use "These torpedoes" instead of "These weapons." You could then use "weapons" after the 26 knots statement in the next sentence, to avoid overuse of torpedoes.

    Done

14. Armor: "Deutschland had a slightly different arrangement in the belt armor and the citadel..." Is it worth linking to Armored citadel?

    Done

15. Armor: "Her sister ships' belts was increased..." Should that be "were"?

    Good catch

16. Modifications: "Schlesien had her two forward funnels merged together, while Schleswig-Holstein had hers similarly modified in 1928." Do we have an indication on the timing of Schlesien's change in funnels? The sentence implied that it came before 1928 but are we talking about a difference of weeks or years?

    During the mid-1920s refit mentioned earlier in the paragraph

17. Modifications: "Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." I think we are missing a word after torpedo tubes there, or else there is an extraneous "were" later in the sentence. The second "and" also makes the sentence a little long; could the bit about the mast be added to the next sentence on the sponsons?

    I think this was fixed in Dumelow's section above

18. Modifications: "Schlesien received four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) L/83 anti-aircraft guns..." Do we know if this is referring to 3.7 cm SK C/30? The weapon article lists it as an L/83 and says the weapon type was used on this class of battleship.

    Yes, those are the same

19. Modifications: "In August, Schlesien had her 3.7 cm guns taken off and Schleswig-Holstein was almost completely disarmed, retaining only her 28 cm guns. The following year, she received four 8.8 cm guns, four 3.7 cm guns, and three 2 cm guns." In the second sentence, which vessel is "she"?

    Schlesien - good catch

20. World War I: "when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts..." I think that should be placed.

    Dumelow also got that one

21. Inter-war years: "which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy..." This doesn't read quite right; I'd suggest either removing the "a" before rearmament or adding extra words. For example, "a process of rearmament."

    Also fixed per Dumelow - see how it reads now

    I'm happy with the revised wording. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

22. World War II: "Schleswig-Holstein steamed to Danzig, Poland..." This is technically incorrect, as Danzig was not part of Poland at the time. It was the Free City of Danzig. I'd suggest removing Poland from the sentence and using the Free City link; that way the correct context can be read in the linked article.

    Good point

23. World War II: "culminating in the Polish surrender on 7 September..." I assume this means the surrender of local Polish forces as Poland was still fighting a month after that and never formally surrendered to Germany. It might be worthwhile clarify which forces surrendered here.

    Good point, clarified

24. World War II: "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." It isn't vitally important but do we know where the ship was being broken up? Readers may be curious whether it was dismantled in the eastern or western occupation zones (the zones predating the formation of the east and west German states in 1949). If sources are silent, feel free to ignore.

    Added. Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

    I have added a few replies above. I'm happy to support this promotion to FA. Good work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• Who wrote the German chapter in Conway's?
  • Updated the refs
• The sources are known to me as highly RS.
• Sources and citations are properly formatted.
• The isbn for Campbell is for the 1998 Lyons Press reprint
  • Fixed - must have been looking at the original publication info
• ISBN spotchecks for other sources all OK.
• Prose spotchecks not made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    • What about the 1860-1905 volume?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Whoops, forgot about that one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman

Nice article. I did not find any problems. 웃OO 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

SupportComments from Z1720

Please consider me a non-expert.

• "they had become an obsolescent" -> "they became an obsolete"?
  • Obsolescent and obsolete aren't exactly interchangeable, and the former is better in this case
• "when they were used for training including overseas cruises." -> "when they were used for training, which included overseas cruises." (I also assume that this does not refer to a cruise ship.)
  • Done, and yes, that's correct
• The infobox and first picture are creating MOS:SANDWICH, which is not recommended.
  • It's fine on my laptop (and even less of an issue on mobile devices, which is what most readers use these days) - I don't think it's possible to create an image layout that satisfies all display sizes and resolutions, and I'm not particularly a fan of having all images on one side (which can cause its own problems on certain monitors).
• "The naval command had originally intended to build ten battleships" delete originally, as it is redundant
  • Done
• " but ultimately they only built five." Either delete "they" or flip "they" and "ultimately".
  • Done
• "which mixed set of fire-tube and water-tube boilers," which mixed sets? which mixed a set? Wording seems weird.
  • Good catch
• " all the major navies pointed to battleships armed" -> "all the major navies favoured battleships armed"
  • Check that again - the "pointed" refers back to the trend, not the navies
• "all-big-gun batteries; indeed, work" -> "all-big-gun batteries, and work"?
  • I don't think "and" is quite right here
• " Tirpitz had insisted on building" Delete had
  • Done
• "Deutschlands in large part due to the fact that they" -> "Deutschlands because they"
  • Done
• "As a result, they were rendered" -> "As a result, the Deutschland-class battleships were rendered"
  • Done
• " though they suffered less marked weather helm." -> though they suffered a less marked weather helm? What does a marked weather helm mean?
  • There's a link to weather helm - I think an explanation of the term here is a bit beyond the scope of the article
• "and six fire-tube boilers but the rest of the vessels received twelve water-tube models, all of which were coal-fired." -> "and six fire-tube boilers, but the rest of the vessels received twelve water-tube models which were all coal-fired."
  • Done
• "while Schleswig-Holstein only lost three of hers." delete only
  • Done
• "Both ships were broken up in situ after the war." what does "in situ" mean? Either wikilink or use more common language.
  • Linked
• Why are the four books listed in "Further reading" not used as sources in the article?
  • Conway's doesn't add anything beyond what's already in the article, but it's a fairly well-known source for ships of the era, which some readers may be able to access. Koop & Schmolke is more or less impossible to find in the US. Weir is more focused on the context surrounding the construction of these ships (and the rest of the Imperial fleet) that is a bit beyond the scope of this article, but someone who's interested in the topic would probably want to read it. Dodson & Cant, like Conway's, doesn't have anything to add to this article, but it's a new publication still in print, and readers may find it useful as well.

That's it for my first round of comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, so I'll support. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2021 [67].

---

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While this one's on the shorter side, I believe everything is covered thoroughly - this isn't the most large-scale topic. Formed in mid-1864, the unit was generally unkind to railroad property on multiple occasions, saw some minor fighting, and played a significant role in the Battle of Little Blue River. At some point in 1865, the unit dissolved, although the details are really hazy. What is known is that most of the unit's men didn't care enough to get their official surrender paperwork. Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

File:Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg is possibly PD but the licensing needs more documentation, we need to document Mileham's death date to apply the stated PD tag, and the creation of the painting is not equivalent to publication. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can the Price's Raid section be split into subsections for improved readability? (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: - Couldn't find dod for Mileham, so I replaced it with a different artwork of Price's raid by a person confirmed to have died in 1914. I've also added three subheads to the Price's Raid section. Hog Farm _Talk 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• FN14: website isn't needed here
  • Removed.
• The "Official Records" source credits editors who should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - Thanks for making me do this. In the process of hunting down the editors, I discovered I had actually been using a 1902 reprint edition, instead of the 1893 original, and have changed the citation as well to reflect that. Hog Farm _Talk 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• the historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army do you really need the first "the" here?
  • Not sure, so I've removed it both in the lead and in some similar phrasing in the body
• In July, anti-secession state legislators held a vote rejecting secession, while Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede in November, joining the Confederate States of America and functioning as a government-in-exile. If the anti-secession state legislators voted against rejecting secession, how did the state actually join the Confederate States of America? confusing.
  • Missouri had two competing governments; I've tried to clarify this
• the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign can you link Atlanta campaign?
  • Linked
• gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan according to our article on 1864 United States presidential election, Lincoln won by more than an "edge". Therapyisgood (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Does "gave Lincoln an advantage in the election over McClellan" work better?

Are the changes made satisfactory for you, @Therapyisgood:? Hog Farm _Talk 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to hear someone outside of MILHIST comment on WP:LENGTH as it applies to this article before I support (ie is the article or sections too long?). Therapyisgood (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Don't think that the Boonville action is worth mentioning in the lede
  • Removed
• Most of the first para of the Background section needs to be compressed. All the reader really needs to know is that there were two competing gov'ts in the state and that the Union had de facto control.
  • I've got this paragraph compressed down to five sentences.
    • Great, but there are still unimportant or irrelevant facts therein. How does the guerilla warfare and Price's previous command of the Missouri State Guard relate to the regiment's history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Both of those are now gone. Anything else that needs trimmed? Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
        • That'll do, pig, that'll do. (See Babe if you can't place the phrase.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ten companies of the regiment are known to have existed. One was designated with the letter G, and another with the letter H, while the designations of the other companies are unknown Suggest combining these along the lines of: "Ten companies are known to have existed, but the only confirmed designations are G and H companies" or somesuch
  • Done
• capture of Jones's Hay Station Proximity alert for the name; suggest changing it to "the station" or similar
  • Done
• link rear guard
  • Done
• Price ordered Shelby to form part of the pursuit of the retreating Union soldiers.[18] Nichols's regiment participated in the pursuit, which was unsuccessful. Combine these with along the lines of "Prince ordered Shelby and his brigade to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers" or something similar
  • Done
• hyphen for 300 men, rear guard action
  • I think I got these in the right place
• Can you explain a little more how the regiment allowed the Union troops to escape at the 2nd Battle of Lexington?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified - Also rephrased to make it clearer it was the whole brigade being out of position.
    • @Sturmvogel 66: - I've replied to all comments so far. Hog Farm _Talk 02:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, non-MILHIST review and prose check, see FAC talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - Since this one seems to be coming along pretty smoothly and has passed image and source reviews, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm _Talk 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would normally want to see a third support and for it to be three weeks since it was nominated. But I am happy to follow Ian's lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you may unleash another. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

Please consider this a non-expert review.

• Since the article is short on information, as stated by the nom above, I searched for additional sources on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, a (Canadian) university library, ProQuest and archive.org. I could not find additional sources so I believe this article represents the available information for this topic.
• "Jackman was elevated to brigade command, and Nichols took over leadership of the regiment." Remove the comma.
  • Done
• "with a Union surrender before the time Nichols's men arrived." Remove the time
  • Done
• In the References section, "Official Records 1902" points to The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, so the title is used to identify this source, not the editors. In "Kennedy 1998", the editor's name is used to point to The Civil War Battlefield Guide Either the editors should be used to identify the sources with an editor (recommended) or the title should be used. Please standardise (sorry if this is unclear)
  • Done

Those are all my comments. This article is well written and I struggled to find problems with it. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - All points have been addressed. Did I get everything done correctly? Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, support based on a prose review. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• What is the difference between "was recruited in early 1864" and "officially formed on June 22"?
  • I've rephrased this. The former date is when recruiting started, and the later was when it joined CSA service
• "Once under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Nichols". Was this still part of Price's raid?
  • Yes. Rephrased
• "The men of Nichols's regiment were furloughed on October 30, with orders to return to the army in December; historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army." I am not sure how the second clause of this sentence relates to the first; you seem to be discussing two separate issues.
  • I've removed the second clause. The connection is made clearer in the body, but there's not really room to go into that whole detail in the lead
• "Jackman traveled to northeastern Arkansas". On his own or with the recruits mentioned in the previous sentence?
  • On his onw. Clarified
• "Jackman and his men did not join..." Were these "men" all new recruits?
  • Source doesn't say that any weren't, so I've replaced men with recruits
• "to join in an attack on a station". Delete "in".
  • Done, although the phrasing would be fine with AmEng
• "Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." Do you mean something like 'The regiment consisted of around 300 men during the month of August'?
  • Yes, rephrased
• "Meanwhile ... from March through May". I think "meanwhile" is not the best word here. And is there a reason why events are not recounted in chronological order?
  • This sentence represented what was probably-undue background detail to Price's Raid, so I've just removed it entirely
• That's a big paragraph, maybe break at "Despite having limited resources"?
  • Done
• "Nichols's regiment". Shouldn't that be an upper case R?
  • I think I was told somewhere that with stuff like this or Landis's battery and stuff like this to lowercase the second word, as it's not a proper name. I can change this, though, if desired.
• "Nichols's regiment, as part of Jackman's brigade", but you then write as if it were part of Shelby's.
  • "Shelby's brigade" was an error for "Shelby's division", corrected
• "The Confederate attacks suffered". "attacks" → 'attackers'?
  • Done
• "Price ordered Shelby and his brigade, including Nichols's regiment, to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers". I bet he didn't! 1. "participate" indicates that there were other pursuers; is this so? 2. Is it known why and/or in what way the pursuit was unsuccessful?
  • I've rephrased most of this; does "Price ordered Shelby's division, including Nichols's regiment, to pursue the Union soldiers, who managed to escape" make more sense?
• "Price's Raid began in October. Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." Why use a figure from August to indicate a strength in October? (October 12: "In this action, Nichols's unit, which was reportedly about 300-men strong".)
  • @Gog the Mild: - These are actually from two different sources. The source for the August number specifically ties that number to August, while the source for this October action (Lause) states that there were around 300 men in the unit at the time of the fight. Lause is quoting someone for the 300, but he uses a really obnoxious way of footnoting that makes it unclear who exactly he is quoting.
• Just checking that Unionist is actually an ACW descriptor.
  • Yeah, it works for ACW. See, for instance, [68] or [69].
• "failed to get into proper position to block the Union retreat". Optional: 'failed to get into an appropriate position to block the Union retreat'.
  • Done
• "to successfully attack the Union center." Suggest "Union center" → 'it'.
  • Done
• "but the third attack". "the" → 'a'.
  • Done
• "and did not see close combat at Newtonia." Delete "at Newtonia".
  • Done
• "The furlough terms set a date of mid-December to return to the army." → 'The furlough terms set a date of mid-December for the men to return to the army.' or similar.
  • Done
• "the unit's return from furlough". The unit didn't return from furlough.
  • Done, which required some minor rephrasing later on
• "The unit disbanded before the war ended in 1865". Do you mean 'The unit disbanded in 1865, before the war ended'?
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've replied to all points above, a couple with no action so far. Hog Farm _Talk 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [70].

---

William Lyon Mackenzie

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Journalist. Politician. Rebellion Leader. William Lyon Mackenzie held many roles and got into a lot of trouble. He tried to reform the Upper Canada political system (what is now known as Ontario, Canada) and became Toronto's first mayor. He led the Upper Canada Rebellion, went a little crazy, and fled to the United States when government forces defeated the rebels. He organised an invasion of Upper Canada with American volunteers but was arrested by the American government and pardoned by President Van Buren. Upon his return to Canada, he became a politician and ranted against government proposals.

There are too many people to thank for their comments, both informally and in the PRs and GAN, so I will post a note on their talk page. I hope you enjoy reviewing this important biography in Canadian history as much as I enjoyed researching it. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisting with an eye towards supporting; please ping me when independent reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1#SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:Second market in York (Toronto).jpg, File:MrsMackenzie.jpg when was it first published? (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Second market image: work produced in 1888. MrsMackenzie: work produced in 1850. I updated the copyright tags on both images at Commons to reflect that. Let me know if you need more information. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Date of production is not necessarily the same as publication. AFAIK the former work was not free in Canada on the URAA date based on author's death date, so it would need pre-1926 publication to be PD in US. The second doesn't have author information so it's not clear when its Canadian copyright expired, although if it was made in 1850 I assume it's old enough. (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I posted my followup on this FAC's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• Reform movement. - pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed
• He is considered the best-known Reformer of the early-1800s. - bit wishy to me. Best-known could mean two things here. The best known person who was a reformer, or the person best known for being a reformer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What about "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Much better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• Dundee, Scotland - no need to link Scotland. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed
• gold medal and chain - is this a gold medal and a chain, or a gold medal and gold chain? (Or, a medal and chain combination that is gold). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't say, and the source says the medal was worth £250 so I removed "and chain" Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Upper Canada Rebellion (1837–1838) - do we need this info/navbox here? Seems out of place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This was placed before I started editing the article. I tried moving it to the bottom of the article but the formatting was weird. I am not sure if it should go somewhere else, so I removed it, as most of those links are in the article already. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, doesn't need to be there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is Rensselaer Van Rensselaer part of the Van Rensselaer (family)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. The family name is wikilinked later in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Small suggestion - create a redirect for the name to that article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I am keeping Rensselaer Van Rensselaer as a red link in case his own article is created in the future. I changed the wikilink of "his family name" to "the Van Rensselaer family name" so its clearer where the wikilink is going. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• He was released on $5,000 (equivalent to $120,547 in 2019) - hmm, this article uses GBP in most places. If we are to use a converter, perhaps they should all go to pounds? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Something similar was expressed by a previous reviewer. I think most readers would understand that Mackenzie is paying his bail and fines in USD because he was arrested by the American legal system. Would posting the inflation in GBP cause the reader wonder why the inflation is calculated to a different currency? Also, would the conversion from USD to GBP happen before inflation is calculated, or after? I decided to keep the inflation converstion in USD because it was the simplest thing to do at the time. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Mostly all fine. No real issues. Seems very good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Lee, responses above. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: in case they didn't see the responses above. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Naught to worry about, happy to support, but I have made some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Lee, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

HF

I've got this weekend off work, so I'll try to review this over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - Ping me when Johannes Schade is done, and I'll review. I'd rather wait to review, because I don't want to work at cross-purposes. Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I am in the same boat. As the review is lengthy, I am going to unwatch for now; please ping me when Johannes Schade is finished reviewing (and I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear User:SandyGeorgia It seems I deleted your comment above by working on an old version. I am so sorry this happened. I am finished with my contribution here, if it was one. Z1720 and I got both a bit tired of it. You say "I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk". I have move the conversation to Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie. With thanks, apologies, and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I put a copy of JS's review on WLM's FAC talk page. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor, but he was not reelected the following year." - This makes it sound a bit like he lost election, when he really wasn't actively running. Rephrase?
  • What about, "He declined the Reformer's nomination to run in the 1835 municipal election."
    • That would work wonderfully.
      • Done
• ". He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - Not sure that the hyphen is needed
  • Removed
• What the Family Compact was is explained in the lead, but not really in the body.
  • Removed pre-1833 references to the Family Compact, explained who they were when they were named by Mackenzie in Sketches of Upper Canada in 1833.
• Second paragraph of Election to the Legislative Assembly, four of five sentences all start with "He". Can this be varied some?
  • Replaced one "He" with "Mackenzie". I tried rearranging sentences but it's difficult in this section. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "with each new constituency (also known as a riding) " - Piped link Riding (division)#Canada?
  • Done
• "Van Rensselaer, Mackenzie and 24 supporters occupied Navy Island on December 14" - Link Navy Island
  • Done
• "Durham sent an agent to interview Mackenzie, who reported that Mackenzie's grievance was with the composition of the Legislative Council vague references "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil" - Something seems off here grammatically to me. Missing a word?
  • The grammar was off, I reworded this sentence. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "calling the legislature illegitimate after the Governor-General reinstated the Mackenzie-Cartier Administration without an election" - Is this an error for Macdonald-Cartier?
  • Not sure what you mean. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it should be "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" based on context, rather than "Mackenzie-Cartier Administration". Is this correct?
      • You are correct. Fixed.
• "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - From the lead - I didn't see this explicitly stated in the body
  • From "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Lee stated above that the meaning was unclear, so I changed "best-known" to "most recognizable" in the lede. Should I also change the wording in the body and remove the quotation marks? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No, it's fine as is. Just me not seeing something.

Good work. Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - replies above. Getting close to supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Replied above. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • • Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2 b, 2c, 4, and source reliability and formatting. Did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 02:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that the post-pardon papers failed due to lack of subscribers
  • Added info in the body. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Still issues here - for example the lead claims he "discovered" documents outlining financial transactions, but the body says only that he "copied" them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I cross-referenced the lede and the body to fix this. It's ready for another check. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Similarly some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the role of Alexander Macdonell
  • Removed the ones that would be off-topic to explain, added info for the ones that were not described. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Still issues here - the infobox describes him as having a Clear Grit affiliation, but the text says he was politically left of that group and refused to participate in negotiations. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: Clear Grit info removed from infobox. I also removed any information that is not stated in the article, like Jesse Ketchum serving with Mackenzie in York County and exact dates Mackenzie was in office. Z1720 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Explanatory notes should generally be in a different section to references
  • Done
• FN262: if you're going to cite the updated version, this should also credit the author who did the update
  • Added
• FN263: page? Ditto FN265, check for others
  • Added. The other articles are accessed with online editions of the sources and a link is provided. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Works cited?
  • They should be oldest-first, but the Gates sources were in the wrong order. I fixed it. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Archive link for Armstrong 1971 is non-functional
  • I removed the archive link. I think it broke because it couldn't archive the Proquest website. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Was the print version of DCB the one consulted, or the online version?
  • Although I used the online version originally, Johannes Schade said I should reference the print version instead. During the changeover, I verified the information (as I had to find the page numbers) and the information is now cited to the book. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Volume statements generally shouldn't be part of the title
  • I assume you are referring to Dent. Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Done
• Hamil is missing publisher
  • Fixed
• What makes Hoar a high-quality reliable source?
  • A review of his book was conducted in the The Canadian Historical Review, an academic journal: [71]. It was republished by McGill-Queen's University Press [72] and Carleton University Press [73] Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Dundurn Press or just Dundurn? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • WorldCat and Google say Dundurn, so I changed Gates's reference to Dundurn. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Nikkimaria. I have commented above. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, a few days ago an editor converted the newspaper articles from <ref> to sfn. Do you have any concerns about this change? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's not required, and if you were so inclined you could revert per CITEVAR. But if that is not an issue it's not a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't mind the change, just wanted to make sure it didn't change the result of your source review. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, just checking that you are happy with this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, should be good to go now. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Support by GP!

• Support: As the GA reviewer for this article a few months ago, I have watched its steady improvement over the past several weeks and have deliberately refrained from commenting here until some other uninvolved editors had a chance to look. Their reviews in tow, I am confident that my own impression has been confirmed, which is that this article is incisive, well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, neutral, and interesting, representing the very best of what Wikipedia has to offer. As such, I am delighted to offer my support to this FA nomination (based on assessment of criteria 1, 2, and 4 ... I have not independently examined images). Go Phightins! 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tkbrett

Lede

• "He published his first newspaper in 1824 called Colonial Advocate": this reads a little awkwardly. You use "the" before Colonial Advocate throughout the article, so I presume "He published his first newspaper, the Colonial Advocate, in 1824" would be fine.

Done

• "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor" can be made active as "... and the city council elected Mackenzie its first mayor."

Done

Prose

• "Dundee Advertiser" -> "Dundee Advertiser newspaper".

Kilbourn doesn't specify if the Advertiser is a newspaper, so I added Sewell as a reference to verify the info. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1811 he was a...": comma needed after 1811.

Done

• "His congregation agreed to baptise James after a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence was paid to the church and Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child.": passive voicing can be made active as "... after Mackenzie paid a fine of..."

I tried flipping the sentence but it felt like it was dragging and long because Mackenzie's punishment is a large part of the sentence. Suggestions?

In the source, is it saying that the church agreed to baptise Mackenzie's son only after he paid the fine and endured public criticism? Or did the church only require the fine and the public criticism is a separate thought? If it's the latter, I think the sentence can be split. Perhaps: "Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child. His congregation agreed to baptise James only after he paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." If it's the former, then I think it should be flipped to make it clearer that these two punishments were joined: "His congregation agreed to baptise James after Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child and paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The source says he had to do both before James could be baptised. I used your second sentence. Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Inflation equivalencies across the article use a lot more significant figures than I think are necessary. For example: "£625 (equivalent to £52,521 in 2016)". Rounding it to 53,000 would be preferable. Others include: "£250 (equivalent to £24,272 in 2016)", "£1,000 (equivalent to £94,340 in 2016)", "$5,000 (equivalent to $120,547 in 2019)", "$12,000 (equivalent to $321,766 in 2019)".

These are calculated using a template so that the numbers are updated when the template is updated. I'm not sure how to round the money. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Inflation provides some info on this under rounding where it mentions to avoid excessive precision. If we add r=-3 to the template this will eliminate the precision of the last three digits. For example: £625 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|start_year=1826|value=625|fmt=eq|r=-3|cursign=£}}) → £625 (equivalent to £67,000 in 2023). Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I rounded all the numbers except the $10 fine (with inflation $241). Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lieutenant governor is spelled differently across the article, whether with or without a hyphen and either capitalized or not, including: "Lieutenant-Governor Peregrine Maitland", "advisory committee to the lieutenant governor of Upper Canada", "Upper Canada Lieutenant Governor John Colborne", "new lieutenant-governor Francis Bond Head", "the authoritarian power of the lieutenant-governor." Presumably this should be standardized, unless I'm missing something.

You are right, it should be standardised. Sources don't agree on the spelling, but since its spelt "lieutenant governors" in the Wikipedia article, that is what I have used and I changed the article accordingly. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• pipe Niagara River to Niagara River

Done

• "on December 14 and Mackenzie proclaimed the State of Upper Canada on the island": I believe State of Upper Canada can be piped to Republic of Canada.

Done

• pipe "represented himself" to Pro se legal representation in the United States

Done

• Durham Report is piped twice.

Done

• "Mackenzie proposed abolishing of the Court of Chancery, ..." -> "Mackenzie proposed abolishing the Court of Chancery, ..."

Good catch. Done

• "and he was removed from the committee by the Parliament in retaliation" can be made active as "and the Parliament removed him from the committee in retaliation."

Done

Additional comments

• copyvio score is a good 33% (Violation Unlikely).
• This is my first ever time commenting on a FAC, but it seemed like a good place to start given my love of newspapers and Canadian history. This page is superb. Once the above are addressed I'll be happy to support. Tkbrett (✉) 01:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. Comments above (and one question) Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed both the baptism sentence and the inflation. Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on this incredibly important Canadian history page. It's a great read! Proud to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

• pursued the policy proposals - ppp. Also what does presued here mean...supported or enforced

• supported. I reworded the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• He was successful in criticising government officials .. what does "successful in criticising" actually mean. Criticising takes no effort.

• Changed to "He was a popular politician because of his criticism of government officials"

• ok. reworded this Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• provoked an armed conflict - "rose in"....otherwise its is as if the fooled their buddies into doing so

• I mean, he did kind of fool his buddies into supporting him...what about "initiated"? Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes better. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Very good overall, just small quibbles from the lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada where he investigated government corruption - add the year

• Done

• an unsuccessful invasion of Upper Canada in the Patriot War - during the patriot war, or in what became known as

• I couldn't find a source that said "This is when it was first referred to as the Patriot War." Historians refer to these events as the Patriot War, and I found a source where Van Buren refers to the events as the Patriot War in 1839. I'm comfortable with keeping it as-is. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not, and its quite important, ie did he initiate or was it an element of. Please read up on the Patriot War of 1839 and revert Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think I misread your first comment in this section; I thought you were asking if the war was referred to as the "Patriot War" while the war was ongoing. Mackenzie was an element in recruiting for the Patriot War, as outlined by Gates [74]. I changed the wording slightly to remove the implication that he initiated the Patriot War. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• struggled to implement - is "struggled" a nice word for "failed"

• Mostly. Some of his policy objectives were successful or partially implemented, but the majority failed. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lets go so with "majority failed"

• I went with "failed to implement most of his policy objectives" Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• organised American support to invade Upper Canada and overthrow the Upper Canadian government ...overthrow it's government?. also rallied is better than organised

• Yep, they were going to overthrow the government and create the State of Upper Canada. I replaced rallied with organised. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. He was pardoned by the American president - how long did he actual serve Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Less than a year. Should this be mentioned in the lede? Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, for clarity...I assumed no time at all Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Added.

• Thanks

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Ceoil in case they did not see my last comment. Let me know if there are other concerns. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, last chance... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

no need to hold up on my behalf: looks good now from a scan, would be unlikely to oppose. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• Upper Canada Rebellion overlinked in the lead alone.
  • Fixed. I ctr+f'ed Upper Canada Rebellion to make sure it was not overlinked. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Link Upper Canada on its first use.
  • Done
• "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early 1800s." bold claim, according to whom? And I guess you mean specifically an "Upper Canada Reformer"?
  • In the "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Is further action needed? Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • No, I think that's ok. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Canada in 1820" comma after Canada.
  • Done
• Link Toronto.
  • I wasn't sure about this per MOS:OVERLINK, so I asked Wikipedia Discord and they said it should be linked, so I have linked it. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• "first mayor" first should be part of the pipe.
  • Done
• It's like the lead has a lead, the first para of the lead is a synopsis of the next two...!
  • I agree. The lede struggled with explaining why Mackenzie was notable, but I think I added too much detail to the first paragraph. I tried trimming it, but suggestions are welcome. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• "for over ten months" more than.
  • Done
• "State of New York" is that a formal name? Our article allows for "New York State" but not "State of New York" thus capitalised.
  • The wiki article says, "New York State" and "state of New York" so I aligned the article with that structure. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• "was a weaver" also a weaver (on the second usage).
  • Done
• "public dance, Daniel became sick" I assume there's some intended causality here, any explanation at all as to what this is all about? Severe hangover...
  • Raible says he "caught a cold" but I think that's too general to place in the article. Kilbourn says he "suddenly became ill". Biographi and Sewell don't mention a cause of death. It seems like he caught some sort of illness after attending this dance and died because of it. I don't know if "caught an illness" is jargon or not, and I don't know how else to phrase this. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Well no-one else has made anything of this, perhaps it's just me, so not worth pursuing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• "after his son" make it clear this is William you're talking about, I'm not certain at this point if he had any siblings etc.
  • Replaced "his son" with "William"
• "independently.[9] She instructed" merge, "independently and instructed"
  • Done
• Isn't the Dundee Advertiser the The Courier (Dundee)?
  • After looking at The Courier article, I think you are right. Wikilinked.
• "to his son" isn't it "their" son?
  • Done
• "baptise" v "summarize" I assume this is okay in Canadian English?
  • Did a Google search, it should be "baptize" in Canadian English. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• "thirteen shillings and fourpence" link this to an appropriate LSD article and also consider inflating so we get an idea what that actually means these days.
  • Does "LSD" refer to £sd? If so, I wikilinked it. Added inflation template. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Link Montreal on its first use.
  • Done
• "son James joined" did he have any other sons? If not, we already know his name from previous section.
  • At this time, he doesn't have other children so removed. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• No further mention of Isabel Reid, did she just disappear from the scene?
  • Pretty much. Most biographers don't mention her, Biographi says "Nothing is known of the mother, Isabel Reid,"
• "His mother invited..." James' mother or William's mother? Last "He" was James.
  • Changed "His mother" to "Elizabeth" Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "The Colonial Advocate..." section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments above, and a question. Thanks for your review! Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "press to create the" create->publish.
• organised - is that Canadian Eng?
  • Google says it's organized, so I changed it in all instances in the document. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• he wrote -> he had written.
  • I assume this is at "inscription he had written". Changed
• "the paper had the highest circulation among York newspapers" paper .. newspapers, repetitive. Perhaps replace the first one with the name of it again.
  • Done
• "In 1826, a ... " Mackenzie is mentioned three times in one sentence...
  • Rephrased
• "nearby bay" put nearby in the pipe.
  • Done
• ""two representatives" is that the same as Member of Parliament (Canada)?
  • No. Parliament of Canada doesn't exist yet (Province of Canada is created in 1841, Canadian Confederation happens in 1867). There's a lengthy discussion about this on the FAC talk page, but basically none of the sources described the official title of legislators in the Parliament of Upper Canada, (it could be MLA, MP, MPP, or something else) so I only used general job titles like "representative" and "legislator".
• "evaluated... evaluated" repetitive.

Changed the first "evaluated" to "assessed"

• Church of England - could link.
  • Done
• Link Quebec City.
  • Done
• "with Reform leaders" vs "the reform leaders"
  • Fixed
• Link Colonial Office.
  • Done
• criticised - should that be criticized?
  • Yep. I ctr+f'ed and fixed all instances. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Link Tory.
  • Wikilinked to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
• "while James FitzGibbon" context, who's that?
  • Added "a magistrate in York"
• "submit grievances" -> "submit the grievances" (you've already mentioned them)
  • Done
• the Legislature or the legislature?
  • Small case, unless it's the formal title of something. Fixed and ctr+f'ed to fix throughout article. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Lord Stanley" no article?
  • Found him, done.
• ""the Legislature would not let him participate in the legislature" clunky. And L/l again.
  • reworded.

That takes me to "Upper Canada politics", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! comments above. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""city council. ... Toronto city council" repetitive.
  • Changed "Toronto city council" to "the council"
• "the highest amount among all candidates" amount is not required.
  • Removed amount.
• Could link mayor appropriately here (as you have in the lead).
  • Done
• Link Ticket (election).
  • Done
• "with each new constituency" avoid repeat, maybe 'each new sub-division'?
  • What about "section"?
    • Sure. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Grievances.[85] The committee interrogated" merge to avoid repeat of "committee".
  • Done
• Anglican church - we'd normally capitalised Church in this usage.
  • Done
• "with the reform movement.[91] " Reform or reform? There are a few of these throughout.
  • Yeah, this has been discussed before. If it's the political party, it's Reform, if it's the political ideology, political movement, or it's the verb, it's lowercase. This creates a lot of grey zone. I ctr+f'ed this and I think I changed all instances to the correct capitalisation. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• "the Constitution on July 4, 1836. The Constitution accused" repetitive.
  • Done
• "meeting with reformers dubbed" Reformers?
  • Yep, done.
• "He spent the summer..." who? Mackenzie or Bond Head?
  • Changed to Mackenzie
• "the Patriotes asking Mackenzie to" asking him.
  • Done
• "other reform leaders" Reform?
  • Done
• "sent a warning to Mackenzie about" -> "sent him a warning about"
  • Done
• "Lount instead. Lount responded" -> "Lount instead who responded"
  • Done
• "the leader of the rebellion, Anthony Anderson" previous text said he was one of the two leaders?
  • Removed
• "sympathised" is that Canadian Eng?
  • Fixed
• Link British Empire.
  • Done
• "invasion of a country that the US government had not declared war against" -> "invasion of a country against which the US government had not declared war"
  • Done
• ""in the Caroline affair and the" overlinked.
  • Removed second wikilink
• "witnesses giving" to give.
  • Done
• ""Mackenzie was denied permission"" He was...
  • Done
• "so John Montgomery arranged" context, who is he?
  • Added a blurb on who Montgomery is.
• "editor. Mackenzie became" He became.
  • Done
• "July 1844, he was" Mackenzie. Try to mix it up a little, previous para has "Mackenzie" for two consecutive sentences and then "he" for the next four...
  • I tried to put new sentence-starters in these paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Some "equivalent" values are dated to 2016, some to 2019, why the difference?
  • Template:inflation has different years listed for GBP and USD. I don't want to set dates because I want the templates to update as the article ages. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I should have noticed that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• "the New York Tribune" New-York.
  • Done
• "the Tribune until" italics.
  • Done

That's up to "Return to Canada". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your excellent comments! Responses above. I look forward to more later. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "to investigate the causes of the rebellion" -> "to investigate its causes".
  • Done
• "Mackenzie for the report. Mackenzie told"" -> "Mackenzie for the report who told"
  • done
• "and he wanted" and that he wanted
  • I'm going to disagree. The source states that these were two separate grievances, and this change would link them in a way that is not verified. The quote from the source (Gates 73): "From him I could extract no reference to any specific grievance beyond the composition of the Legislative Council and the vague statement that they wanted "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil"" Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• "the Baldwin-Lafontaine" Baldwin is overlinked and I think that hyphen should probably be an en-dash.
  • Changed to an en-dash. Removed Baldwin's wikilink
• "first responsible government" what does that mean?
  • I don't think it's important in this article so I removed it. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• "including a movement for an " including one for...
  • Done
• "Greely" our article has him at Greeley.
  • Fixed
• (Link Whig earlier wherever it appears first).
  • Done, linked to Whig Party (United States) because its referring to their newspapers.
• "H.N. Case," two things here, I would {{nowrap}} it and would space out H. N.
  • Done
• "denounced the court's practice" denounced its practice
  • Done
• "from Baldwin's colleagues for his project caused Baldwin"" caused him.
  • Done
• "the MacNab-Morin coalition" again I think that should be an en-dash.
  • Done
• "Accounts and its reports" is it more like "while"?
  • Done, I think while is an improvement.
• "and Parliament removed" what's the strategy on capitalisation of P/parliament outside its fully formal title?
  • After reading MOS:INSTITUTIONS, I think that, unless I am referring to the proper name of the institution, it should not be capitalised. I ctr+f'ed this in the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• ""with the Clear Grits of George Brown" what are those? Explanation needed.
  • Clarified that Clear Grits are a new political movement in Canada West, removed George Brown's name. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is re-election hyphenated or not?
  • It is, I ctr+f'ed and fixed this in the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• "the Macdonald-Cartier Administration" en-dash and why is admin capitalised?
  • En-dash placed, admin no longer capitalised.
• "Brown-Dorion Administration" ditto.
  • Done
• "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" etc.
  • Done
• "a half-mile and"" maybe "half a mile (0.8 km)".
  • Done

That takes me to "Writing style", not far to go! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• "and used too many footnotes" in her opinion.
  • Added
• "described ... described..." repetitive.
  • Changed some of these.
• "invented quotations he would misattribute" -> "invented misattributed quotations"
  • Done
• "issues he advocated for " issues for which he advocated.
  • Done
• "constantly ... constantly" repetitive.
  • Changed one to frequently
• (Horace Greeley is now overlinked).
  • Done
• Link Whig first time.
  • It's first instance is in the newspaper name The Buffalo Whig and Journal so I don't think it's appropriate. Whig is wikilinked in it's second instance.
    • Ah, hence some confusion now: two "Whig" links, but to different targets, confusing for the reader without some context in those pipes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Added clarifiers before each instance of Whig, if appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• "John Charles Dent said" who's he?
  • Added text to explain who he is.
• "John Sewell said"" similar.
  • Added text to explain who he is
• Our article capitalises Social Gospel.
  • Done
• criticised - CanEng?
  • Done
• proselytise - likewise?
  • Done
• "George Brown wrote" who he?
  • He was introduced as a political opponent of Mackenzie in "Return to the Legislature".

• "John King called " same
  • He was introduced in the "Political philosophy" section as Mackenzie's son-in-law
• "the Lower Canada Rebellion, Louis" overlinked.
  • Removed Lower Canada Rebellion link, this is the first time Papineau is mentioned so I think it's appropriate to link.

That's it! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for my delayed response: real life has been busy. Comments above. Also, some of my responses have questions that might need a follow-up. Thanks again for your review! Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is in a really good condition, good work. I responded above but nothing now to prevent my support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2021 [75].

---

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from theJoebro64

Gonna leave some comments soon. I may make slight edits while I go through, as I think it'll be easier than just leaving comments on minor points. JOEBRO64 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I've read the article fully and don't see really anything to nitpick. My only issue was a minor quirk in the Writing section; the "they" in "They agreed to use 'Jones' instead" refers to Spielberg, Kasdan, and Lucas all, correct? I think it should be clarified because it's the start of a new paragraph. Otherwise I don't think I need to hold this up much longer so I'm throwing in a support. JOEBRO64 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Changed, thanks TheJoebro64!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

Excited to review this. BTW, given the comments you've received on your previous, if you'd like to review other featured articles in the review, I would strongly encourage it. I'm planning some film FA nominations in the future, although I don't have any right now.

Initial comments and lead

• I'll start out by saying every citation here is from reliable sources and formatted perfectly from a skimthrough, so that's a good sign.
• Poster doesn't have WP:ALT description.
• "While the pair had ideas for notable scenes in the film" Clarify. Are we meaning concepts for scenes that would be known years after release, or scenes that are the most essential in progressing the plot?
• An oddity I noticed with the locations listed. I get why La Rochelle and Tunisia were there because they were filmed the most prominently judging by the filming section, and I get Hawaii because even though it was filmed there for one scene, it was filmed in several areas of the state for the scene. However, I don't know why the entire state of California is listed. Only one scene used only one location of California, a University. Additionally, by that logic, shouldn't England also be listed since it was also used for one scene in location of the country, Rickmansworth?

More comments coming soon to a theater near you. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Added an ALT caption for the poster. I changed the lead part to setpieces and stunts. The gist of it from my research is they had an idea like "Oh let's have a big boulder chase Indy" and it was Kasdan's job to get Indy in front of the boulder and then NOT in front of the boulder, if that helps understanding. England is technically mentioned but not in an on location capacity so I've reworded and took out California. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse the delayed reactions yet again. A result of juggling everything at once. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Plot

• This section two major issues
  • One, even though it's well under 700 words, it still feels like a list of scenes in order instead of a concise summary.
  • Two, while I understand sentence length variation is importance and it's fine to have short sentences here and there, I feel this section has too many of them and the prose is choppy in some spots.

Cast

• Looks good, character descriptions keep true to sources cited. On a side note, however, can I just it's weird that the Variety source refers to Rene by the actor's name?
• Ref 11 does give character names and actors for Musgrove of Eaton, but doesn't specify they have those positions for the U.S. Army.
• I do, however, need to state that Ref 10, cited first in this section, is url= linked to a BBC article different from what I expected. The archiveurl link at least is correct, but not the url= link.
• What is the Bantu Wind? This is the first section it is brought up.

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a few short sentences by integrating them into larger ones. As for the plot itself, as you say it's well under the word limit, I've refined and refined it down to it's bare bones, but I do not believe anything there is unnecessary. It's a constantly moving story that switches locations frequently, and every element mentioned is relevant to a different part of the story. It's as tight a summary of the key elements as you could ask for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anthro, god catch on ref 10, I've fixed that and the other issues. I've added some additional references for the US army guys, it's bizarrely difficult to find sources on the "Top Men" guys. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging HumanxAnthro. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Production section in general

• Some multi-cites are not in increasing numerical order. "[16][20][21][13]" "[20][21][13][22]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• That simply comes from invoking previously used citations (and evidently not the same order they were first used within the article). I don't see a problem with this as long as they support the attributed text. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

They were in order but as I've had to tweak things, they've fallen out of order. It's fine, I'll fix it. Thanks both. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Friendly ping @ HumanxAnthro because they're as beautiful, fleeting, and uncatchable as the wind. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Conception

• Sorry this is taking so long, because checking if the citations correctly cite the info is taking a long time because the sources are so long to read. Anyone, it looks mostly good, but I'm skeptical about the following:
  • "In 1975, Lucas discussed his serial film idea with his friend Philip Kaufman. The pair worked on a script for two weeks." Source state they "worked on the story for two weeks". The story and screenplay are too different things from what I understand.
  • "In May 1977, Lucas vacationed in Hawaii to avoid the potential failure of the theatrical debut of Star Wars." "Potential failure"? The sources do state the meeting took place the day after the premiere and admits they were anticipating Star Wars' first-day performance, but that doesn't indicate it had the potential to fail. Am I missing something

👨x🐱 (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro, I've changed the wording a little, I definitely recall reading something about its potential failure but I may have misread it from "not sure if it would suceed" or something along those lines, so I've just changed it closer to the reference which is he was avoiding the hype of the opening, good or bad. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, I found a source and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Update (5/27/21)

• Just to keep myself active in this discussion, I will say the prose is looking great in the production sections overall. Again, it's just that there's so many sources to spotcheck and they're so long that it's taking a while. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You know what, Darkwarrior knows what he's doing, so Support. I'm joking. This is just such a long article... If someone wants to check certain parts of the article to quicken up the process, please feel free to. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If you read SNUGGUMS comments, they also went pretty in depth HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS

Are you by any chance hoping to get this featured on the main page for its 40th anniversary in June? Either way, here are some comments:

• File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
• Since there's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Harrison Ford by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg, File:Steven Spielberg by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg, File:Philip Kaufman 03.jpg, File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg, File:Frank Marshall Deauville 2012.jpg, File:Sahara close to Tozeur (Tunisia).jpg, File:Disneyindytruck1.jpg, File:Ark of covenant replica.jpg. File:Paul Freeman.jpg, File:Richard Edlund 1 (2).jpg (an extract from File:Richard EDLUND 1.jpg), are the uploaders' own works as claimed
• I'm unsure what to say about the licensing for File:Karenallen17 cropped.jpg. It isn't clear whether the file you derived this from (File:KarenAllen17.jpg) is something the original poster took on their own or got from elsewhere. File:Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular.jpg has a similar ambiguity.
• No copyright concerns with File:George Walton Lucas.jpg, File:Tom Selleck at PaleyFest 2014.jpg. File:Elstree Studios - geograph.org.uk - 1184042 (cropped).jpg, File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-P049500, Berlin, Aufmarsch der SA in Spandau.jpg, File:Indy and Marion.jpg. Just maybe remove the italics from years in some captions.
• What benefit does File:John Williams The Raiders' March from Raiders of the Lost Ark.ogg provide aside from serving as an ear-treat for fans? Don't get me wrong; I very much enjoy the theme song myself, just not seeing how it meets WP:NFCC#8.
• Are trailers really appropriate to include as external links? It comes off as promotional.
• Even though it seems to be a free upload, File:Sean Connery (1983).jpg feels decorative here and would be better for the Last Crusade article since that's when we're introduced to Henry Jones Sr.

More to come later. From a glance at the prose, I'll say now that "notable" from "notable scenes" is inappropriate POV and editiorializing, and that you could link to Indiana Jones (character) in the "Cast" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I might be cutting it close but I'd like to get it there for its anniversary. I didn't anticipate Die Hard's FA taking so long (thanks for your help with that). I have enough 80s films setup now that I'm set for 40th anniversaries to appear on the front page until 2024 if I can get this one done (Got to get Ghostbusters up to FA). Too late for The Empire Strikes Back sadly but of the ones I've done it's the one I'm least interested in so I put it off until last.
• I've replaced the Karen Allen one with one with a clearer author. I assume if its on Wikimedia it's already been verified but this doesn't appear to be the case very often in reality.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've removed the Raiders March file. It was already in the article but I admit I wasn't in a rush to remove it because these 80s film scores are boss and I love listening to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I can see your point on the trailer but I just thought it was an interesting aspect to see HOW the trailer was marketed to people at the time. It's 40 years old so I don't think it's too promotional, but I feel it's justified. Normally I'd include an image of the theater it premiered in but it doesn't appear to have had a standard big time premiere anywhere notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Indiana Jones Spectacular image is attributed to Cybjorg, and doing a reverse image search it only seems to come up at Fan Wikias that have sourced it from here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm gonna stick up for the Sean Connery image as similar to the Jeremy Irons image in Die Hard, in that he is mentioned in the text accompanying the section and it's relevant to that, even if its 60% decorative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, also Indiana Jones character is linked in the plot section, that's why it's not in the Cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

Starting two consecutive sentences with "it" like you've done in the lead's third paragraph feels repetitive "that includes three more films"..... are you only saying this instead of "four" because the fifth film hasn't been released yet? The use of "affair" (both in "Plot" and "Casting") makes it sound like Indy and/or Marion were unfaithful to other partners during their first entanglement (which I don't recall being the case but maybe I'm forgetting something here when it's been a long time since I last watched the movie). You could simply say "relationship" instead. "An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones; one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark, the other the correct measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into separate sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period. The plot's last paragraph is rather short with only two sentences. Super tiny paragraphs like that are discouraged because they make the flow of text feel choppy. From "Conception", "Development and pre-production", "Post-production", and "Special effects", I'd avoid having two sentences in a row begin with "Lucas", and there's a similar issue with "Spielberg" under "Writing" Within "Casting", remove the colon from "Those considered for the role included" The use of "Ironically" from "Ironically, the actors' strike of 1980" is inappropriate editorializing Not sure what you mean by "hold their own" from "who could hold their own against their male counterparts" "after his wife's grandmother"..... grandmother-in-law "because the pay was better"..... it offered more money For "Filming", I think you can guess my thoughts on opening two straight sentences with "the", and its last paragraph should be merged to expanded to avoid looking so stubby "Post-production lasted a few months"..... can you be more precise on whether this was 3, 4, or 5? Three consecutive sentences starting with "he" under "Music" is even worse than the prior concerns of two in a row. From "Stunts", the term "several" is an ambiguous word that's best avoided whenever more specific descriptions can be used, its first paragraph should be expanded/merged, and too many sentences from its second paragraph start with "the" "Allen was reportedly so scared"..... any confirmation or denial on this? It should be obvious by now what I'd do with the fourth paragraph's use of "the" to begin sentences in "Stunts" "Visuals and sound" has a bit of repetition with "Slocombe" openers Expectations on Superman II don't seem very relevant here, and neither do the other 1981 films predicted to earn the most money that year Wanna guess what's wrong with the first paragraph of "Critical response"? "Several reviewers noted the film's PG rating"..... I'd use "asserted" or "believed" instead of "noted", and see my previous comments on "several" Spell out Videocassette recorder for "Home media". Don't just assume all readers will know what "VCR" stands for, though it's fine include that abbreviation right next to it in parantheticals. Link the first instance of VHS, and it looks like you forgot a comma after its mention within "Like the VHS it was a success". Another misuse of a colon for the overly short first paragraph of "Other media", and almost every sentence of its second paragraph starts with "The" or "A". "There is irony in the Nazis attempting to use a Jewish artifact to subjugate the world"..... see my prior comments on using "ironically" Wanna guess how the third paragraph from "Cinematic homage and nostalgia" could be improved? Under "Legacy", it feels like puffery to say "significant and lasting impact" when you could simply say "lasting impact" or "major impact" Don't italicize Rotten Tomatoes from "Modern reception", and try not to have back-to-back "In *year*" sentences (this is how literally each one from the fourth paragraph starts!) "Several publications have ranked it as one of the greatest films of all time, including:"..... do I have to spell it out again? "A 2013 episode"..... "A 2014 essay"..... see where I'm going? You could at least mention the Esquire writer by name. The last paragraph from "Prequel, sequels and adaptations" could use some elaboration Remove the italics from "Creative Bloq", "Cinephelia & Beyond", "Syfy", and "Collider" How trustworthy are "Moviefone", "Screen Rant", "SuperHeroHype", "TravelPulse", and "The Ringer"? "Slashfilm" → "/Film' Ref#194 has a stray comma in its title Capitialize the W for Wired (magazine) While this definitely needs some work to become FA-material, instinct tells me you can spruce it up enough within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC) OK I think I've hit all your points. As for the website reliability, can I just say how much I hate Infinite Scroll stopping you getting to the bottom of a webpage. MovieFone has an About Us page and it's a long standing company, it's been around forever and reliability is the foundation it was built on. TravelPulse is owned by a big company as well and has a named page of editors and senior staff. ScreenRant has robust pages about About Us, Press Kit, and Fact Checking Policy. It does allow for contributors but you have to link to previously published works. The Ringer is another major website owned by Spotify, and they are currently hiring a new Fact Checker. SuperHeroHype is owned by Mandatory (formerly CraveOnline) which in turn is owned by Evolve Media. It's a big fish but the site itself doesn't have much in the way of policy. Given the thing it is sourced, I can easily replace this one if necessary. RE: The Superman and other films stuff, it's context for the year and what Jones is competing with. I used it to similar effect on Ghostbusters II to show how it was expected to beat those films and didn't. Here it's showing Superman II et al. were expected to do well and Jones wasn't, which is relevant later in the BO section when we get into discussing Raiders's phenomenal success, and Superman II is also brought up in the themes section, so I think for the size of the content, it provides much needed context and setup for later references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC) This is looking better. I did a bit of copyediting myself here, and have no qualms with File:Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! (8187488890).jpg. Getting into the last section, it wouldn't hurt to add some bits on how novels, comic books, and video games expand on stories of Dr. Jones et al. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC) OK I will take a look tonight/tomorrow, feeling pretty wrecked today. Thanks for your input Snuggums it's much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Hi SNUGGUMS, I've added an expanded segment on this touching on the notable legendary items and quests he is involved in in novel/comic/game form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Following sufficient improvements, I'm happy to give my support! You're also welcome for that and the assessments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from A. Parrot

• Drive-by comment from A. Parrot. The article is certainly comprehensive—approaching it from an Egyptological viewpoint, I certainly appreciate the thematic analysis—but it may actually be too much so. I know the article was trimmed somewhat in response to Sandy's peer review, but it's still at 11,593 words. As much as size limits tend to be ignored these days, I feel like the level of detail here may tax even a fairly determined reader, and there's a lot that doesn't feel entirely on-topic. For instance, while the gist of the "context" section is certainly relevant, there's no reason why we need details about which movies were projected to do best that season. Similarly, the section on accolades doesn't need to list the nominees that Raiders lost to (many FAs on Oscar-nominated films don't do that, and if readers really want to know, they can click on the article for the Oscars that year). A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Parrot, thanks for your comments. I understand your perspective, but I will say that personally I regularly read these articles top the bottom with ease, particularly Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II, which are of comparable length, Groundhog Day in particular because it's just a fascinating read, if I do say so myself. I don't think length is the issue as much as fluff and I agree, and as you say I have culled it quite a bit since the peer review. I can remove the award winners, I just felt this was a natural way of linking to more overlooked articles, since even as an 80s child I have never heard of some of them and would otherwise never come across the articles, which in turn may lead to the improvement of those articles. However, I'm not bound to that and can remove them if you prefer. The context section I feel is more important because it's setting the stage for what is expected to do well versus Raiders, which is kind of a meh on pre-release. Mainly it establishes that superheroics and comedy are the ones meant to do well. This is something I thought worked really well on Ghostbusters II which is the alternate, that Ghostbusters II is meant to do well and it ended up not doing so. I think especially with older films like this, where the history isn't just "and then we sent everything to the CGI department", and where it's history is occurring over multiple decades, it will veer on the longer side to do it justice. Anyway, let me know what you think A. Parrot Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the point about box office expectations can be made more succinctly. When an article exceeds 10,000 words, I think it's advisable to start summarizing instead of detailing wherever possible. A. Parrot (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a little, I know that HumanxAnthro is good at this stuff as well so it will likely come up in his review. As with the Die Hard review however, I will mention the themes section is 1,100 words and supplemental to the topic of the film itself, but a requirement of this level, and so it is difficult to cut 1,100 words to compensate for that section. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As a frequent FA reviewer, I can tell you a lot of experienced reviewers get pretty strict with making sure there's context or background for everything, to the point of comicality and violating 4 of the FA criteria at points. I think, however, context sections are useful in plenty of instances, box office sections included, especially since major studio films get released in these economic contexts and are possibly affected by them. I have to say that where DarkwarriorBlake's Box Office sections go too far is bringing up the grosses of other films on the weeks the main subject debuted or ran.👨x🐱 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's VERY tight, but I've bought it down to exactly 10,000 words not including the themes section, so that's 10000 words relating to the film itself, and I trimmed some of the BO section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• All sources appear to be of high quality.
• Works cited:
  • Use single quotes inside the double quotes
  • I would add the editor to Excavating Indiana Jones: Essays on the Films and Franchise
• Further reading:
  • Why is Ballantine Books linked twice but not the third time?
• Spot checks:
  • fn 82, 106, 108, 121, 152, 203 - all good
  • fn 76: Can you re-check this? The table in the source doesn't seem to be right to me.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Hi Hawkeye7, thanks for your input. I've addressed the points raised except the last. Could you clarify what you want me to check? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

    Seems to have been a problem loading at archive.org. Working now. Struck issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

You know the drill....

• Not a fan of "has grown in esteem" but honestly can't think of an alternative (so not a deal-breaker as such).

• I'd add that Tanis is in Egypt as a bit obscure otherwise.

• Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Ark himself, but lacked the necessary money - "necessary" unnecessary..actually why not, "Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Ark himself, but lacked the funds"?

Overall comprehensive and well-written. Is on the long side but the light subject matter and diversity of material makes it easy reading, so I can let that slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done all of them Casliber, thanks for taking the time to read this! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

okay all good, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: No disrespect at all, but your suggestion introduces a repetitive element ("fund...funds"). How about "capital"—or even back to money!—for the second one? ——Serial 12:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No disrespect taken and well-spotted (dang, how'd I miss that...) - I think "money" is fine (or moolah/dosh/readies/greenbacks...). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

Per Cas Liber; all my concerns have been attended to, including any I might have had regarding my own spelling. ——Serial 12:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [76].

---

Huaynaputina

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, the first nomination didn't work out but at least one editor who had raised concerns back then appears to have been satisfied by changes performed at Peer Review, so I am trying again. This article is about a rather unimpressive-looking volcano in Peru which in 1600 had a major eruption. This eruption devastated the surrounding region and caused worldwide climate change, including one of Russia's worst famines. Pinging participants of the PR, these mentioned there and of the previous FAC: @Gog the Mild, Iridescent, Femkemilene, ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, MONGO, Ceranthor, SandyGeorgia, AhmadLX, Heartfox, Buidhe, and Z1720: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler

• Making a placeholder for myself. Won't say much for now beyond smoothing the language in the early sentence: "Part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andean Volcanic Belt, it is the product of the subduction of the oceanic Nazca tectonic plate beneath the continental part of the South American tectonic plate." Why so cumbersome? Why not something like:

• "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it was formed when the oceanic Nazca Plate subducted under the continental South American Plate and its molten contents were forced up?"

• Notes: this is the lead. Its language should be accessible and explain the science easily. "Central Volcanic Zone" redirects to a section of the AVB, so no need to repeat. No need to explain either that the SA plate might have an oceanic half, but some clue should be given of its birth (without going into the convection in the mantle). More later. Good to see this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is better, but the past tense is problematic (subduction is still occurring and Huaynaputina still exists and still could erupt again). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Would something like, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate and by the former's molten contents being forced up" be better? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like I missed one other issue ... " and by the former's molten contents being forced up" isn't really how the process works. The article does not discuss this but the main process is the release of fluids by the downgoing slab into the overlying mantle, which causes the latter to melt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• OK, then how about, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate whose mantle in molten form has been forced up."? (i.e. without going into the finer details of the process at this stage, but then adding a sentence or two in an appropriate later section.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's in, minus the last sentence which isn't supported by the rest of the article (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph, lead

• During the Holocene,

• "During" has the meaning of "throughout," or "in the time of" and is more commonly applied to a time that has ended.

• Better in my view: "In the Holecene ..."

• Witnessed by people in the city of Arequipa,

• Arequipa was established in 1540, and after 60 years, it was most likely still a colonial settlement.

• Better in my view: the "town of" or "the settlement of" (later on we say "Arequipa Metropolitan Area" so people will know soon enough that it is a city now.)

I think that by contemporary definition it would be considered a "city". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• this eruption measured 6 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index

• This index was not around then and is quite likely based on historical reconstructions

• Better in my view: this eruption has been computed to measure 6 on ..."

• infrastructure a

• "infrastructure" is a modern word (ca. 1920s or 30s), with its meaning these days including power-plants, highways, airports, ports, dams, railroad tracks and whatnot.

• Better in view: "the foundations of buildings" (if that is what is meant; if not, perhaps you can explain a little more what is)

• It's a bit more the modern meaning, not simply architecture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• economic resources

• This too is vague in the context of a relatively new colonial settlement.

• Better in my view to mention the most salient resources by name.

• I don't think it's that much specified beyond "agriculture". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate; temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased, and millions of tons of acid were deposited. Floods, famines and cold waves resulted in numerous places in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in countries as far away as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.

• There are some coherence issues here: "millions of tons of acid," whose origin and effect are unexplained, appear in the middle of climate. Social upheavals appear between cold waves and the Little Ice Age.

• Better in my view: The eruption had a significant impact on Earth's climate: temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased; cold waves affected places in Europe, Asia and the Americas; and the climate disruption may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age. Floods, famines, and social upheavals resulted.

• (Note semi-colons are allowed in lists, especially ones with internal commas.) If the eruption really did have such an impact, then it is likely that floods, famines, and social upheavals were more widespread than in a few countries we are able to list. Also, this was a violent physical event; it is a situation for which we can–without stylistic worries–use the word "impact" in its figurative meaning.

• That is probably a better formulation, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Third paragraph, lead

• Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. There are fumaroles in its amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina.

• Probably better if second Huaynaputina ---> "this volcano." and "This volcano" in the following sentence ---> Huaynaputina

• lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity.

• Better in my view to make the clause restrictive: i.e. "lies in a remote region in which there is little human activity."

• Still, there are about 30,000 people living in the surrounding area, with another 1 million in the Arequipa metropolitan area.

• "Even so" is probably more precise than "still," or "Although H. lies in a remote region, there are ..." (but this is not a biggie; I use "still")
• "Surrounding area" can mean "immediately surrounding area," which can be confusing; better in my view: there are about 30,000 people living in its proximity, and another 1 million ..."

• That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• If an eruption similar to the 1600 event occurred, it would likely lead to a high death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption.

• occurred--> were to occur
• likely--> quite likely. (Your last volcano article was written in British/Commonwealth English which shuns the adverb "likely," a relatively recent Americanism, preferring "very likely." In this instance, the more modest "quite likely" is probably better. (Note: I tend to use only "likely" myself, though usually in informal situations.)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the lead. I hope I haven't made any typos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Fowler&fowler, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• Text-source integrety okay per previous FAC. I did noticed two more citations with improper name formatting. In FN 151, van den is part of the surname. In FN176 there is a double surname again formatted as a non-Spanish surname. Check if that is consistent throughout. FN160 seems dead. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Femkemilene:Corrected, with the catch that I don't know much about the formatting of Spanish (sur)names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Femkemilene: Should I take this as a full source review and as a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, this is a pass :). Should have said explicitly. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

AhmadLX

• I still think a number of technical terms need to be explained a little. Holocene, for example, should be described; something like "Holocene, the current geological epoch, ...". I will list others as I go through the article.

  Thanks for that, AhmadLX. I've added a note for Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The Peruvian Geophysical Institute announced in 2017 that Huaynaputina would be monitored by the Southern Volcanological Observatory." Any latest information on this? Did they do so or just said and forgot it afterwards;).

  Well, this is an odd one. Google News has both an article in 2020 saying the SVO will be ready in February 2021 but earlier articles that say it already exists. This one implies it already exists. Not sure how to resolve this. I've added the seismic monitoring part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Andes not linked at its first instance.

  Isn't the lead link enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay fine.

• "Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)." This is vague. Is its base at that elevation (as "lies" would suggest)? Or the highest point on the rim? Or the floor of the amphitheatre? Should be changed to something like "The summit of Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)."

  The source does not specify and none of the others I've seen discusses this aspect. I am guessing that the unusual morphology of the volcano makes it hard to assign it a height. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This one says "Summit Elevation 4850 m (15912 ft)".

Hmmm. That source does not explain how it comes to that conclusion and the last digit (0) makes me wonder if they are approximating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It is the very source that you've used in the article to support the elevation thing.

Yes, but as I've said this volcano does not quite have a "summit" so I am wary of interpreting it as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tephra, Speleothems: short description.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The duration of the eruption is not well constrained but may have lasted up to 12–19 hours.[94] The event ended on 6 March with ash fall;" What was happening between 20 February and 6 March?

  Added a sentence, but I invite suggestions on how to reduce the two mentions of "ash fall". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for over/about two weeks and ended on 6 March."?

Yeah, that's better; implemented it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "It has been proposed as a marker for the onset of the Anthropocene." Important term; short description.

  I admit, the source there does not bother to actually state an explicit definition of the term and its importance; it's more like several allusions. Do you have a proposed explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the controversy regarding the exact starting point of the epoch is not relevant here. We can just brief that it is a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable. This can be helpful.

I agree that the controversy doesn't matter, but even from the source currently used it doesn't seem like everybody defines it as "a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think you need links for crops and livestock.

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...while in Moquegua children were reportedly running around and women screaming." This has nothing to do with "Religious response".

  True, but I don't see a better place for it and it's kind of important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO, it is completely trivial. People scream in every disaster. There is nothing unusual about it to warrant a mention here. If people didn't scream and run around in such an event, that would be something of a note.

I am going to disagree on this one. I think that sentence helps underscore that this was an actual human tragedy rather than a statistical pattern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "56.59 million tons Global [200]". [200] cites Gao et al. 2008 for the value. I couldn't find anything on Huaynaputina there.

  No, but Gao et al. 2008 points to this database which has the value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The Huaynaputina eruption[133] decreased the amount on solar energy reaching Earth by about 1.9 W/m2." Please add % drop.

  The source doesn't mention a percentage and I am kind of iffy of applying WP:CALC here; insolation variations while small are non-trivial. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Iceland, Canada, Taiwan, California (I'm not sure about the other US states but this one is certainly well-known), Kazakhstan, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Switzerland, England, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Latvia, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Taiwan (again), Thailand, Japan, Korea, Nepal. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX:Is there any other problem that needs addressing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Although I believe that several of my concerns were dismissed through unconvincing arguments (both here and in PR), I, nonetheless, think that this now meets the criteria. so I support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Quechua name of Waynaputina from the infobox should be mentioned in the names section

  Removed it pending a source as I can't find anything endorsing that spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely for sure what the value of link to List of volcanoes in Peru in the infobox is

  For people who want to know more about Peruvian volcanoes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is the redirect El Misti the correct link in the context of " Other volcanoes in this zone from northwest to southeast include Sara Sara, Coropuna, Ampato, Sabancaya, El Misti, Ubinas, Ticsani, Tutupaca and Yucamane"?

  Yes, it's a common name for that volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for about two weeks[82] and ended on 6 March;[5] the air was clear of ash from the eruption on 2 April 1600 - is the " an error, or is it an unclosed quote?

  An error. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the Huayruro Project began in 2015 and aims to rediscover these towns" - Any update on this?

  Not that much, and what little there is is a bit too specific I think. It's more about the towns than the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• While the flora of the volcano is mentioned, fauna don't seem to be. Even if wildlife is not present on the volcano in significant numbers, I feel like that should be mentioned.

  The problem is that there is no source definitively discussing fauna in the context of Huaynaputina. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The external link is dead and should be removed or archived. If it doesn't add anything significant, just remove it.

  Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't see where the 500,000 age of rock figure from the infobox appears in the body; I may have missed it.

  It's not based on anything, just typical infobox OR. I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not all of the non-English sources state which language they are in; this should be added for all non-English sources.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm:Replied to queries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, with the understanding that the article will be updated in the future if studies on fauna on the volcano are performed. Did not check other criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

OpposeSupport from TRM

• "is a stratovolcano in" vs "Huaynaputina is a large volcanic crater" - as a non-expert these two appear to contradict one another. You then say it has "an outer stratovolcano" rather than is a stratovolcano. I'm very confused.

  I've reduced it to just "volcano". An unqualified "stratovolcano" is indeed misleading, as Huaynaputina looks quite different from a regular stratovolcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the Holocene[a], Huaynaputina" horrible footnote placement.

  Moved it to after the comma, but I am not sure what other means there is to explain this piece of jargon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "to measure 6 on the" this gives no indication to non-experts as to the severity.
• "The eruption had a " also.

  I've re-cast the paragraph that these two comments pertain to to put this line at the end; the other sentences explain the impact more clearly for non-specialists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "affected places in Europe" places reads odd to me.

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Did it kill anyone?

  Added this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "its amphitheatre, and" you footnote the previous jargon term but wikt this one, and I know what an amphitheatre is in the Roman sense, but certainly not in the volcanic sense. Why the different approach to jargon?

  Mainly because amphitheatre isn't the kind of term that you can find a footnote-able explanation for; it's just a shape. I've put a somewhat better explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "with Huaynaputina. Huaynaputina lies" repetitive.

  How did I miss that? Replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "remote region, where there" no comma required.

  Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "there are about 30,000 people living in " -> "about 30,000 people live in"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "with another 1 million" ->" and around one million"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "monitored ... monitoring" repetitive.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "View of the crater and part of the nearby valley." fragment, no full stop required.

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "(15,900 ft) [1]" no space before references.

  Sorry, but I don't know how to fix that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Huge table of contents creates masses of whitespace at the start of the article.

  I'll ask for assistance on WT:FAC; I tried to change this but it didn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "was given to" by whom? Locals? Officials?

  We don't know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The volcano El Misti was sometimes confused" in what sense? They look like each other in books? Or they're misrecognised when looking out to the distance?

  Geographers have sometimes called one volcano with the name of the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "with volcanic explosivity index of 6+" I guess you mean "6 or greater", or is there a category called 6+? Still not sure what this means contextually.

  The former, which I've added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the Moquegua Region of" is that a formal title? It redirects to "Department of Moquegua"....

  Yes, that's the formal title. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The city Moquegua " -> "The city of Moquequa"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "4,850 metres (15,910 ft)" using different accuracy to infobox here.

  Matched the infobox to this; since it's not a mountain peak we cannot be very precise with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "400-metre (1,300 ft) deep.[9] This horseshoe-shaped[19] structure opens eastwards[20] and ..." perhaps just aesthetics but I find it very jarring to read through all these interspersed references. I'm certain our readers will be okay with them being grouped at the end of sentences for such mundane facts.

  I've simplified this one a bit, but the drawback of grouping is that folks need to check several references at once to verify a given statement. I am not sure if that is an improvement. Regardless, if I may, I'd like to leave the current citation format in place until everybody has reviewed the content; as I found out with Laguna del Maule (volcano) fixing any content issue is harder with grouped references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I mean "margin[15] of a rectangular[22] high plateau[15] that" is just too much.

  That one's fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "by ash about 2 metres (6.6 ft) thick" ->"by about 2 metres (6.6 ft) of ash"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "600 m (0.37 mi) " I would stick with converting to feet, not many people recognise miles as a unit above the ground.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dunes is linked to the ones made of sand, is that what you mean?

  Yes. Sand, tephra, not really much of a difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Another southeastward-opening landslide scar" was there another such landslide I missed?

  You didn't miss anything, we don't have information on this other landslide beyond the fact that it left a scar so the article doesn't say more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""about 400-metre (1,300 ft) wide " not adjective, 400 metres.
• Same: 200-metre (660 ft) wide.

  Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• And suddenly back to spelling out units?

  Hmm, I think they all are? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nope. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I got this now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "as a maar" why isn't this explained?
• "a phreatomagmatic eruption" likewise.
• "a Plinian eruption in" and this.
• "Dacitic dykes crop out ..." this whole sentence is pretty much beyond me.

  Added footnoted explanations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to the Geology section. The biggest concern here is the jargon and also not mad keen on all the crowbarred references. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Did these things. If I may, I'd like to ask that the current reference style stay until everybody has got a chance to review the content - as mentioned before, grouped references make it harder to solve a content issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the uplift of the Andes mountains and Altiplano plateau" the uplift of both?

  Yes; clarified in text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "subduction is oblique, leading to strike-slip faulting"" unexplained jargon.

  Clarified the latter, I don't think that "oblique" is jargon? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "does not occur along the entire length" this reads odd, like it's saying it doesn't occur anywhere along the length of it.

  Honestly, I don't think that can be written differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Quaternary activity limited to the southern" what does that mean?

  Rewritten, does "Quaternary" need an explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "300–500 m-thick (0.19–0.31 mi)" convert to ft.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "from the ignimbritic" what's that?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• What does "pre-existent" mean?

  Reworded these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "from calderas. One such caldera" merge to avoid repetition.

  Tried that and every formulation was ambiguous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "has a similar structure as " similar to not similar as.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Tambo graben[50]"" what's a graben?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "slip faults. The faults "' repetitive.

  As before, it becomes ambiguous without the repetition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "and recent seismic" what timeframe constitutes "recent"?

  Put "historical" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "they share a magma" link magma first time.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "are dacites, which" overlinked.

  De-overlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "which define a calc-alkaline,[55] potassium-rich suite[56] sometimes described as adakitic" lost on me, completely.
• "contain rhyolite inclusions[56] and a rhyolite matrix.[58] Andesite" likewise.

  I see, but I don't think thes ones can be trivially explained, especially since they are about composition which is really only of interest to specialists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• 'The Huaynaputina pumices' the?
• "have a white colour" is "are white" the same thing?

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "of volatiles in " what are they?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "'The amount of volatiles in the magma appears..." magma appears four times in one sentence.

  Cut two of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "change may explain changes" repetitive.

  Cut one of them but I don't know if it's too clear now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• 'Crustal interactions and crystal fractionation processes" what does that mean>

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "of mafic magmas" what?

  Added an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "depths of more than..." depths used three times in one sentence.

  Cut one of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "new dacitic magma" overlinked.

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "deep andesitic magmas" andesite is already linked.

  Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Eruption history". Generally this section is for all intents and purposes inaccessible to anyone without some level of expert knowledge in volcanology. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It should be clearer now I think, but the detailed geology and in particular composition are really only of interest to people who know at least some concepts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the Pastillo volcanic complex" no link?

  Not enough material to justify a link, especially since it's notability is merely "the volcano that Huaynaputina rises above". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "of half-a-kilometre-thick " why not just 0.5 km?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Pleistocene" should be linked but probably first time.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• " postglacial " this redirects to Holocene, confusing for someone who isn't an expert.

  The terms are often - not always - synonymous, but the intuitive reading "after the ice age" is correct enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "flows deposits" reads odd, should it just be flow deposits?

  I don't see it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it. Volcanoguy 22:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "years before present, respectively"" Before Present is capitalised according to our article.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "respectively.[85][1] The" order.

  Switched. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The first event" is this the first eruption or the first pair of eruptions or something else?

  Changed to "the first of these". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Salinas north of Huaynaputina and" -> "Salinas, north of Huaynaputina, and"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "amphitheatr" typo.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "and was blown" -> "which was blown"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The last eruption may..." well, you mean the eruption that preceded the 1600 one, not the "last" one.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "ejecta" is that a general term for "stuff ejected from a volcano"?

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  I guess when I'm asking I mean "non-expert readers don't know this". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Changed it to something more general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think "personal clothing" classes as a sacrifice, perhaps an offering.

  I agree, but the other two do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  But you can't use that for all three if it only applies to two! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Put "offerings" in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "offered sacrifices ... offered sacrifices" repetitive.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• General: why isn't the "1600 eruption" part of the "Eruption history" section?

  If memory serves, because the subsectioning got wonky after that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "white fumes and smell of rotten eggs" well can we say actually what it is?
• "gave temperatures" recorded temperatures of?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ah you do say what the fumes are made of, but three sentences later, put them together.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• "influenced by surface waters" what does that mean?

  Means that surface waters mix into the waters that emerge at these hot springs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Up to "1600 eruption" section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• ("and pyroclastic flows.[84] " overlinked in the Holocene section)

  Hmm? I only see one link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• VEI is used as an abbreviation but not explained, add it (VEI) after the fist expanded use.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "on the 15th" avoid awkward 15th, say "four days prior" or similar.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "reports of late ash falls may be due to wind-transported ash" repetitive.

  Can't think of a better formulation, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "from Arequipa ... from Arequipa" ditto.

  This one is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Stratigraphically, the eruption deposits have been subdivided into five formations." what does that mean? Are the five formations worth noting?

  Not that much, this sentence is more for specialists. I'll move it down so that folks don't miss stuff if they skip it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• No need to link common word like ice.

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "new, "Dacite 1" magma" why comma?

  Otherwise folks might think that there is both an old and a new "Dacite 1" magma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• first Plinian stage" what's one of those?
• "Vulcanian eruptions" what's that?

  Same as in the preceding mentions of these terms. Would it be better to put notes here too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "explosions[130] and noises that could be heard" would those be the same "noises"?

  Not all noises are explosions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• " English corsairs" is linked to privateer. That's odd for me, a very specific pipe for a general link like that.

  If memory serves, they were indeed privateers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the viceroy of Peru sent" most sources seem to indicate that "Viceroy" is capitalised in this usage.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "tongues of fire" very evocative, not very encyclopedic.

  I know this sounds weird from me, but I am trying to write also for general audiences which can visualize what I can talk about better if some evocative formulations are used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "form at Huaynaputina, in the form" repetitive.

  Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "in historical time" when is this?

  When there were people around to record and remember the events. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• 1883 eruption of Krakatoa has an article.
• As does 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

  Linked both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "volume of tephra erupted by" overlinked.
• "of dacitic tephra" overlinked and repetitive.

  Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the eruption ... erupted" repetitive.

  Solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the dense rock equivalent of" dense-rock is usually hyphenated in this usage.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "closer to the volcano" that's some step up, how much closer?

  Source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any chance of a tephra fallout diagram?

  I'll ask on Commons, but I don't promise anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "ashfall in Nicaragua are" context, how far away, why implausible?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to the "Local impact" section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Ash falls, pumice falls and pyroclastic flows incinerated everything" the ash and pumice presumably didn't incinerate anything.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Ash fall, debris flows and pyroclastic flows.." this is getting repetitive...

  Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "has been deemed" by whom?

  It doesn't seem like it was a specific person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Bolivia mostly" comma after Bolivia.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Camaná seems to have lost its diacritic.

  It's gotten it back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "some villages lost their entire populations" vs "The local population fled during the eruption" this are incompatible.

  Not really, in some villages everybody was killed and these who didn't fled the region. Added a "surviving" though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "fatalities,[23] not counting any fatalities" repetitive

  Cut the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "after an earthquake" odd place to link earthquake...

  Unlinked, I think everybody knows what an earthquake is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the second stage" of the eruption?

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "good wine" according to whom?

  Cut the adjective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Don't link common words like "cattle". Or tax.

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Quinistacas valley" no link?

  It has no article, and I am not sure it should have one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""Quinistacas valley moved to Moquegua because the Quinistacas valley was" reepetitive.

  Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "as far away as in Bolivia" don't need that "in".

  Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "as far away as ... as far as" repetitive.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "city ... city" also.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "children were reportedly running around and women screaming" is that a religious response or just human nature?

  Probably the latter but I don't think there is a better section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "their clandestine native religion" why "clandestine"?

  Because the Spanish were trying to Christianize the region back then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• No need to link "devil".

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "horrifying storms"[205][86] which" order.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref col in table no need to be sortable.

  Not sure how to change that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  class=unsortable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  I think I got this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• In sortable tables, every item that's linked should be linked every time as there's no guarantee which one will come first after a re-sort. Alternatively, make the table unsortable, it doesn't offer much utility here.

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "46 million tons of sulfate aerosols" so is that sulfuric acid or not??

  They are (mostly) the same thing but some sources say this and others that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  That doesn't answer the question really. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  They are not the exact same thing. I've rewritten this on the assumption that WP:CALC applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""the northern Hemisphere" shouldn't that be Northern?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "large amount of sulfur" odd place to link sulfur.

  Nah, it's the first mention of the explicit term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  I take it that's a joke! I think it appears about seven times before that one! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Moved the link up but I note that some of these mentions are for "sulfuric acid" not "sulfur". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "inferred from ice core data"" likewise for ice core.

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Climate impacts", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• No need to link basic terms like "sunlight".

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "about 1.9 W/m2." this is context-free: how much does the Earth normally get? What kind of % reduction are we talking about?

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the northern hemisphere during" capitalisation consistency.

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "found somewhere in Iceland" is "somewhere" needed here?

  No; removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "perhaps in 1600" who thinks this? Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be saying this

  Rewrote this; I don't think that we can specifically attribute it to someone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""the 1257 Samalas eruption and the 1453 Kuwae eruption" overlinked.

  Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""10% growth of Northern Hemisphere" odd place to link Northern Hemisphere.
• And "sea ice".

  Unlinked both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the subpolar gyre.[244] " what is that?

  The only concise definition I can find is at this source, but I am not sure if it's clear enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "1601 and 1603 tree..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• " El Niño-Southern Oscillation.[254]"" en-dash, not hyphen.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "1605 ± 5 " this is odd, I'd make it a footnote.

  I don't think it needs to be there, it's simply a margin of errors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "last thousand years" last as of now or last as of then?

  Clarified, but now I am unsure if it's too close to the source: Mono Lakefilled rapidly in the first half of the 17th century to brieflyreach the highest level of the past millennium

• ""additional solar influence" in what sense?

  Rewrote, the source is not clear enough as to which solar minimum it's referring to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "of palsas in" what are they?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link oat but not barley?
• Oh you do, here "worst barley and rye harvests", so link it first time.

  Linked the first time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "a plague outbreak" is there a more specific link for what type of plague?

  No, the source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "1601 was called a "green year..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "winter 1601–1602" of

  I think that it's clear enough that we are referring to the winter between these years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• " Russian famine of 1601–03" 1603

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1601 Japan, Lake Suwa froze" -> In Japan in 1601

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "cities of Moquegua and Arequipa, respectively" overlinked.

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "worst-case"" should be hyphenated here.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "recorded around the amphitheatre with no recorded"" repetitive.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just the refs remaining on this first pass now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:OK, I totally missed these comments. I'll do these now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd expect to see all ISBNs formatted the same.

  Can they? Not all ISBNs I can find have the hyphens, but most do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 134, pp. and space after comma.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 172: lang parameter.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 204: lang parameter.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 272: pp. and en-dash.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 290 title has --, should be en-dash.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 294, pp. and space after comma.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 300: lang parameter.
• Ref 301: lang parameter.
• Check sources for non-English text and add lang as appropriate.
• Then after that it's just resolving the awkward placement of a lot of the references.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man:Done to here save for the awkward placement thing; partly in case someone else has issues with content and partly because a less awkward source placement makes it more awkward to verify a statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ok my comments are resolved, but I can't support an article which is so fractured by references. It's horrendous to read and of no benefit at all to our readers. Everything else now seems to be in order. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man:I've moved all the references that were mid-sentence so that they follow on punctuation. Perhaps that helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: is it better now, or do you think more ref shuffling is needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Much better, happy to support now. Good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Volcanoguy

• Comment. I gave the article a look through and there is honestly not much I can suggest. The main thing that stood out is the introduction which seems kind of smallish for its length, especially the first paragraph. Make sure the introduction covers all of the core information in the article. Volcanoguy 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Volcanoguy:I've done a mini-expansion but I am not sure what else could be added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it is good enough how it is. Support. Volcanoguy 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [77].

---

London and North Western Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised.

I'm grateful to Carcharoth for his input in the article's development, Thryduulf for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Images are missing alt texts
• File:Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Alt text added (not sure how good or useful it is, though; happy to take advice on improvements). RWO's dates added to the description page on Commons out of an abundance of caution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

I supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Thryduulf

Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.

• The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
  • Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
• Consider using {{inflation}} to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
  • I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
• Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
  • Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
• Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Trimmed. Thanks for your comments, Chris, and thank you for taking the photos used in the gallery. Just goes to show that you never know what will be useful one day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Fulfills my source review. I haven't don't any spot checks, but I don't see a strong reason to at this stage --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. For what it's worth, Hawkeye did a spot check at the ACR; he appears to have copies of some of the books. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Comments from Nick-D

I'm fascinated by World War I memorials erected by companies for some reason - maybe as they illustrate the trauma the war caused across society - and am interested in visiting this memorial when the world returns to normal and I'm next able to travel to the UK. I'd like to offer the following minor comments:

• The first para should note the number of LNWR employees who were killed, given this is the subject of the memorial
• The order of sentences in the first two paras of the 'Background' section feels a bit random. I'd suggest starting with what the LNWR was, then the size of the company, then the numbers of its staff who fought, etc. The sentence about companies building memorials might best work in the last para of this section.
• Can anything be said about how donations from the company's staff were solicited? (for instance, was this effort led by management, or was it led by the workers and/or their unions?) Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for the comments! I agree there's something fascinating about company war memorials. I think they show that the war affected all areas of life. Though somehow I don't think modern companies would feel moved to build monuments if something similar were to happen today. Let me know when you're planning a trip to the UK and I'll try to get up to London so we can visit it together. I believe I've addressed your first two comments. As to your third, there's nothing in the sources about this; it seems to be implied that there was some sort of agreement that the company would cover a large percentage of the cost, possibly as a unifying gesture following the 1919 strike. This is in contrast to the NER, interestingly, who built a large memorial entirely at the company's expense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'm happy to support the nomination now. With a sufficient amount of luck (and an acceleration in Australia's vaccine program) I'm hoping to visit Europe late next year. I wouldn't be shocked if it isn't doable though! Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Remember that the lede is a summary of the whole article. Don't give exact figures for manpower or money there; save them for the main body.
• Same with its height, the detailed description of the memorial, the name of the prominent attendees and the date of unveiling, etc.
• Put the citations above the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by 👨x🐱

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I've seen you around at other FA discussions, so thought I'd stop by to review this. As an American who's a dummy in history, I'll be the perfect user to comment on this XD.

• Infobox image has no alt description.
• Any reason why some image alts start with a lower-case letter?
• There's some history and sculpture WP:JARGON in the lead I didn't get on a first read (hey, that rhymes), so it should be linked or explained. "Obelisk" "pedestal" "bronze wreath" "over-life-size" "artilleryman," "infantryman," "sailor," "airman"
• More of the same in the body that introductory readers may not get the first time: "private-sector", "artillery shells", "munitions", "conscripted", "granite tablet", "Buttresses", "the Western Front". Check for others
• Lead: "much of the company's infrastructure was turned over to the war effort." Body: "During the First World War (1914–1918), it turned much of Crewe Works, its main engineering facility, over to the war effort." The lead implies most of the infrastructure of all of the company's facilities went to World War I, but this contradicts the body.
• "skilled employees" WP:VAGUE. Why are we calling the employees "skilled"? Isn't skill required to do any work in the first place, or did these employees have elite skills most others didn't have?
• "introduction of conscription," Why not just conscription?
• "to commemorate their employees who were killed in the war." I find this to be Fluff. I think it's obvious what war memorials are to introductory readers.
• "Owen also designed a war memorial" Read MOS:LINKCLARITY to see the problem here.
• Why is "R. L. Boulton & Sons." not credited in the lead for building the statue?
• Why do the first two paragraphs of "Design" have all of the cites bundled at the end of paragraph? Why not certain citations for certain sentences? I don't imagine all of those citations having every single detail in that paragraph.
• "The tablets are inscribed "Remember the men and women of the London Midland and Scottish Railway 1939–1945"." Does this mean all the later tablets had that text on them?
• Lead: "a cross in relief". Body: "stone cross protruding from the body itself". I found relief a simpler description with the link to the article about relief.
• "Obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, though Wynn Owen" --> "Although obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, Wynn Owen"
• " he intended the addition of the crosses" Hold on, those crosses were "added"? I thought they were initially built with the rest of the sculpture, that doesn't speak "added" to me. Addition would imply crosses were after well after the sculpture was made.
• Per MOS:FAMILYNAME, you must present the full name of a person on his first mention in the article, than reference him by his last name. Any reason why "Wynn Owen" is repeated instead of just Owen? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, gave a dedication." Vague. What kind of dedication?
• Since you use an initialism of "Victoria Cross" late in the article and introduce the full phrase in the background section, "Victoria Cross" --> "Victoria Cross (VC)"
• "largest for a railway company war memorial." Of all-time? Until another war memorial had happened later in history?
• Was is "the official narrative of the war"? What are "special trains"?
• Since more than half of the "History" section is about the memorial, I would split it into two sections. One would be about the memorial, the other about the statue's presence in later years.
• "The company also produced a Roll of Honour, a copy of which was presented to the nearest living relative of each of the dead." Was the "Roll of Honour"? I'm guessing it's a paper or book or some sort. Only description word used is "volume", which I don't know what that is.

Well-done article overall. The prose is engaging and professional, but needs some clarification or linking in places. I imagine memorials don't get much coverage besides those in history and awards books, although I did find these. I don't have the book sources with me or can access them, so I would ask another review to spotcheck the sources.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Bibliography

• Do you usually have the texts before the short citations? I can't recall seeing it done this way before.
• ISBNs lack hyphens (try this tool).
• Ashplant et al. 2000: Does Ashplant normally go by his initials? Almost everyone else in this list gets a full name. Routledge could take a link.
• Biddle 2011: Ian Allan Publishing could take a link.
• Boorman 1988/2005: Is Boorman Derek Boorman? Pen and Sword Books could take a link.
• Darroch 1920: Ditto re: initials. This is out of copyright in at least some locations, so may as well add a link. Speaking of links: John Murray (publishing house).
• Hooper & Portillo 2014: Michael Portillo can take a link, as could Bantam Press.
• King 1998: Berg Publishers.
• Koureas 2007: Routledge again.
• Lambert 2018: Historic England.
• Simmons & Biddle 1997: Jack Simmons (historian) & Oxford University Press.

Citations

• Generally speaking I'd suggest sfn footnotes, though preferences obviously vary.
• #1: What does "location 1803–1830" mean?
• #14: The article from The Times is undoubtedly available online somewhere.
• #24: The "eds" is probably unnecessary here.

Source from this version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Harry, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like Harry's been on WP for around three weeks so we'll have to close this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [78].

---

1987 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.

Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Len_Ganley.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • removed. I thought it was a commons image.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

HF

I see this hasn't gotten much attention, so I'll give it a read-through. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Featuring 32 participants; the highest ranked 16 players were awarded a place in the first round draw, whilst a pre-tournament qualification event was held for 104 professionals between 26 March to 4 April at the Preston Guild Hall for the remaining places" - Are you sure that should be a semicolon?

• I've tweaked the lead slightly, hopefully for the better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• " Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the youngest player to win a match in the tournament's history," - I believe there should be a comma after 18, as "aged 18" is an appositive

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The championship was held from 18 April and 4 May 1987" - Maybe this is an engvar issue, but giving a date span with "and" just does not seem right to me.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• So maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but I did my math in Excel, and I'm still not getting things to add up right. So the winner gets $80,000, second place gets $48,000; two people get $24,000; four people get $12,000; eight get $6,000; and 16 get $3375; in addition, $8,000 for highest break and $80,000 if you pull off a maximum break. It's adding up to 414,000 for me. (Yes, I know it's pounds, but my keyboard doesn't have a key for the pounds sign).

• It looks like the total from sources included the amount for third and fourth qualifying round losers, but excluded the £80,000 that would have been awarded for a maximum break. I've added a source that includes the qualifying amounts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Could be worth a footnote, IMO, to clarify this. Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Move the link to deciding frame from the second mention to the first.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player to date to win a match at the event." this caption and the lead both suggest that Hendry's win was the youngest ever in tournament history (back to 1927), while the body text for this suggests that Hendry's was only the youngest since the move to the Crucible Theater as the arena

• I've amended the lead as I didn't find a reference for him being the youngest winner in tournament history. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a link for foul shots? It's not obvious to someone unfamiliar with snooker what a foul shot would be in this sport, as presumeably these aren't like free throws.

• I've linked the first instance to "foul" at Glossary of cue sports terms BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Downer needs a publisher.

• It's a self-published source, but I think it's fair to say that he is regarded as an expert. The book is sold via Snooker Scene. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• I did some digging around, and do agree with you that this is probably an acceptable source. It seems to be widely cited.

• I normally check source reliability in my reviews, but I'm not familiar with these snooker sources at all, so I'll have to leave that for someone else. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the constructive review Hog Farm. I've tried to address all of the points that you raised - let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, source formatting, and 4; did not check others or was not familiar enough with subject matter. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

Please consider this a non-expert review.

• "Johnson, however, reached the final, in a rematch of the previous year's final, he played Steve Davis in the final." Very awkward sentence, with "final" used three times and too many commas.

• Amended, but could perhaps still be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the" comma after 18

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Prize fund: as a non-snooker player, I understand who gets the money in most of the categories. However, I don't understand what Highest break and maximum break refers to. Perhaps a note or an explanation under the prize fund section is in order.
  • Sure, we do link to these though in the table. (I.E Highest break and maximum break. Perhaps we should have something on the maximum break that clarifies that it's a bonus if someone did make a maximum, rather than a prize for something that is guaranteed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In other FACs, it's been mentioned that uncommon terms and jargon should not require a reader to click a wikilink. Since people can win money for fulfilling these conditions, I suggest a note be used for these terms so that readers can get the info at the bottom of the page. This is how other articles with specialist terms have fulfilled this suggestion lately. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll withdraw this concern, as other reviewers haven't flagged this as a concern, and I think the wikilinks suffice. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Gino Rigitano conceded the 11th frame of his match against Steve Newbury when there were still enough balls on the table for him to win," Why did he concede? Seems like a significant event if it's getting its own sentence.

• The source says "...Newbury having victory handed to him .... The Canadian conceded the 11th frame when he was 61 points behind with six reds on the table. He quit altogether when the score was 9-4, deciding not to come out for the last frame." I think this was commented on because it's unusual for a professional snooker player to concede a frame and match from these positions, but the source doesn't say that. I'll see if any other sources have more. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's a shame, as players usually get a fine for this! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find anything else in sources about this, so I suppose the options are either to leave it pretty much as it is, or remove it as not significant given that only one source found mentions it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm fine with leaving it in if the source can't verify additional info. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• " Bill Werbeniuk and Eddie Charlton both also failed" Remove both

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "He received £2,000 for this break, the highest during qualifying." Is this separate from the £8000 in the prize fund section?

• Yes, I've amended the prize fund section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "with the match being going to a deciding frame" delete "being"

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "then won the next after needing his opponent to make foul shots to win 10–7." Did his opponent succeed in the foul shots? What are foul shots? This sentence confused me.
  • I've reworded this (as per a suggestion to comment on "snookers required"), hopefully this is a bit better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

More comments will come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• In the references, sometimes news articles show the date in the brackets after the author and other times they list it further into the reference. Please standardise.

• I think this is a feature of the reference template. Help:Citation Style 1 says "When an author is cited, the date of the cited work is displayed after the author's name ... If no author is cited, the date appears after the title". Let me know if there are any exceptions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Crucible Almanac's refs seem like they are missing something. Should a publisher be listed?

• It's a self-published source sold via the magazine Snooker Scene. I think it's fair to say that the work is well-regarded. It's mentioned here as "a key resource for commentators and journalists alike." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it for my first round. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Round two, just one comment:

• "The 11-time pool world champion Jim Rempe,[29] made a break of 104" Either remove the comma or put one after champion

Some bullet points above are also missing responses. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Added additonal comment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I added two comments above, and one below:

• For the first paragraph in "Format", why is reference [14] used three times in a row? Is it WP:OVERCITE or perhaps we can separate the page numbers and identify on which specific page number each sentence is verified by. Since articles are first-and-foremost for readers, imo excessive footnotes when they are not needed (and are repeating the same footnote after each sentence) should be avoided.

• I've changed the references here as the 1987-88 Rothmans Yearbook has a clearer statement than the 1991-92 edition that this was the last ranking event of the season, and I've amended another one to Downer's 2019 Crucible Almanac. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for tolerating my nit-picking. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like all of my concerns have been resolved. I'll support this nom. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Pawnkingthree

• I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article, well up to the standards of Lee's previous snooker FAs. My only concern is with the awkward and long-winded sentence, "After this, Davis required White to make foul shots in order to gain the necessary penalty points from them for Davis to win the frame." Why not just "After this, Davis required snookers?" I realize it's jargon, but that's what wikilinks are for.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree... But I've had prior with links not being suitable for jargon terms at FAC. It's one of those things that is worse because snooker has a few different meanings, so specifically saying foul points does explain what is on, and the link can also explain more. Thanks for the support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TRM

• 1987 Embassy World Snooker Championship could be created as a plausible redirect to this article.

• Created. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "had a series of poor results since his 1986 victory" I guess you mean in the run-up to this tournament but it's not 100% clear.

• Amended in the lead and body, but may need a bit more work. The sources used are really commenting about the season as a whole rather than than match results, so I'm not sure that "poor results" was really the right phrase. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "66–1 outsider" perhaps to avoid having to explain what 66–1 means in the lead, drop that and just mention it in the main part of the article, perhaps with a link to fixed-odds betting?

• Pending... I think it's worth keeping something in the lead that mentions he was seen as an outsider, but that doesn't feel like the right term without the connection to bookmakers' odds. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• What about: "and had high odds against winning the tournament." or similar. The article goes into the details, and this would be a summary - but also make it clear it was the bookmakers who were against Johnson. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "was a 127 made" can't decide if "a" is needed here or not.

• I've removed it as there was only the one 127 break, but would be happy to reinstate it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox says it was organised by WPBSA but that's not really mentioned explicitly.

• added some content. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England, the" you literally said this the last sentence of the previous para.

• Removed repetition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "four-round knockout qualifying competition" isn't there a suitable link for this?

• That would be single-elimination tournament, which we already linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "as seeded players" seed was mentioned before this linked variant.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "4 April, and produced" -> "4 April which produced"

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "as best-of-19-frames" not like me, I know, but perhaps you could add "meaning ten frames were required to win the match" only because you then go on to talk about how many frames were required in subsequent rounds.

• Amended BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "bookmakers' outsider, priced at 66–1 " I've been asked to link bookmaker and also you could link "priced" to the odds article I noted above.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "On 6 April" maybe more contextual to say "Twelve days before the start of the tournament..."?

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "most serious being" -> "most serious of which was" to avoid ing ing.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "104 entrants to qualifying, although four" gah, MOSNUM, comparable values, all numerals or all words...

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "but Frank Jonik, Eddie McLaughlin, Sakchai Sim Ngam and Omprakesh Agrawal all withdrew" you've said four withdrew already, need to merge these.

• Amended, by deleting the earlier reference to this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "11-time pool world champion" was he a specific variant of pool champ?

• The source used here didn't mention this so I looked around. His BCA Hall of Fame entry mentions that he won 11 world titles but doesn't give a full list - looks like the World One-Pocket Championship, the World 9-Ball Championship, and the World Straight Pool Championship were among the titles, as well as the impressive "All-Around Champion of the World." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• If using the surname is not ambiguous, just use that and not repeat the first name, your approach at the moment is inconsistent.

• Amended. I've kept it so that the first round uses first name and surname, even though some players are mentioned earlier to avoid a mix of full names and surnames being used for players in the same section of the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The first round was" maybe "of the main tournament"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player..." add a "pictured in" because that photo was taken 22 years later...

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• "player Willie Thorne. Hendry led 5–4" -> "player Willie Thorne and led 5–4"

• Amended - I didn't include the "and" because there's one soon after, so this could probably be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "player to win a match" repetitive use of "win", perhaps "to secure a victory"?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "wasn't" avoid contractions.

• Amended - also changed to "and was not" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The 1985 Champion" no need for capital C.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "best-of-25 held" +frames.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "frame on a re-spotted black.[18] " overlinked.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Hendry wrapped up a" bit colloquial.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "O'Kane, ranked 39th in the world rankings," probably should have mentioned that in the first round when he beat the second seed?

  Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• "frames in a row and were tied at 8–8. " reads odd, maybe "frames in a row and the match was tied at 8–8."?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "frames in-a-row to" not sure that needs hyphenating. At least, be consistent.

• Hyphens removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "failed in an attempt to pot a red" why not "missed a red"?

• Discussed below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Crop the Foulds image to get rid of the clown...!
  • You not a Murphy fan? I have no image manipulation skills whatsoever. Is there a suitable place to request this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at this. Pinging Nikkimaria who had kindly reviewed images earlier, as I've hopefully provided appropriate attribution but am not entirely sure. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Have just linked the original uploader. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• "in frame 7; allowing" no need for the semi-colon.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "frame 7" vs " frame eight"...

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link maximum break.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• You normally link fluke to the cuegloss.

• cuegloss link added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• (I'm not going to ask you explain the notion of a free ball here, but can you imagine trying to do that...?)
• Put "pictured in" for Davis image too, once again it's 20 or so years after this event.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The last time that two players had met in consecutive finals at the World Championship " just to be clear, say where these were played as the "at the Crucible" is vital to the previous sentence.

• I'm not sure about the statement "from 1947 to 1951, five years in a row" currently in the article, as Fred Davis and John Pulman met in the 1955 World Professional Match-play Championship and 1956 World Professional Match-play Championship finals, now seen as world championships although they weren't called that at the time. Perhaps we should have a note to explain the choice of 1951 or 1956, Lee Vilenski? Either way, it was at the Tower Circus in Blackpool, which is easy to get a citation for. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Amended to show 1955 and 1956, as these are regarded as world championships. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "This was the" +also.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Davis' lead" Davis's.... :(

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "last red ball when" you link red ball here?

• Linked in correct place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "but failed on an attempt to pot a red" again, "missed a red"?

• Even top players sometimes miss the object ball with the cue ball..so there is a difference, although perhaps "missed a red" is still better as a commonly-understood term? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, I get it. I'd never thought of it that way, maybe just "failed to pot a red"? It's just a mouthful right now to equate to "missed a red" (albeit now I understand the possible ambiguity here now!) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a pitfall I've falled into a few times. I've reworded that line entirely, as it's not very clear. "Failed to pot" is indeed much better than "Missed a red", which I would indeed suggest gets into foul and a miss teritory.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• You link yellow ball but not green or pink...

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "won on the colours" probably needs a bit more.

• Agreed. Reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

• "winners.[17][16][78]" order.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "first frameof the" space.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "lowest world championship high break" beating which record low?

• 1977's highest break was 135 by John Spencer. This was the "lowest high break" at the Crucible until 1986, where Steve Davis' 134 was the highest. Should something be added about this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would just add "beating the previous record of 135 by Spencer" or words to that effect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've had a go, but I'm not delighted with my wording. Maybe make this a footnote rather than body text? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 71, en-dash.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 40, get rid of extraneous title material.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 11 links the work, seems to be the only one?

• Only because it's in the {{National Heritage List for England}} template. I have added the param that removes this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 30 is BBC Sport.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• As is ref 40.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Consistent ISBN formats.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That's my thoughts for a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• @BennyOnTheLoose and Lee Vilenski: Have all of TRM's points been addressed?
  • I think so. TRM did say he was unlikely to be onwiki for the rest of the day, happy to address anything not satisfactory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the thorough and constructive review, The Rambling Man and apologies it has taken so long to reply to all of the points. Let us know what else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi TRM, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I meant to get back to this. I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [79]

Formatting

• You seem to be a bit inconsistent with including websites & publisher or just publishers, is there a reason for this?

• I've made some changes that I hope have improved consistency, but happy to make further changes as necessary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• wpbsa should be wpbsa.com for ref 10—like the others, right?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think ref 11 has an author and date

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• ref 17 has a missing author

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• ref 19 should have "pp." and spaces after the commas

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what your retrieval date inclusion criteria is here

• I've filled in a missing retrieval date, and the other missing one had gone as part of merging what were refs 74/75. Unless I've missed any, all website sources should now have a retrieval date, but if there are any other issues then please advise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• ref 74 and 75 seem to be the same one

• Amended. I've used "A brief history of the World Professional Championship" rather than "World Professional Championship" as the title, please advise if this needs changing. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• ref 74/75 seems to have 2008 as the year

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Snooker.org vs snooker.org

• Now consistently snooker.org BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• I would take "May 2011 update" out of ref 89 and add it as the date parameter

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• The sources that seem less than high quality also seem to be citing only statistical information, so no issues there I think
• Seems fine in general, particularly considering the subject matter.

Verifiability

• Fine from what I checked. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks for taking on the review and for your helpful comments, Aza24. I've tried to address everything but appreciate that more may be required, in which case I'll make further changes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• Thanks for you attentiveness. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Prose review

Placeholder. Expect the review sometime between 16–18 June. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Any news ImaginesTigers?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lee. I'm sorry about the delay. Life has been a little bit busy recently. It should be done today (Tuesday 22), but there's a chance it'll be tomorrow. I'm remaining hopeful, but it was my aunt's funeral today, and there is a chance I'll be very worse for wear tomorrow. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lee. Sorry for the delay in what has otherwise been a very short FA review. No keeping you waiting; I support the article's promotion. I've carried out a copy-edit, which you can feel free to disagree with. There are no issues with the prose, and these are really just rearrangements to wording more than anything else. You and Benny have done a good job on this one. I'm not interested in snooker, but it genuinely was a good read. (Do we have an article on drug use in snooker? Sounds kinda funny.) Good job both of you! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Not drug use, no. We do have a list of snooker players investigated for match-fixing. It would be an interesting read, I'm sure. Maybe something for the backburner. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Amakuru

Overview

• "the sport was popular in the British Isles" - when was this?
• "The championship featured 32 professional players competing in one-on-one snooker matches in a single elimination format..." - from the past tense, I assume this (and the subsequent point about WBPSA promotions) refers to the 1987 event in particular? Worth making that clear.

• Added "1987". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• And, given the above, I'd put the history of the championship (Joe Davis and the 1977 move to the crucible) before specifics about 1987.
• "the 11th consecutive time that the tournament was held at the venue" - "consecutive" feels slightly redundant here, as the previous paragraph already implies that the event has been there every year since 1977.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players" - this feels like it belongs before the sentence about the qualifying competition, especially as we've already mentioned the 16 seeds.
• "ten frames were required to win the match"- per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures" so probably use "10" here to match all the other frame numbers in this paragraph.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Tournament summary

• "The defending champion Joe Johnson failed to reach as far as the quarter-finals of a major tournament in the 1986–87 snooker season" - I assume this sentence doesn't include the 1987 championship itself. Probably make that clear.

• Amended to "had failed". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "This was described as a "disappointing" or "poor" season for him" - please say who made those comments, per WP:WEASEL.

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Sydney Friskin of The Times reported that Johnson prepared for the Championship by reportedly practicing diligently" - I assume the "reportedly" shouldn't be there? Also, "practising" should be spelled with an S in British English. Unless this article is written in US English? (I don't think it says).

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Qualifying

• "The qualifying rounds were played at the Preston Guild Hall from 26 March to 4 April 1987" - the location and dates were already mentioned in the section above.

• Removed from here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Qualifying (continued)

• "Hendry led 8–1 at the end of their first session" - you haven't said who he was playing yet, so "their" sounds wrong.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Hendry won the match at 10–4" - "at" sounds a bit unusual here

• Removed "at". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

First round

• "Steve Davis was 7–1 ahead of Warren King at the end of their first session. King then won six of the next seven frames..." - I might link these two into one sentence with a "but"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "in frame 17; where he successfully" - probably should be a comma, not a semicolon?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Hendry then took the 17th frame" - repetition of "then" shortly after the previous sentence. Consider just removing it.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Hendry became the youngest-ever player to win a match at the Crucible" - presumably a world championship match? (Maybe they don't play any other snooker at the Crucible, but might be nice to clarify)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The win made MacLeod the first Scottish player to secure a victory at the Crucible Theatre" - we've already heard that Hendry won his first-round match too. Is this record held by MacLeod just because his match finished earlier than Hendry's?

• Yes. I've moved that text to the beginning of the paragraph. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• "Davis won the match 16–11" - did anything noteworthy happen in the final session?

• I've added a little detail. Snooker Scene has a bit on how White didn't question being called for a foul in the second frame when potting a red, but as it seems it really was a foul, and he was already 26 points behind by then, I'm not sure that's worth including. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Final

• General point - decide whether "world championship" is capitalised or not. I'd suggest maybe it shouldn't be, given that the proper noun is actually "World Snooker Championship" and not "World Championship". But needs to be consistent, either way.
• "Davis compiled a 127 break, the highest of the tournament" - clarify whether this is the highest so far, or if it ended up as the maximum altogether. Also, was this the only century in the final? You don't mention any others that I can see.

Amended, added a mention of Johnson's 101. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Johnson responded winning three frames in a row with Davis doing the same" - maybe "followed by" instead of "with"?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "at the start of the second session which finished" - put a comma after "session"

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "which finished with him leading 9–7" - I would probably put the final score at the end of the session summary, after "and the last of the day by Johnson".

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Johnson led 50–0 in the next frame, and with both players making a number of errors during the frame, Davis left him an easy brown that allowed Johnson in to win his fourth consecutive frame to move to within one frame at 13–14" - four occurrences of "frame" in the sentence, maybe reword a bit.

• Reworded. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• The last paragraph isn't related to the final, and should probably in in an "aftermath" or somesuch section.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's about it, I think. Will have another look-over when the above is responded to.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Good stuff, and thanks for the prompt turnaround on this. Good work, Lee and Benny.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look Amakuru, Benny had it covered before I saw the suggestions. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2021 [80].

---

Battle of Dupplin Moor

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• What is the meaning of the red square vs blue circle on the map? A legend would be useful

Done.

• Regarding the coats of arms, suggest having a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Close_the_coats-of-arms_loophole. If these are kept, several are missing sources.

They have been removed.

• File:Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: author link goes to a dab page - which one is intended?

Fixed. (James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, would I be correct in assuming that there was more to come by way of a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nicholson 1961
  • "whom Edward I had deposed in 1296" exact words copied from the source. Should be rephrased.

Rephrased. And cite changed to Sumption 1990.

• • "Almost immediately" This doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which appears to say it happened 2 months later

Less than two months is almost immediately in Medieval terms. (On 17 October 1346 David II was captured by Edward III. His ransom negotiations overran and he was released in October 1357.) Changed to "Within two months Balliol granted ..."

• • Nicholson 1961, p. 126. — there's no page 126 in the source.

Apologies. Well spotted. Thank you. Wrong Nicholson work. They should have cited the 1974 one. Fixed.

• Webster 2004
  • "The Second War of Scottish Independence which had started with Balliol's invasion finally ended in 1357" I cannot verify this in the source which never mentions any "war of Scottish independence".

Grr! I used this to show when the war ended, having already established its name in an earlier sentence - which I deleted along with the cite in the copy edit! Now nailed down at each corner. (Can I cite to the title of a book?)

(t · c) buidhe 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Buidhe, your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks.

• between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?

That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.

• Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline

Done.

• Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?

Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.

It's not a job title; it's a title of nobility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?

The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)

• Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...

Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...

Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)

• I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! Fixed.

Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Patterson 1996 seems to be unused

Odd, but fixed.

• It looks like the exact date of 21 March for adding to the historic listing needs an exact citation

Oops. Now covered in main text.

• In the Omrod reference, it might be wise to add the US state for New Haven.

Done.

• Same comment about the author link for the battle image as Nikkimaria.

Fixed.

• Do we really need the accessdate for the Weir book?

Removed

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm _Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• pike equipped, infantry hyphenate pike equipped, delete the last comma

That's not quite what the source says, so I have changed it to "pike-equipped ordinary infantry".

• Remove the adjectival command from the template for 600 feet

Done.

• were more able to use their weapons Suggest "had more room to use/swing..."

What do you think about "had room to use their weapons more effectively"?

• Put Ormrod in alphabetical order

Done.

• Nicely done.

Every one seems to like this. Perhaps I should skip ACR more often. ;-)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sturmvogel, that is good of you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, but you probably missed my comment in Jim's section about capitalizing King of England?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I did. I disagree, but changed anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@Ian Rose and Ealdgyth:, @FAC coordinators: , as this has completed image and source reviews, has three supports, including one by a non-MilHist regular, and has been up for three weeks, can I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I think you need to say in the lead that Balliol was forced to flee Scotland within months of the battle to make clear that it was not decisive in the long run.

Balliol's subsequent periods on the throne added.

• I think you should use specialist sources for 14C Scottish history, not Alison Weir and Sumption's history of the Hundred Years War.

Why? Both are reliable sources, and Sumption in particular gives a good and detailed account of the political background, as part of his 184 page examination of the background to the Hundred Year's War.

• "possibly echeloned forward" What does this mean?

Good point. Military jargon. Removed. (And a Sumption cite goes with it.)

• "at the Battle of Annan a few months after his coronation" You should give the date of the battle.

Good point. Done.

• "In his classic study, A History of War in the Middle Ages, Sir Charles Oman says: "The Battle of Dupplin formed a turning point in the history of the Scottish wars. For the future the English always adopted the order of battle which Balliol and Beaumont had discovered.". 1. You cannot cite the book for the statement that it is a classic. 2. The quote is very dated. Is it not possible to find a comment by a modern military historian? 3. You do not mention that the book is volume 2 and the 2nd edition.

Removed.

• "Balliol's support within Scotland was limited and within six months it had collapsed. He was ambushed by supporters of David II at the Battle of Annan a few months after his coronation. Balliol fled to England half-dressed and riding bareback. He appealed to Edward III for assistance." The sources for this are dated 1907 and 1913, which seems too dated.

Replaced with Nicholson, 1974.

• I do not have sources on the battle, but it seems to me very dubious to say "Balliol and Beaumont" with Balliol first. The sources I can access say that Beaumont was the driving force behind launching the invasion and a very experienced and competent soldier, while Balliol had no known experience of warfare. Does no source say that Beaumont must have been the architect of the victory? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My sources give Balliol as the overall leader. Rogers for example talks of Beaumont's "remarkable military experience" and has him initially organising the disinherited lords. Once Balliol joins them he repeatedly refers to "Balliol's army". Or Nicholson (1974) "Their leaders included Edward Balliol, Henry Beaumont ..." He then lists six others, but note that Balliol comes first of the eight "leaders". Or DeVries discusses Balliol's role and continues "As well as Balliol these men included [names seven] and, perhaps most importantly, the rich and powerful Henry of Beaumont ...". He then describes the army as Balliol's: "Balliol [meaning his army] marched west". Nicholson in the Encyclopædia Britannica article you quote from says "Balliol came from France to head their expedition".

I follow your logic, but the sources take precedence. What are the sources you have accessed which suggest that Beaumont was the expeditionary force's leader?

No sources on Beaumont as leader, only ODNB articles on military experience. As you say, the sources have Balliol as leader. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ranald Nicholson's article on the battle in the 1973 Encyclopædia Britannica says "Greatly outnumbered, Balliol's men adopted tactics later copied by Edward III at the battles of Halidon Hill and Crécy; save for about 40 German mercenaries kept in reserve, all the men-at-arms dismounted, while archers were posted on either flank. When an impetuous charge by the first Scottish division failed to make headway its flanks were riddled by flights of English arrows and converged in disorder upon the centre." This repeats in its details what you have said, but it seems a much clearer explanation of why Dupplin was tactically important than Oman's vague comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a hard copy of the 1964 edition which has the same statement. I rejected it as not adding anything to the description in the article. It doesn't seem worth quoting in full, so I have replaced Oman with a paraphrased version of this.

Many thanks for looking through this Dudley, I appreciate it. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate article. I would however like to see the Nicholson comment expanded to explain which tactics Edward copied and I think it is worth mentioning in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Dudley: quote - you are right; I was over focusing on the description of the Scots behaviour and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Tweaked to read "The modern historian Ranald Nicholson states that Edward III copied the tactics used at Dupplin Moor – "all the men-at-arms dismounted, while archers were posted on either flank" – in the English victories at Halidon Hill and Battle of Crécy."

Lead - I am already unhappy at the length of the lead, yet struggle to see how I could slim it to make room for additional points. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2021 [81].

---

Namco

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

They may not possess the same level of recognition in the Western world as Nintendo or Sega, but Namco is undeniably one of the video game industry's most important, valuable, and beloved developers. The makers of many genre-defining classics, from Pac-Man to Xevious to Ridge Racer, Namco set itself apart from other companies through its unique corporate philosophy, forward-thinking, and ability to adapt in a constantly changing market. This article covers the entirety of Namco's 50 year history, from its origins as an operator of rocking horse rides in the 1950s to its 2005 merger with toymaker Bandai.

This article has been the focus of my editing for the past two years now. A GAN, two peer reviews, and hundreds of edits later, I believe it is finally able to be bestowed the honor of being one of Wikipedia's best articles (Sega's probably getting lonely in there). At over 131,795 bytes, it is certainly the biggest article I've ever worked on. Trying to summarize a company with a 50 year history was certainly a challenge, and underwent at least three rewrites. Due to the lack of "big" anniversaries for the foreseeable future, I am not interested in having this be featured on the main page on a specific date.

The article in its current state wouldn't have been possible without the help of Red Phoenix and Indrian, who have both been incredibly helpful with the writing and sourcing. I greatly thank them for helping get this page into the state it is in now. I also dedicate this to the hundreds of editors that have maintained it for so many years now. Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your comments. Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I already had my say during the extensive GA review process, so this is not just a drive-by support. I feel this is the finest article on a video game company on Wikipedia, and that even articles on companies not involved in that industry could take some pointers on how it not just describes what happened but also why those things happening was important. It's truly well done! Indrian (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Striking per my assumption of the nomination. Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

The amount of work invested into this article should not go unnoticed. This is probably one of the best video game company articles i've seen on Wikipedia and it has my highest support vote! Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

The article seems to be exceptionally well-written, and is among the best video game articles I've seen on the site. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. From the merger sections:

The business takeover, where Bandai acquired Namco for $1.7 billion, was finalized on September 29... Namco Bandai's impatience to move forward with the merger and clashing corporate cultures between both parties resulted in a ¥30 billion deficit.

Can this be clarified? I looked at both pages of the referenced source, [82] , but Google Translate is hot garbage at Japanese sometimes. Deficit compared to what? If the two companies were each running a 15 billion yen deficit before, nothing really changed, as an example. An explanation would be nice but "impatience" is not really a sufficient reason for such a deficit to occur. Like, was Bandai impatient in that they overpayed for buying out Namco's stock and paid a higher premium than they really needed to? And when did this deficit show up, anyway? Normally it takes a bit of time for clashing corporate cultures to even "matter", unless the first thing Bandai did after the purchase complete was massive employee buyouts or the like. Has a native Japanese speaker reviewed that source? It have any more details? This sentence raises more questions than answers as written currently. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire: That was a mistranslation, which I've since corrected. Bandai Namco experienced a financial loss of ¥30 billion, not a deficit. Google Translate thought it was specifically a deficit for whatever reason, and I never bothered to look into what a deficit actually is, so I put it into the page. Sorry about that, I've fixed it now. Namcokid47 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Done
• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed, looks like I already did that a while ago but left a few behind.
• Images are missing alt text
  • Added
• Some of the captions warrant citing - for example, that Pac-Man was their mascot from 1980
  • Sourced
• File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • It's hard to pinpoint when specifically this image came from, all we know is that it's an official Namco image and was taken in 1955, meaning it meets Japan's copyright law regarding public domain images. It should still be usable, but I can try finding an earlier instance of this image.
    • Can you clarify why it is believed to be PD in Japan? The given tag states photos taken before 1947 or published before 1955 - this would need to have been published, not simply taken, at that time. Plus then we need to look at US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality
• File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg is incorrectly tagged - it's a character rather than a work of art. Also the FUR needs expansion.
  • Added tag and tried expanding
    • Needs more, or else why not simply use File:Original_PacMan2.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I really don't know what else I'm supposed to add. The FUR is taken from File:Sonic 1991.png from Sega since it's being used for the same exact purpose, so I don't know how else I can expand it. Chose not to use the Pac-Man image above as I don't think it does a good job at actually representing the character in the context of the page.
        • The Sonic design hasn't changed significantly over time, and has always been of a level of originality sufficient to warrant copyright protection. Neither is the case here. If you believe the non-free version is better in this context than the free one, then explain why in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg: what's the copyright status of the graphics?
  • Looking at it again, I'm not sure. Part of me is starting to think this is a derivative work as it's just a picture of the machine. I'll check with some folks on Commons.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria: Responded to comments. Namcokid 47 01:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, could I get a read on where we are on this image review? If you have not been checking in here, I have assumed this nomination from the original nominator, who left for IRL reasons. I am almost done chipping away at the source review, so now I need to confirm what still needs to be done to pass the image review. Indrian (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Still need a rationale for File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg to be PD in Japan; File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality; File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg needs a better FUR; and File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg needs to identify the copyright status of the graphics. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Indrian? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have made steady progress week to week. Most of the work is done. Just a little more. I know it's been going a long time, but I did take this over unexpectedly, so it's not like I had blocked off time for this. Plus I was coming to grips with sourcing and tracking stuff down in real time since I was not a major contributor to the article. I fully expect to take this over the finish line. As you can see by the wealth of supports on prose, it is deserving. Just a few more sourcing things and a couple of images to clear up and we should be set. Indrian (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg. I do not believe the image is in the public domain as currently claimed, because it definitely was not taken before 1947 and there is no evidence that it was published before 1957. The file should probably be removed from Wikipedia entirely. The original Nakamura Seisakusho logo is sufficient to illustrate this portion of the article, and looked cluttered in its original location, so I moved it up. I realize that a proper fair-use rationale still needs to be carved out for that one, but I will address that down the line. Indrian (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Okay, I have attempted to address all of these issues, though I have not worked with images on Wikipedia really at all, so its possible I will need further guidance on some of these.

• First, as indicated above, I did remove File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg, for which I could not find any real justification and is not strictly necessary in the article.

• Second, I reuploaded File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg to Wikipedia itself as File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_Co._logo.svg because it should not have been on commons as a non-free image. I then added what I believe is a pretty standard FUR relating to company branding.

• Is there a particular reason for the image's current placement in the article? If so, could that be specified in the rationale? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Third, I did my best to strengthen the FUR for File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg and tried to more explicitly tie it into the "contextual significance" rationale. If this does not cure the problem, I would apprecaite more guidance on how this problem can be resolved, or if you think the image needs to be removed altogether.

• The rationale currently claims that no free depiction of the character can exist; that isn't true, as there are depictions (eg Original_PacMan2.png) that fall short of the threshold of originality. If there is a reason that this specific depiction is necessary for reader understanding of the article in general and the section it's in in particular, that would be good to clarify. If there isn't, then why use it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Finally, I took the path of least resistance for File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg and just deleted it. I then moved down the picture of a Namco arcade to this section. The arcade picture did not really fit the section it was in and was pretty cluttered up there anyway. I think there is still a good balance of images in the article without that arcade cabinet.

So that's it. Please let me know if the images need anymore work. Hopefully we are just about done with this part of the review. Indrian (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I went ahead and replaced the Pac Man image with the sprite art. I think an argument can be made that the free image does not properly convey the image of Pac Man as he is identified today and that there may still be a FUR that justifies the more modern artwork, but the image selection of this article, which was not mine to begin with, is not a hill worth dying on. I am happy to go with the more straightforward image from a copyright perspective. As for the Nakamura logo, I added some more language about its historical significance. Please let me know if you think the FUR needs more work. Unlike a couple of the other images I readily discarded, I really don't want to lose this one because we need something to illustrate the early history of the company. Indrian (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix ^talk

Don’t expect me to move fast; I’ve been deficient at editing in the last couple of months, I know. That being said, I wouldn’t miss this party for the world. Expect me to, at the very least, contribute a source review, since I know that’s usually the part others don’t want to do, and expect it to be thorough and detailed to satisfy the FAC criteria. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As a note for FAC coordinators, I have previously provided feedback for this article at my talk page, and Archive 5 of that page has my previous comments. That, however, is the extent of my past involvement in the article. Namcokid47 has done quite a good job with this article.

Now, onto a cursory look at the sources:

• Taking an overview over the references, there’s a lot of work to be done to meet WP:WIAFA criterion 2c - consistent citations. Don’t worry, that’s to be expected and part of what we’ll nip at through this process. We’ll detail through them as I get time, but I would definitely start now with looking at consistency. You will save yourself quite a bit of effort if you start now.
  • For instance, all internet sources should have the article title, website name, article author if available (“Staff” is not necessary), the date it was published if available, and naturally the URL. For fields such as access date and publisher, these need to be all or nothing - either every source gets them, or none of them do. Be extremely consistent in your source formatting across the whole article.
  • In the same vein, all books should be formatted the same, and all magazines the same. Reference structure naturally varies between reference types, but all references of the same type should be the same.
  • Linking to articles for websites, books, or authors should also be consistent. Personally, I would link all of them whenever possible for the ease of the reader.
  • All books need to have page numbers; this includes the Kent and Horowitz books, as well as They Create Worlds. If all the references are in just a few pages for one source, you can use a small range of pages. If it’s spread out, you’ll want to break that up - I’d personally recommend the method used on Sega, where repeated footnotes of the same book but different page numbers use an abbreviated format that links to the original reference above.
  • Although I know the kind of research you have done, and I commend your efforts greatly, I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence if I didn’t evaluate SandyGeorgia’s comments at the peer review. While I don’t always agree with her, I will review when I go in detail and perhaps suggest some sources if I have concerns. I will let you know if I share her concerns or not when I have had time to review appropriately.

I hope to return soon with a more detailed look. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I knew you'd show up eventually. I'm in no rush, so please take as much time as you need. In the meantime, I'll get cracking on those points regarding citations. Namcokid47 01:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I will start commenting on each of these as I complete them. Still getting up to speed on the article, so please be patient. Indrian (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's give this a start at a more detailed look. Expect this to take a while, as well as several passes as changes are made. To ensure that when I refer to a reference by its number it's the same for you as it is for me, I'll note this first pass is for revision id 1017821592:

• With 1 and 2, just be mindful of consistency with access dates and publishing locations, respectively. They're okay if every source of the same type has them, but not if we have a location for this book but not that one, and so on.
  • I have added retrieval dates to five web sources. I think they all have retrieval dates now, but there are a lot of them, so if I missed one, let me know. Likewise all books should now have a publication location with the exception of two for which this data does not exist: The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers and Galaxian Genesis -Kazunori Sawano Den-, which are both self-published works. I own both of them and can confirm no publisher location is given in either. There is also no publisher location information for either one on Worldcat.
    • I'll confirm that I'm good with this aspect, that if a location is not provided in the actual book that it can be missing and doesn't require all of them to be struck. That is still consistency as far as the criterion is concerned. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Are all eight citations to 2 on the same page?
  • I only have a partial copy of this book, so this may take me a little bit to track down. I can tell you that several of the citations do all come from that page, but not all of them do.
  • Okay, so Supercade, while it has some general history in it, is more of a look back at classic machines than a real comprehensive history. Therefore, I removed it as a source for all the general historical claims and replaced it with other high-quality sources already found in the article as needed. I left one citation in, which does, in fact, point to the page in question. This defect should now be cured.
• I'll just point out that 3 is a perfect use of publisher when a website is an official site of a company or something. In this case, you don't need the website name if you use the publisher and it's the company's official website. Thumbs up!
• 4: I'm not sure I'd go with cite news for this one if Game Machine is a magazine and is the name of said magazine, which it appears to be. Game Machine wouldn't be the agency, it would be the publication's name, and thus should be italicized. I'd personally go with the cite magazine template, but you could also do cite journal if you prefer. Just make sure all magazines use one or the other, as they do format citations slightly different.
  • This was a problem with several magazines, not just Game Machine. I believe I have switched all of them over to the cite magazine format.
• 5: Same as 4, though I would ask what kind of publication this is, as it's a bit unclear to me.
  • Likewise changed. Its a trade publication, which basically makes it a magazine for our purposes here.
• 6: Page numbers are the biggest deal here; see my note above. I don't think a link to Google Books is necessary as the citation is the book itself. I highly doubt the OCLC is necessary unless you're going to provide OCLCs for every book source, and another decision will need to be made on whether or not to hyphenate ISBNs, as 6 is hyphenated but 7 is not.
  • Addendum: When I specified a link to Google Books is not necessary, it's because the link only provides more info about the book. It's not to a preview of the text copy. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Our style guide prefers full hyphenation for ISBNs. I have therefore hyphenated them all in the XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X format. I also replaced the only ISBN 10 with the corresponding ISBN 13. On this specific source, I also removed the OCLC number and Google Books link.
  • I have added page numbers for this source and split it into multiple citations accordingly.
• 7: See 6 above.
  • Page numbers added and references split.
• 8 and 9: Again if these are actually books, page numbers will be needed. 9 would also need an ISBN.
  • 9 is a book, but it was self published in Japan and never assigned an ISBN.
  • The Maeno book I did not have access to, so I removed it and replaced the cites with other high-quality sources already found in the article as necessary. I added page numbers for the other book and split the citations accordingly.

That's all I have time for at the moment, but we'll continue later. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep going, shall we? Numbers as of revision 1019357606:

• Indrian, for the moment I won't comment on inclusion/exclusion of publishers since you're taking over the review, and for all I know you may come to a different conclusion than Namcokid47 on whether or not to include publishers in which kind of sources. The important thing is to be consistent on when we do include and when we do not, to meet criterion 2c. 10, for instance, struck me as odd having a person listed as the publisher, given it's the chairperson of The New York Times Company.
  • I have eliminated the publisher field from all web cites. For cites where there was only a publisher field and no website field, I converted the publisher field to a website field. There are 123 web sources in the article, so if you notice one I missed, let me know.
• 13, in line with the necessity for page numbers mentioned above, needs page numbers and in this case the two citations are quite a distance apart in the book. I would split these, as suggested. Since I have this book, I can give you these numbers: the note about Torpedo Launcher/Periscope is on pages 7 and 8; the Namco offer to buy Sega is on pages 253 and 254.
  • Source split and page numbers added.
• 14: Link Play Meter since we have an article. It's going to be Volume 3, issue 1, and the actual title of the article is "Projection Racing: Conversation with Masaya Nakamura, Inventor of F-1", and it's on page 12.
  • Play Meter linked, proper title and page number added, and volume and issue number added to the citation. Note that while the article starts on Page 12, the information in question appears on page 13.
• 17: Though the source is good and can be kept, the link to Shmuplations will have to be removed. It's an amazing site, I agree, but there's no evidence permission was granted to translate and re-publish the material, so we have to err on the side that linking to the text is linking to a copyright violation. On the plus side: Here's the original source, at least as on the Wayback Machine. It looks like this starts on page 32 in the book.
  • Shmuplations removed and cite taken back to the original source. Per my comments below, I have included Shmuplations site owner Alex Highsmith in the cite as the translator, but without making mention of the website or linking to the article.
• 19: RePlay is the name of the magazine, so should be italicized, with the capital P in the middle. Page numbers (28-30) should also be added.
  • Name capitalization corrected, volume, issue, and page numbers added. Note that the proper pagination is Atari 28-Atari 30, as this was a special section of the magazine numbered as such. There were also plain old pages 28-30 in the issue.
• 21 and 23: Need consistency on "Cash Box" or "Cashbox" - they're used differently between the two. Personally I usually go with Cashbox, but it's your call.
  • These should now be consistent. You are correct that there is inconsistency on whether its "Cash Box" or "Cashbox," which I think is because the spacing between the words is very small on the cover. The space is present, however, and a space can be more clearly seen between the words in the text of the publication. It also seems to appear with a space in most library catalogs, including the LoC, so I went with that.
• Similarly to publishers, ISSNs also need to be all or nothing for consistency in magazine sources - either identifiers are included, or they are not. It's probably easier not to include any, but you're welcome to try and hunt them all down. I just don't see them as necessary in this case.
  • I concur that ISSNs are not worth the trouble. They should all be gone now.
• 22 and 24: Likewise, books need to either have publishing locations, or not at all. Book publishers are important, but the locations are not as important as consistently having them or not.
  • As above, all book publishers should now have location information except for the two books for which this info does not exist.
• 26: Not sure if a citation template is being used here or not, but JoyStik is the name of the magazine and should be italicized. If there's not a cite template being used here, I certainly recommend one to make life easier.
  • For some reason, this was done with the cite book template with JoyStik as the publisher. Changed to cite magazine and added the volume and issue number as well as the actual publisher.
• 30: Link Gamasutra as the website.
  • Done
• 33: Call me crazy, but I don't see the direct correlation between a repair manual for a Pac-Man arcade cabinet published in December 1980 establishing that Pac-Man was a North American release of the Japanese "Puck Man" game in December 1980. Surely there's a better source for this?
  • You're crazy, but not because of this. =P I believe the logic was that since the manual has a December 1980 publication date and was likely made available at the same time as the game, then this date would also be the release date for Pac-Man. I agree that logic does not hold up, however. According to Cash Box, the game was officially available in November 1980. Its possible the first units did not reach locations until December, but with coin-op games, I think availability date is the best we can do. So I have changed this to November 1980 and swapped out this source for Cash Box.
• 34: I'd like to see such an impactful statement sourced better. This is a press release, so it implies a bit of bias for claims such as "a fixture in popular culture", and to a lesser extent, "multi-million selling media franchise". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not factual, only that such a claim would be better sourced to a true third party source.
  • Red Phoenix. Pinging you so I can get a read on this one right away. I think the press release is okay for "multi-million selling media franchise" because this is just a factual statement. Companies will manipulate figures and twist words to make market performance sound more impressive than it actually is, but they don't outright lie about this kind of thing. Now "fixture in popular culture" is obviously more subjective and not something that I would take the word of the company about. I have found what I believe is a good source for the pop culture aspect of this claim and added it to the article. I propose keeping the press release to cite to the sales only. Let me know what you think. Indrian (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Indrian: It’s really only the “fixture in popular culture” I have an issue with, as that is not something that can be objectively quantified, so a primary source shouldn’t be used to cite it. The phrase about being a multi-million selling media franchise is more questionable, but I wouldn’t object to using the press release to cite it as fact. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• 35 and 36: IGN is a website, and as such, should be italicized.
  • This fixed itself when I converted all IGN mentions from "publisher" to "website."
• 37: I see this is the cite journal template formatting. As mentioned above, all magazines could be either cite magazine or cite journal, but they need to be consistent and use one or the other.
  • Fixed along with (hopefully) all the others.
• 38: IGN is a website, but 1Up.com during this time was owned by IGN Entertainment, IGN's company. If you choose to keep publishers, which I recommend against, make sure it's "IGN Entertainment" to avoid confusion with the website.
  • Oh I definitely got rid of that pesky publisher field. ;)
• 41: Note that this book is in Japanese. I'd also not use all caps for the title. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with the publisher (recognizing this is a Japanese publisher), and would be curious to verify this claim.
  • Added language field, the original title in Japanese, and a more accurate English translation title. Note the original title is in a mix of Japanese and English and the capitalization is found in the original. The capitalization is also present in Worldcat. In this case, I think that's the official way the title is rendered.
    • As long as the community is okay with this, I am. I've not found anything in the MOS that says otherwise on all-capitalization for this particular instance, only in other uses in the encyclopedia, so I'm good unless someone else objects.

I'm liking the progress so far. I'll try to continue on this weekend - I know my schedule is not the greatest anymore, and for good IRL reason, but that's why I'm glad we're starting this now. I will do my best to be timely. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep going. As of revision 1020893203:

• Still more instances of websites with and without publishers inconsistently as we go. Again, I won't note them all, just nudge that a decision still needs to be made there.
  • Hopefully all those pesky publishers have been purged.
• 21: Cash Box, as a publication, should be italicized. I'm presuming it's in a "publisher" field and not "magazine", which is why the error?
  • This was using the cite book template for some reason. Changed to cite magazine.
• 47: Same as 17 above, I'm concerned about linking to Shmuplations, which likely does not have permission to reprint a translation. Furthermore, it's not the true source of this information. It appears the original source for this particular quote is a 2003 interview from the "GSLA", if you have any idea what that is. Perhaps it could be converted to a cite interview to make this work?
  • I do not believe this is a correct interpretation in this instance. Shmuplations is not reprinting material found elsewhere; it is providing English-language translations of other material. The original source is not the source, because we are not citing to the Japanese text, we are citing to the English translation, which is a derivative work of the original text. While Alex Highsmith may not have permission to translate the original text, the translation is his original work. While you are correct that his translation of this material without the authorization of the original copyright holder is a violation of US copyright law, its up to those rights holders to issue any DMCA takedowns, which they have not done. As such, there is no reason to pretend the Shmuplations translations do not exist. Indrian (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this instance on the grounds that this does not meet WP:FACR 1f. WP:COPYLINK, part of the Copyright policy, is pretty specific on this and in a Featured Article it's even more noticeable than what I'm presuming is a high number of said violations across Wikipedia. The translation isn't really "his" original work, as derivative works such as translations are still copyright of the publisher in the original language, not the translator. Just because no DMCA takedown has been issued at this time doesn't mean it's okay to link to a copyright violation. I'm not saying we have to pretend Shmuplations doesn't exist, but that it should be a tool to explore other reliable sources and not a source itself. However, if you still disagree with me, I'm more than happy to ask for a second opinion from an experienced source reviewer, such as FAC coordinator Ealdgyth or FAR coordinator Nikkimaria. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see the confusion here. I am absolutely fine with removing the link to Shmuplations, which as you correctly note is required by our copyright policies. I thought you were also requesting I cite to the original Japanese source instead, which I do not believe is required nor helpful. A translation is a derivative work, which is still an original creative expression, albeit one that is still beholden to the original copyrighted work and to which the original copyright holder automatically acquires the rights to. The act of translation is its own creative process that does not involve just a literal word-for-word transliteration. As the shmuplations translation is the version being used, this is the version that needs to be cited to, just without the link. It's not our job to police copyright, only to make sure Wikipedia is not a contributory infringer. Linking would make us one, citing to the information does not. Sorry for the confusion. Indrian (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Red Phoenix Okay, so here is what I have done. There were three sources that cited Shmuplations: 17, 47, and 88. For 17, I cited to the original source, made no mention of or link to Shmuplations, and listed Alex Highsmith (the Shmuplations guy) as the translator of the source. Source 47 cannot be treated the same, however, because GSLA is not the original source, but is itself actually a copyright infringer. It is a website that posts Japanese video game developer interviews, but it does so without attributing where the interviews came from. Therefore, it is impossible for me to trace back to the original source. This source is used for only a very minor point about the influence of a single game, however, so I have just removed the claim and the source. Doing so does not harm the comprehensiveness of the article in any way. Source 88, I have not touched yet, but I believe I have a solid English-language source that can be used to substantiate the same claim, so I plan on replacing it when I get there. Once that is done, all the Shmuplations defects should be cleared up. Indrian (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the point seems to be moot with regard to the Toyama interview at least: up until November, the source was apparently cited for the claim that Shigeki Toyama led the robotics division, but that claim no longer appears in the article, and I can't find any other information in the relevant Wikipedia sentence that is verified in the Shmuplations page, let alone the Japanese original. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ll just note that as long as “source 88” (now 87 as of the most recent revision) is cleared up, I approve of this solution. I see no harm in noting who translated the material for this interpretation of the source. Nice catch on what was 47; that just sounds like a mess of copyright entanglement. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The final Shmuplations source has now been replaced. That should completey fix this issue.

• 50: The author for this particular section is Stuart Campbell.
  • Added.
• 54: (No action needed yet. I am unclear on formatting of YouTube references, but believe this is incorrect. I need to research to verify this and what is the correct format, and will come back to this one later).
• 57: (No action needed here at all. I want to note, for any reviewers who may come to challenge this one on the basis this is a self-published book, that this was written and published by established video game journalist John Szczepaniak, who I know has previously written for Retro Gamer, and therefore I have no doubts about its suitability as a reliable source).

*60: Forgive me for asking, but what makes Kill Screen a reliable source? I did see the author claims to be an established video game historian, but it's not someone I'm familiar with.

• • I struck this one as I’ve found out that Kill Screen is listed at VG/S, and I merely overlooked it. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• 61: If we are keeping magazine publishing locations, just "United Kingdom" seems a little vague. Is that what the magazine says?
  • Not sure why this one Edge reference had a publishing location listed when none of the others did. It's gone now.
• 62: Granted I don't know a lick of Japanese, but I'm struggling to find the author name in the source.
  • I can see where those words appear, but I don't see how they could be seen as referring to an author. I took this out.
• 63: In contrast to the magazines, is this actually a journal? It uses cite journal, but I'm not sure what kind of source this is. Likewise, if 63 is a journal, surely it would have a doi and other identifiers as well like 64 does?
  • Good catch. No, this is definitely a magazine. Switched it over to the cite magazine format.
• Still need to decide how to consistently hyphenate ISBNs.
• Should also make sure we're using the language parameter consistently with all foreign language sources.

Took a break here. Continuing:

• 79: Who is this interview with? It's not clear from the citation. Perhaps consider adding the name/s of the interviewee/s to the title of the citation, or use the cite interview template.
  • It's a roundtable interview with a lot of people. The title Namcokid chose does make it sound like its just talking to one person. I put in the actual Japanese name for this entire project and also provided an English translation.
• 91: Just some future thinking here as we tackle the page number issue that 57 and 91 are the same source, and as such how we choose to handle 6, 7, 8, and 9 should be handled consistently here as well. As it stands, we have spelled out the full citation in 91 with the separate page numbers.
• 93, 94, 96, 106, 108, etc.: As noted above, consistency with the language parameter. Game Machine cites should note they are in Japanese. I've stopped listing them after 108, just check them all.
  • All the Game Machine cites should have the language parameter now.
• 97 and 98: So far, we have utilized publishers with magazine cites. These two don't have them, however.
  • Fixed
• 111, 142, 152, 156, etc.: IGN should be a website, not a publisher. Numerous occasions as you go, so I won't list them all.
  • Should all be fixed
• 112: Link Digital Spy as the website.
  • Done
• 113, 148: Link Siliconera as the website. Also in 148, Siliconera should be italicized.
  • Done
• 121, 124: Link Edge (magazine)
  • Fixed. I even added a link to a GamePro cite appearing between them at no additional cost to you.
• 141: Why is Famitsu the website and IGN the publisher? These two don't add up.
  • No idea what happened here since I am not the original editor on all this, but looking at the source, its clearly an IGN article. Fixed.
• 144, 151, 161: Remove Namco.co.jp as the website. Namco as the publisher alone suffices here.
  • Fixed
• 153: Wait a second, so SoftBank News isn't published by SoftBank Group? There are other occurrences above as well where there is no publisher noted for this website, but again, however you choose to deal with this is up to you as long as it's done consistently.
  • Publishers are gone, so this is now moot.
• 166: No website listed.
  • Fixed.
• 186: Same as 38 above
  • Good thing we dropped those pesky publishers, eh? ;)
• 192: Again, drop the website if it's just a URL. Publisher alone would suffice.
  • I think in this case, we are looking at an article on the Famitsu website, so I believe keeping this webstie would be the right call.
• 205 and 206: GamesRadar or, as Wikipedia's article calls it, GamesRadar+?
  • This content predates the rename from GamesRadar to GamesRadar+. However, since the content is still live under the new name, I think its appropriate to just add the "+."
• 209 and 210: A bit odd here - Next Generation is the magazine, and should be in front of Imagine Media and italicized. Presuming this might be another bad use of the cite news template? Same with 210 and The Wall Street Journal.
  • The Next Generation article was indeed using the cite news template. Changed to cite magazine. The Wall Street Journal cite was using the right template, but the newspaper was listed as the agency instead of the work, so that is fixed too.

That concludes a first pass of the sources. There is a lot to be done here, I know, but no one ever said consistent citations were the fun part. I can try and jump in to give you a hand if time allows, but it's been tough lately for me to find available time. After you have made some decisions and set to fixing, I'll do a "final pass" to catch stragglers and any loose ends. I'll also check for any additional sourcing inconsistencies and conduct a few spot-checks, as this would have been Namcokid47's first FAC and those are usually mandatory for an editor's first. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review! I will keep chipping away at these this week. I have done my share of academic publishing, so I am no stranger to the importance of proper source formatting. I appreciate everyone's patience as I continue to plunge deeper into this FAC that is not of my own making. I remain confident I can carry it over the finish line! Indrian (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Red Phoenix FYI, I plan to do a big push in the second half of the week to hopefully knock out the rest of these. I really appreciate everyone's patience as I have worked through this unexpected (for me) nomination. Indrian (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Indrian, are we to expect any progress on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, I believe I have addressed all your concerns with the exception of the page numbers with the books. The reason I have held off on doing so is that this is going to cause several new citations to appear, which is going to completely change the footnote numbering. I thought you might want to confirm that all other concerns are addressed before I do so, as that will make it far easier to check. If you would prefer I fix the page numbers first, I can do that, but I thought I would present the option. Just let me know. Indrian (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian:} Looking very good. On a quick second pass, I do see a couple of minor quibbles, but I'll tell you to address these lightning fast and then go on with the page numbers with no need for another check from me, as I trust you'll have them handled. A couple of these I may not have caught on the first pass.

• 103 and 104 appear to be from the same website, but one uses the website field and one uses the publisher.
• 115: Link Variety (magazine) as the website, as that's actually their website.
• 162 and 179 include website publishers, whereas we're going without through the rest of the article.
• 202: Link 1Up.com as the website

Red Phoenix ^talk 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Indrian and Red Phoenix, I think this might be all we're waiting on? Like to get this closed off as soon as practicable... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Had no time to work on it this week. I should have it wrapped up next week. I appreciate your patience in these unusual circumstances. Indrian (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Indrian. any progress? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, These four points have been addressed. I am also hopeful the last two images are resolved, but need to wait on feedback for one. The final, final thing to do is split the book citations and add page numbers. That is my priority number one in life tonight and tomorrow. I think we are going to make it. I again thank you and all the other coordinators for the extraordinary patience you have shown as I have done my utmost to find the time to do the original nomination justice. Without your forbearance, this would not have been possible. Indrian (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, I have now added page numbers to book sources, and I believe our massive source review is finally finished. It is a lot, however, so if I missed something, be sure to let me know. I would just like to thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the citations. No offense to the original nominator, who did fantastic work on the article, but this is one area where he did leave me a mess. Without your dedication, it would have been far more difficult to bring these all in line. Gog the Mild, assuming Red signs off on the sources, this means we are just waiting to hear back from Nikkimaria to see if they still have any issues with the one image that still needs final approval. After that, we can finally bring this review to a successful conclusion. Indrian (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support on source formatting and reliability. You have your signoff from me; very well done. I don't blame Namcokid47 for the sources, as even I didn't really come up against this until a year or two ago, and I only recently began to understand its importance. You've done a great job taking over the nomination and seeing it through, and I certainly know I didn't make matters easier for you, but we made it there with an article all the more professional in nature. I'm only crushed for Namcokid47, as I peer-reviewed this article a few times for him prior to his GA nomination before this FA nom and was really hoping he could get to see this one through. In any regard, awesome work as always, Indrian, and hopefully we'll have the chance to collaborate again soon. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Red Phoenix. I really could not have done this without your patience and thoroughness. I, too, am sorry for Namcokid and hope he is okay. We actually ran in some of the same video game preservation Discords before he disconnected from everything, so while I cannot say I know him well, I have actually talked to him in voice chat more than once, not just interacted on Wikipedia. He did a brilliant job making this a poster child for how to write a video game company featured article, and I did not want that work to go unrewarded. It took awhile to work through everything since I had not exactly planned my life to block out time for this review, but I am pleased and humbled that I could carry this over the finish line. Gog the Mild, I believe the source and image review are now complete. I don't know if you need a more official affirmation of support from Nikkimaria, but my understanding based on our latest exchange (and they can correct me if I am wrong) is that I have addressed all their concerns. If you need anything else from me, let me know and I will act on it immediately. Indrian (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Nominator discussion

I've subheaded this discussion aside so that it does not get convoluted with my comments. I hope that's all right. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: : I'm really concerned about irl stuff right now, so I've chosen to retire likely for good. I'd like to have this FAC closed since I won't be here to address any comments or questions. I hope you can understand. Namcokid47 05:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a shame but RL must take precedence and I just hope all goes well for you, Namcokid. This hasn't been open too long but seems to be travelling pretty well; there is precedence for other editors stepping up to take over the nom in such circumstances, I might leave this open a bit longer and see if there are any takers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I can take a stab at it if that works. Obviously, I would withdraw my support. I was the GA reviewer, but I assume that is not a conflict of interest. I am incredibly knowledgeable about the topic (above and beyond just doing said review) and I would hate to see all this hard work go to waste. Indrian (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just throwing out my 2 cents that I support Indrian's offer. I can vouch for his knowledgeability based on past work with him, and I don't see a conflict of interest in him being willing to take over the work. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: So can we move forward on this basis? I don’t know what needs to happen procedurally. Indrian (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Indrian, you can indeed. Prior to becoming a coordinator I once did this myself - including "responding" to my own review, which was a little strange. Shout if you encounter problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I will start responding to comments, including the first round of source review, tomorrow. Just did not want to step on any toes. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes that would be great, I would just add yourself as a co-nom at the top (co-nom so Namcokid still gets credit for their work starting it off) and, as you say, strike your support because you're now taking over the nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Panini!

Thank you, Idrian, for picking this one up. Namcokid put a lot of work into this and I would have been dissapointed to see it go to waste. Wanted to pop in and say Support on prose, however. It's a good read! I might come in with further comments in the future, but this is where I stand. Panini!^🥪 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment, not super-important

I'm a little concerned about The name Namco, an abbreviation of Nakamura Manufacturing Company (and the related matter of the English name of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company"), which looks suspicious on its face (why would they take the first two letters of the first and third words but not the second, and in Japanese ナ ム コ looks more like an abbreviation of なか　むら　コンパニー) and a quick Googling brought up this tweet from Bandai-Namco's official Japanese Twitter account that directly contradicts it and would seem to make more sense to begin with. The claim appeared in the article before the accompanying Kotaku source was produced,[83][84] which makes me suspicious of WP:CITOGENESIS (I have in the past seen Kotaku articles both obviously get their information from Wikipedia and present historical and Japanological research that is some below the standards of Wikipedia). I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", given that even now many Japanese companies seem to have no idea what their official English name is supposed to be, but if we are going to prioritize one over the other I kinda feel like it should be the one that the company itself says is the origin of the name our article uses as its title. Granted, sources, especially English-language ones, are difficult to find to support the existence of an English translation of an old name for a defunct company, especially because of the aforementioned CITOGENESIS, but it seems very likely that offline sources about this company from the pre-wiki days can be found if the above tweet is insufficient. (Unfortunately, when I tried doing an image search to see if old Pac-Man machines had English copyright information printed somewhere, the closest I got was to find out that apparently the company's US patent for its game machine was granted to "Kabushiki Kaisha Nakamura Seisakusho".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Thank you for brining this up. Right now, there is no good evidence that Namco ever went by the name Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing. I would not consider this tweet to be a high-quality source on the matter, for as you say, Japanese companies are often confused by their own Western names and the current Bandai Namco is a bit removed from the original Namco just because of the merger. If we look back over older sources, Namco's own corporate history timeline on its English-language website pre-merger stated the company was founded as the Nakamura Manufacturing Company and never mentions "amusement" as being in the name. Likewise, a 1985 article in English by the Japanaese trade publication Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry written by a Japanese author and based largely on an interview with company founder Masaya Nakamura, refers to the original company name as Nakamura Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Most English-language sources from the 1960s and 1970s just use the official company name of the time, "Nakamura Seisakusho Co., Ltd. While "Seisakusho" does not literally translate to "manufacturing," that is usually how the word is translated into English in this context, and it certainly has nothing to do with the word "amusement." Nor to my understanding could the Japanese characters that spell out the company name, 中村製作所, ever be translated to include the word "amusement." In summary, there is zero evidence in contemporaneous sources that the company ever referred to itself in English as anything but "Nakamura Manufacturing" or "Nakamura Seisakusho," and the Japanese name does not contain any characters that would refer to the word "amusement" or any concept similar to amusement. I think a low-level PR employee just whiffed on this one. Indrian (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Western name" and "English name" are very different: English is a de facto official language in Japan, with it being the original of the Japanese constitution, it being universally studied in the education system, and it being increasingly used by businesses for a growing proportion of their internal communications, but not a lot of people actually speaking or understanding it, which results in various inconsistent "Japanese English" names used by the same company within Japan, oftentimes all equally official unless the company has an official, publicly available, English version of their articles of incorporation; "Western name" implies a name used by western media, which in this case is a little tricky since most of the earlier stuff is unlikely to be available on the Internet. a 1985 article in English by the Japanaese trade publication Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry written by a Japanese author and based largely on an interview with company founder Masaya Nakamura, refers to the original company name as Nakamura Manufacturing Co., Ltd. This is really interesting, but it would be a good idea in the future to provide a link or a specific article title: I Googled the title of the publication and the name "Masaya Nakamura" and got no exact matches before realizing that the title had an ampersand and found this. This does indeed prove that the English name "Nakamura Manufacturing" (which is indeed a literal translation of 中村製作所, and therefore the one most likely to be employed by an author writing after the fact based on an interview that was likely conducted in Japanese) was attested before Wikipedia, but as I said confusion within Japanese companies, let alone among third parties, already made this a near-certainty, and the article (which, to be fair, I skimmed to find the use of the name "Nakamura Manufacturing") doesn't seem to indicate a connection between the precise wording "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and the then-current name of "Namco" (halfway through the second paragraph on the second page, the author just starts referring to the company as Namco without comment), so the source can't be used for the claim that the name "Namco" is an abbreviation of anything in particular. Meanwhile, while "製作所" does not mean "amusement manufacturing", that is a pretty intuitive translation for a company that was primarily active in the amusement park industry rather than, say, steel manufacturing, and while it's possible that the employee who wrote the tweet was duped by a hoax on Japanese Wikipedia's article on Masaya Nakamura, given that the tweet doesn't mention him it seems more likely that if he/she was looking at a Wikipedia article it would have been this one, knew or heard from someone else within the company that this was incorrect, and tweeted the correct information accordingly.

It might be worth noting that I've just now noticed that Japanese Wikipedia (unusually for that site...) cites sources for both of these statements, with the claim about Namco being an abbreviation of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" being attributed to 「超発想集団・ナムコ」PHP研究所、p.119、1984年、ISBN 4-569-21327-8 while the claim that it is an abbreviation of "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company" is attributed to 「新明解ナム語辞典」日本ソフトバンク、1987年、ISBN 978-4-930795-86-1 I'm loath to trust Japanese Wikipedia over a GA-class article on our own site under the best of circumstances, but it does strike me as odd that we cite the former claim to a Kotaku article and the latter source. I'll see if I can get to a library and check both of these (mid-1980s) sources out over next weekend, but given that both of them are old and obscure enough that neither is available in any form on Amazon, it seems unlikely that the Osaka public libraries will have them on-hand...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Either way, unless someone can confirm the contents of 新明解ナム語辞典, I think we should assume that the Japanese-speakers on Japanese Wikipedia interpreted it correctly and either (a) change the content to read The name Namco, an abbreviation of either Nakamura Manufacturing Company<SOURCE> or Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company,<SOURCE> was introduced in 1971 as a brand for several of its machines.<SOURCE[S?]> or (b) remove the 新明解ナム語辞典 citation. At present I'm leaning (b) since adding content based on an assumption that another Wikipedia article has accurately represented its cited source's contents is borderline WP:CIRCULAR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I really appreciate you looking into this, as we certainly want the history to be accurate. Its interesting that the 1984 book is by the same author who wrote the 1985 article. The 1987 books seems from what I can tell to be something of a fan publication more focused on game center culture, though the author did apparently have some official contact with Namco and had the original version of this dictionary published in Namco's own magazine, which lends it an aura of credibility. It also has its own Japanese Wikipedia page for some reason. As you say though, I would want to see the actual text to confirm it actually makes this specific claim as opposed to being another amorphous translation issue. A couple more Western sources that refer to Nakamura Manufacturing Company include this article in Cash Box from 1967 and this deposition of Hideyuki Nakajima, who is a Japanese native who seems to have an okay, but not flawless, grasp of English at this time. Neither of these sources speak to what the acronym means, but just in terms of seeing if anyone ever referred to the company as Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing, I am still not seeing it. That 1987 would sure be great to get a peak at though. Just because I am skeptical does not mean I am not keeping an open mind. I do want to be accurate. Indrian (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As a further point of comparison, Hijiri 88, how would you translate this passage: 中村製作所（ナカムラセイサクショ）は続く F-1( 76.10 ) での成功を受けて社名を変更するが、ここで初めてナム コの略称が使われた。これは海外に対して『ナカムラ・ 7ニュファクチャリング・カンパニー』と名乗る事もあった ので、その英話名称を縮めてナムコとしたもの。これは 同社の企業ブランド戦略のl慌矢となった? This is from a book length oral history of Kazunori Sawano that also goes into general Namco history. I take it to be saying that the company name was changed to Namco because the Western name was Nakamura Manufacturing Company, but I do not speak Japanese and would appreciate your input. Indrian (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on the general reliability of 新明解ナム語辞典, but if you don't mind, could we remove it just to be safe? I do have opinions on Kotaku, but I suspect I'm in the minority of Wikipedia editors, and the article seems to have passed GA review with the Kotaku citation intact, and the Kotaku source seems to support all the content of the sentence by itself, while 新明解ナム語辞典 probably contradicts it.

Well, there seems to be a mojibake or some such problem on the first letter of マニュファクチャリング, but yes, that is in line with the "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" sources, but the full quote reads Nakamura Seisakusho, with the ongoing success of F-1 (October 1976) changed its company name, and this was the first time the abbreviation Namco was used [emphasis added]. This was a shortening of the English name that the company sometimes used overseas, namely "Nakamura Manufacturing Company". [Then something about this becoming the l慌矢(?) of the company's corporate brand strategy.], which, while supporting the root of the abbreviation currently cited in our article, but seems to contradict the date. It's theoretically possible to ignore the explicit wording used in the quote (ここで初めて○○が使われた) and interpret it as meaning that the official name change happened in 1976 by using an abbreviation that had been introduced in 1971, but that's not what the source says -- I was originally going to say it might be an idea to replace 新明解ナム語辞典 with this source (title?), but if it contradicts the other information in the sentence that can't be used.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for engaging in this incredibly helpful dialogue. I am good with removing the 1987 Japanese book. As to the rest, I would like to loop in Red Phoenix since they are doing the source review. Are you okay with Kotaku being the source for Namco being a contraction of Nakamura Manufacturing Company? Any one who has interacted with me for any period of time on Wikipedia knows I am the last person to ever just assume a generally reliable source is correct in a particular instance. For what’s it’s worth, though, I think the totality of the evidence shows Kotaku got it right this time, and as a subject-matter expert I can also say with authority that this name origin story predates Wikipedia, so I don’t see a citogenesis problem here. If you are uncomfortable with the source after this discourse though, Red, I can look for alternatives. Indrian (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool. (Sorry if I seem a bit gruff/sarcastic in these interactions; it's not intentional, but I've been rushing these responses to get back to the other two discussions on en.wiki and one discussion on ja.wiki that I found myself dragged into without honestly being that interested in any of them and being busy IRL.) Are you okay with Kotaku being the source for Namco being a contraction of Nakamura Manufacturing Company? (I'm assuming that only your final sentence is directed at Red Phoenix specifically and not me or "the room".) As I said above, no, but I'm willing to agree to disagree if the consensus among other editors is that Kotaku is reliable for this kind of information. I don’t see a citogenesis problem here My view is that citogenesis is always a problem with pop culture topics (like video games) that touch on slightly less pop-culture-y topics (like the pre-1980 corporate history of any Japanese company) and we need to be super-skeptical of sources like Kotaku in such circumstances. Even in cases like this, where I believe you that the "NAkamura Manufacturing COmpany → Namco" story predates Wikipedia, it may well be the case that prior to Wikipedia there was an equally viable "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing COmpany → Namco" story that has since been suppressed as a result of English-language pop culture sources copying Wikipedia, which may not technically be citogenesis (which implies a completely made up statement that subsequently spread to other sources) but it's pretty close. Personally, I would prefer if the source you quoted above replaced the Kotaku one, but as long as I know that such a source exists (as I now do) and others are happy with the Kotaku citation, it's not something I see as worth fighting over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm very sorry it took me a while to make it here, but that's just the way IRL has been treating me lately. Anyway, Indrian, here's what I would tell you: normally, I'd say yes. According to WP:VG/S, Kotaku is considered a reliable source for all news articles after 2010, though this isn't exactly "news". They do tend to do well with retrospectives, however, and I've used them with some caution before. That being said, let me poke another hole in this one. In doing some searching on "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", I didn't find that, but I did find several occurrences of "Nakamura Amusement Machine Manufacturing Company". And here it is again in the Wall Street Journal, which is listed at WP:RSP, and at Gamasutra. There are actually many more I'm finding, and they're all tied to obituaries of Nakamura. At least one contradicts Kotaku by saying the initialism happened after a 1977 rename, whereas Kotaku claims 1971. As it stands, I'm trying to find a more period-based source that might help us out, but I think there's enough here to poke a hole in this particular claim to this particular source given that we have disagreement in other, similar sources also considered reliable. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I should add here (since I don't think it came across well above) that I'm confident that all these variations (Nakamura Manufacturing Company, Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company, Nakamura Amusement Machine Manufacturing Company, and possibly others) "exist" and were at one time or another officially recognized by the company themselves. The problems as I see them are (i) which of these can specifically be called the origin of the abbreviation "Namco" and (ii) when the abbreviation was coined. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: A look through the sources I reviewed suggests the same. The when and what specifically also seems to be in dispute in modern sources - ergo, my desire to try and find a period-based source, maybe in an old issue of Cashbox or so. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's been one of my points. Other than possibly one 1987 book for which we cannot currently verify the contents, no older source I am aware of in English or Japanese ever refers to a "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company." English language sources from the 1960s through the 1980s use either the original official name, Nakamura Seisakusho, or the translation of said name, Nakamura Manufacturing. While this is not proof in the sense that these sources don't say what Namco stands for, it would be odd for it to be shorthand for a name the company never used in another capacity. Indrian (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Here’s an interesting one, supposedly from an old issue of Cashbox circa 1976, though I’d have to find the exact issue. It does call the company “Nakamura Seisakusho”, but says “call us by our familiar initials NAMCO”. Maybe it’s not short for anything in English at all? Red Phoenix ^talk 16:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe it didn't occur to me to check until now, but Googling "Nakamura Amusement Machine Company" ("Nakamura ... Company", despite some statements above to the contrary, being a fairly reasonable translation of "Nakamura Seisakusho" by itself, with "Amusement Machine" being a description of their key product) in quotes brings up a few Japanese pages of seemingly varying levels of trustworthiness, which mostly seem to go back to this. This, like "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company" seems, at least to me, like a more likely source of the abbreviation "NAMCo" than "Nakamura Manufacturing Company", and I'm not exactly seeing the flood of pre-web English-language sources that all uniformly refer to the company as either "Nakamura Seisakusho" or "Nakamura Manufacturing (Company?)" alluded to above -- seemingly one unattributed quotation and one article in the Journal of Japanese Trade & Industry that use the latter and at least one patent application that uses the former. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it so important that we have the exact abbreviation to the word? We could either specify that sources differ on precisely what it's short for, or just mention that Namco came about as an abbreviation of the company's name and not specify exactly how. Perhaps that would not be so precise, but it would be accurate and still based on an appropriate review of reliable sources. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with either of those solutions. But in-line citations should be to sources that give different origins, because with only "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" sources (or one obscure Japanese print source from the 1980s and one "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" source that is both online and in English) someone might inadvertently restore some version the present text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I will absolutely fix this so that the sourcing lines up well with the claims, and I am incredibly grateful that you brought this issue to my attention on the FAC page. I am not sure, how much of the nom you read through, but I am not the original nominator of the article nor the person that did the majority of the work on the article, so I have been coming to grips with some of the nuances at the same time as everyone else. (I did the GA review, but that does not require the same level of engagement with the sources as we demand from a full FAC source review). As to your specific factual concerns, I am still just not seeing them. It's wonderful that you appear to have tracked down the modern source for the claim of the Nakamura Amusment Machine Company name, because it provides some more clarity on why this claim is suspect. Simply put, I would not expect a PR rep at Bandai Namco, a successor in interest to the original Namco, to have any idea how Namco itself translated the word "Seisakusho" into English. They are quite far removed from the original name change, which was almost forty years before that source was written. I do perhaps take slight umbrage at the "flood of sources" comment. I provided you what I felt were some of the most pertinent examples, but I never had any intention of citing to every mention of Nakamura Manufacturing/Seisakusho in the English-language coin-op trades. I will give you two more, however. Here is an ad Namco itself placed in the English-language coin-op trades announcing the name change. As you can see, the official name of the company was Nakamura Seisakusho in English. As for how to translate that into English, here is Namco's own corporate history, pre-merger, rendered in English by Namco corporate itself on its own Japanese website. Again, it does not say what Namco stands for, but it does clearly show what Namco itself considered the English translation of the "Seisakusho" in its name to be at a time when its founder was still the chairman of the company. It stretches all credulity that Namco is derived from an English name (Nakamura Amusement Machine Company) for which there is as yet no evidence Namco itself actually used in its dealings in the English-speaking world. Indrian (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are interesting sources, but all they do is verify what I said up above (I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as A, B, C, etc.) without shedding any light on the origin of the abbreviation, and the latter actually just clouds the dating issue even further by showing that as of 2003 Namco's English website said that the "[u]se of [the] Namco brand name [began]" in 1972 (given the preponderance of other sources, I suspect this is either a typo or a factual error). I don't think we're going to solve the mystery with the resources we have at present, so why can't we just do what Red Phoenix suggested above and say either that different sources give different etymologies (and cite at least one source for each, without necessarily listing them in-line) or that the name "Namco" was originally a brand-name based on an abbreviation of the company's name (without actually stating what said company's name is)? I didn't think it would be an issue so I didn't mention it up above, but is the problem that the latter solution would lead readers to assume that the correct origin was "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" because said name is cited elsewhere in the article? I don't see that as an issue, and I seem to be the one who's most sceptical of that origin, so I don't see why anyone else would see it as important. Anyway: there is as yet no evidence Namco itself actually used in its dealings in the English-speaking world This is a little problematic, as it depends on what you consider to constitute "the English-speaking world" -- English has been a de facto official language of Japan since before Nakamura Seisakusho was founded, and while even today very few Japanese companies are careful to maintain uniformity in their English branding, it goes without saying that some form of English branding could have been in use even within Japan, let alone in the company's dealings with other parts of Asia where English is used as a lingua franca, even if such would not have appeared in publicly available materials in those countries at the time or now. Even if you reject Niconico News as a source and take "Nakamura Amusement Machine Company" to be either a hoax or an error, there are still three options, all attributable to reliable third-party sources, one of which (Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company) is attributable to a recent first-party source but possibly contradicted by the fact that there are a larger number of old sources that refer to the company (but not the origin of the brand name) as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company". I would think it qualifies as OR to take a bunch of sources that all refer to the company as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and claim (in the article space) that this is the origin of the brand name "Namco", especially when multiple reliable sources explicitly say otherwise, and I really don't see why it's still an issue worth arguing over: we should just remove the potentially problematic part of the sentence and change the citations (or insert a WP:COMMENT) so no one misinterprets it in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy

Lead:

• ""company renamed itself to Namco" - "to" is wrong here, it should just be "company renamed itself Namco"
• Pipe "home console" to Home video game console
• "led Namco to producing games" - another problematic "to" - it's either "led to Namco producing games" or (my preference) "led Namco to produce games"

History:

• "them longer and expensive" - need a "more" for expensive
• "Because other manufacturers had exclusive rights to do so, the company was unable to place its machines inside stores" - swap the "to do so" and "place its machines inside stores". Having "to do so" first leads readers to say "to do what?"
• "approached Nakamura in early 1974 in regards to having his business" - this could be trimmed to just "approached Nakamura in early 1974 to have his business". Expressions like "in regards", "in order to", etc. are generally superfluous
• "It was released in North America by Midway Manufacturing, the video game division of Bally, where it became one of its best-selling titles and formed a relationship between it and Namco." - "it" is doing a bit too much heavy lifting in this sentence, referring to the game and Bally (or just Midway? I can't tell for certain) interchangeably. I'd be clear with the last "it"
• Link cartridges to ROM cartridge
• "considered of high quality" -> "considered to be high quality"
• "decision in creating" -> "decision to create". That sentence is also fairly long and probably should be split at "for the console. Namco signed a five-year...[and was given]"
• "Tadashi Manabe replaced Nakamura as president" - do we know why? Did Nakamura resign? Or was he forced out for some reason?
  • We don't have details, but he would not have been forced out. As the founding chairman of the company Nakamura retained great power and stepped right back in as president two years later. My guess is he wanted a more experienced administrator to run the day-to-day as the company grew larger. This is something that happened at several Japanese coin-op companies in this period. The founder of Konami also briefly stepped aside as president for a more experienced man, for example. Obviously, I am not putting any of that in the article because it is speculation, but I don't see him being forced out. Indrian (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Namco's R&D divisions finished development" - was there more than one R&D division?
  • Possibly. A lot of these Japanese arcade companies had multiple R&D teams. That said, its really not worth trying to clarify, so I just took out the term "R&D Divisions" entirely. Indrian (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• "As his anxiety disorder prevented him from properly running the company, Manabe" - this presents it as though we all know Manabe had an anxiety disorder.
• "The System 22 was put to use with Ridge Racer, a racing game, in 1993" - this is awkward; first, I don't think the definite article is needed, and it would be smoother to say "System 22 was put to use with the racing game Ridge Racer in 1993."
• "helped it outperform Sega's game in popularity" - this assumes the reader knows Virtua Fighter" is a Sega game
• "widely-successful" - drop the hyphen
  • Parsecboy, I believe I have addressed all of the above. I will address the general comments below as soon as I am able. Indrian (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

General comments:

• There are instances where refs are not in order (i.e., they appear as [1][3][2])
  • These should all be fixed.
• There are multiple figures given either in yen or dollars; it'd be nice if we could convert one to the other, but I realize this is fairly difficult to do for a given currency at a given point in time - if the sources provide conversions, it'd be good to include them.
  • I have expressed all the monetary figures in both dollars and yen save the revised sale agreement between Atari and Namco for Atari Japan, as those figures came from an internal Atari document and were therefore only provided in dollars.
• There are several duplicate links throughout the article - if you don't happen to have a checker, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is the one I use.
  • Fixed.

If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Parsecboy, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if I missed something. Indrian (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks good, great job, especially taking over the FAC midway through. Parsecboy (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Jaguar

While I've come late to this FAC, it does not take away the fact that it is well-written, comprehensive and impeccably sourced. I can't pick anything out which hasn't already been addressed, other than the fact that it is undoubtedly an exemplary article which faithfully represents all the facets of an influential video game company. Well done to Namcokid for his fastidious efforts, and Indian for taking the reins. ♦ jaguar 22:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Shooterwalker

I could nitpick the prose, but this article already far exceeds the standards of a WP:FA. The research is excellent, and it is very thorough. Perhaps too thorough, if there was such a thing, but it never goes too deep into a tangent. Great work to Indrian for keeping this one going. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 July 2021 [85].

---

Jason Sendwe

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose to national political prominence and fell in a series of disputes before being murdered under dubious circumstances; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March 2018, and though it failed FAn that November, I've since expanded it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks appropriate (t · c) buidhe 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro

Can't say I've read the article in depth, but from a skim-through I'm already noticing insanely-long paragraphs, especially the first paragraph of "Rise to prominence." These could easily be split. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've split two of them, including that one specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am hoping this article gets far more attention than the last time. I'm not a history buff but I'm hoping I find some stuff to comment on here. Let's also make sure commenters don't get into spats about nonsensical things like what happened with Tony and the nominator last time, and keep it focused on article content instead of behavior and beliefs of editors. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

The images should have alt text per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Heartfox, has this been satisfactorily addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: No; nothing has changed. Heartfox (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Should be good now. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ceoil

Reading through; first impression is that the lead is very strong from a prose POV, while the text in the body covers very complex political and sociologic dynamics, but is largely clear and precise. The references, from 10 minutes of looking, seem from the first quality of sources, but more later. Quibbles to follow, beware. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• It might be worthwhile, as you have the sources fresh in mind, creating an article for Association Générale des Baluba du Katanga.
• These sources are not employed in the inlne citations: Clarke, Stephen John Gordon (1968), East Africa and Rhodesia. 39. London: Africana 1977 - consider employing or moving to further reading
  • Removed.
• I agree with the point above re overlong and thus dense paragraphs, and have split a few. Note, generally much prefer longer rather than stubby paras, but some here had been mindbending.
• Sendwe was slated to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - "slated" should be "chosen"
  • Done.
• On 19 October, three days after Tshombe concluded a deal with Colonel Joseph-Désiré Mobutu to "neutralise" Lumumba, Sendwe was incarcerated by central government officials. The United Nations (UN) quickly secured his release on the basis of parliamentary immunity. As we are so specific re three days, can we better define "quickly". Also the scare quotes around "neutralise" seem coy.
  • The three days points to the time span between the Lumumba deal and Sendwe's detention, not the time between his detention and his release. "Neutralise" is not meant as scare quotes, it's meant to convey the ambiguity of the word in this context-death or some form of political incapacitation.

    Presumably so, as it was UN sanctioned, we know the day of release, so you can state. The scare quotes seem to avoid the issue; the article test does not indicate this "this context-death" you are here implying. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I've removed the "quickly"; Gerard and Kucklick do not provide a date for Sendwe's release. And to clarify, "neutralize" is the term used by the source, quoting Mobutu. The full quote is "neutralize Lumumba completely, if possible physically". Thus, the word is meant to be open ended. I didn't see the point in explaining all of this in the text of this article since that fact mostly pertains to Lumumba. Gerard and Kucklick seem to frame Sendwe as Mobutu's bargaining chip with Tshombe, so I'd rather focus on what happened to him then all of the intrigue behind Lumumba's downfall.

      • Ok. And I take your point re "neutralize". Ceoil (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• the only figure with enough clout in Katanga to challenge Tshombe - "clout" is vague, state if either or both "political or popular clout...."
  • Qualified as "political".
• This article needs a content review by an expert or at least a very well informed editor; there are passages that indicate romanticasation. Best I can offer here is spot check on compliance with utilised sources, which will move onto in a week or so. Delegates pls keep open until then. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Who is Erik Kennes and who made him boss, and of what. Similarly, we are given no indication of Kabuya Lumuna Sando's authority.
  • Political scientists, qualified.
• Kabuya, noting the newer clothing worn by the soldiers...He reasoned that - "newer clothing" obviously is flimsy legal basis - "claimed" rather than "reasoned"
  • Qualified clothing claim as "allegedly" and changed reasoned to "argued".
• through his success with national and international figures - how. Friendship, negotiation, strong arming, what?
  • Negotiation. Added.
• In 2011 a congress of the "Luba People" declared that Sendwe was among "our valiant martyrs",[90] but there is little study of him in Congolese historiography.[91] - Noticed this too, and almost nothing in English. Why is this I wonder, if the article is give (probably) speculate on reasons from later sources?
  • Loffman mostly attributed this to the fact that Congo Crisis historiography is swallowed up by focus on Lumumba, Mobutu, and Tshombe, and that Sendwe was a "mid-level figure" in Congolese politics, and such people rarely get that much study in African historiography. My own experience in this field gives me reason to agree with him. He didn't argue that this was necessarily unusual or out of the ordinary, so I saw no need to further elaborate on it.
    • ok Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• (On 28 November) a new état d’exception (state of emergency) was.... - a new one? Article doesn't seem to mention the old one. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Based of the source material it had been essentially redeclared. I think an original state of emergency had been declared by Lumumba's Government back in 1960, but no extraordinary commissioner had been appointed. The Adoula Government redeclaring it makes sense (since the Lumumba government was long gone and they wanted to probably stress their own attitude towards what was going on). But this is all back story that I don't think is worth getting into. I'm excising the "new" to avoid confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Good enough Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• To note, the below are nitpicks and am leaning support on prose. Source review to follow.
• Over time the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga while Belgium gradually withdrew its support for it - This implies cause and effect. Bridge with "and" rather than "while" if the meaning is not "Belgium gradually withdrew its support because the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga.
  • Changed.
• His attempts to do so as well as his hopes... - no big deal, but a bit gushy, maybe aims rather than hopes
  • Revised.
• were stymied by the Belgian government, which disliked his closeness to Lumumba - "disliked" is a bit coy, can you spell out the political/strategic reason. Also who says "stymied" anymore..."blocked" or "frustrated"
  • Kennes writes (translated from French): "Jason Sendwe, State High Commissioner, wants to fully play his role as mediator, by trying to integrate Balubakat and Conakat representations at the provincial level and national, and keeping Katanga in the national fold. His initiatives are thwarted by the deputy chief of staff of the Belgian Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens, Harold d'Aspremont Lynden, on the pretext that Sendwe is subservient to the Lumumba government with which 'any attempt at fruitful collaboration was henceforth doomed to certain failure'. It is not certain, however, that local and provincial officials followed Sendwe in this way." As such, I've revised that part of the sentence to say were frustrated by the Belgian government, which perceived Sendwe as an instrument of the Lumumba Government, with whom they had tense relations. More info on Belgium's bad relations with the Lumumba Government at Lumumba Government. I'm not quite sure what the "strategic" reasoning was, other than that they simply didn't trust Sendwe.
• Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - Were the millitary that disorganised; part..ie send a bunch of guys...should it be lead the "northern offensive" or something
  • More on that offensive plan (the part that was actually executed) here: Invasion of South Kasai. The ANC was very much disorganized, my impression is that a lot of the affair was simply gathering what troops were loyal enough and ordering them to attack. If I had info on troop numbers or units I would have included it.
• The dismissal caused a substantial amount of turmoil
  • Changed to political turmoil.
• to serve on a reconciliation commission to achieve an understanding between Kasa-Vubu...to achieve ...tasked with
  • Revised.
• Overall the writing is excellent. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support substantive issues dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than three weeks in and this has attracted little attention and no supports. Unless it receives considerably more attention over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Ceoil's deleted comment - which was fine. But Indy beetle, if you can call in any favours to get further commentary here, I suggest that you do so soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ergo Sum

I am by no means a subject matter expert on Congolese politics, so I have to defer to those more knowledgable on questions of comprehensiveness. Ergo Sum 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is there no link for Mwanya?
  • No, it was/is apparently a very small place.
• Can link nationalism in the lead.
  • Linked to Congolese nationalism (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
• Can also link "the country's independence" to Congo Crisis
  • Added as a see also section link under "Rise to prominence". I don't like making Congolese independence synonymous with the Congo Crisis, there was a five day interval between those two things.
• Can combine the two lead sentences about June 1964
  • Done.
• Can link nursing
  • Done.
• Optional, but could consider wrapping "École officielle pour Infirmiers à Élisabethville" and other French phrases with {{Lang}}
• "by the lack of educational opportunity under colonial rule" - this can use some explanation. What exactly was lacking? Were there simply no medical schools, were they restricted only to certain people, etc.
  • No proper medical schools, revised.
• Is there any more specific information available about his marriage, such was when it was or to whom?
  • No, not that I've uncovered.
  • Sadly, this information is not known for him and a lot of other mid-level Congolese politicians of this era.
• "the stated aim to encourage" - the construction I see much more frequently is "aim of encouraging". Just something to consider
  • Done.
• "leadership style" - what was his style?
  • Changed to "dynamism", word used by the source.
• I don't love the vertical list of 3 political positions, but I don't believe it contradicts any MOS rules
• Can link xenophobia
  • Done.
• "elected with 20,282 votes" - this clause strikes me as a bit abrupt. Perhaps rephrase to "Sendwe was elected to the Chamber of Deputies with 20,282 votes..."
  • Done.
• "abstain from sitting, thus when the assembly" - I believe this is a comma splice. The comma should be replaced with a semicolon or period.
  • Done.
• Should link Belgian Parliament
  • Done.
• Why is "outlawed" put in quotations marks
  • The source also puts it in quotes.
    • I think this will need some explanation, if any can be found with further research. Otherwise, it leaves a reader wondering what this means. Was it that he was not welcome but not actually outlawed, or that he was outlawed but that rule was not enforced? Ergo Sum 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I do think it was more akin to calling him a persona non grata than legal outlawing him (declaring him outside the protection of the law and liable to be shot on site, as traditionally understood in most jurisdictions), but the source does not go into detail on this. I'm sure if Tshombe's government had the chance they would have arrested Sendwe. This was not a matter of lack of desire to enforce; the parts of Katanga Sendwe visited during this time (far as I can tell) were outside the control of Tshombe's government, so they had no way of getting a hold of him. Plus, seriously attempting to arrest him and harm him would have incensed the Congolese central government and the UN and probably looked bad in the foreign press.
        • That makes sense. It would be good if you could clarify this meaning in the text, or at least add a footnote. At the moment, it just is not clear what it is meant to communicate. Ergo Sum 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I would like to, but that might be a breach of WP:SYNTH. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• "attitude against Katanga and Belgium gradually withdrew" - should probably be a comma after Katanga
  • Done.
• Not sure government should be capitalized in Adoula Government
  • Sources are very much mixed on this style, but per MOS:INSTITUTIONS I think this is how it should be done.
• vis a vis is usually hyphenated and accented
  • Done.
• "at 22:00 on 23 December" - need a comma at the end
  • Done.
• "probably so he could use them" - using probabilistic language in the voice of Wikipedia usually encounters some pushback. It would be best to specify who is saying "probably"
  • The UN, revised for clarification.
• "executive position at a company" - is there any information on which company or in what industry?
  • Nope, the importance of this just seems to be he would get a cushy salary in a place where he could do little political damage so he would shut up.
• " in a vote, 28–3" - can replace the comma with "of"
  • Done.
• "On 27 May," - article has thus far eschewed commas after introductory prepositional phrases, but best not to start now
  • Removed.
• I generally support linking words and phrases that can have technical meanings, including political concepts. When there is doubt, I tend to link. Not required, but might be considered.
• {{Use dmy dates}} would be useful, plus a spelling convention template, e.g. {{Use British English}}, if applicable.

That's all I have for now. Ergo Sum 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on the substance. I only quibble about the one remaining point above (re "outlaw") but think the article is ready for FA. Ergo Sum 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Z1720

Consider me a non-expert.

• "with a brief interruption." when was the interruption?
  • From 15 March to 27 April 1964 he did not hold the office, this all due to political maneuverings in the province. I didn't think this was worth getting into in the lede.
    • I think I agree. I withdraw this concern. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• "and his reputation thereafter drifted into obscurity." Delete thereafter as it is unnecessary.
  • Done.
• "to a Baluba family." Baluba is an uncommon term. I would add a small descriptor of who they are at the end of this sentence to explain who this group is without clicking into their Wikipedia article.
  • It was an ethnic group. There's not that much more to say about it DUEly than that, would "ethnically Luba family" work?
    • I don't think Luba would work either, as that is another uncommon term. What about, "to a Baluba family, the indigenous peoples in the south-central region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." (or something similar) and use the [2] source in Luba people? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I've added something to that effect.
• In the lede, it says he couldn't be a doctor due to "to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony" but in the body it says he was restricted by " the lack of medical schools in the Congo." These need to match.
  • Fixed.
• "He was able amass much of their support through his dynamism and frequent interactions with the population." This sentence sounds like WP:PUFFERY and not encyclopedic. I think you should describe what he did specifically to get their support (Did he travel around to give speeches to villages? Did he organise any campaigns?)
  • This was the words of journalist Evariste Kimba, who joined CONAKAT. This point is rather vague, so I could either attribute it in text or delete, whichever you think is best.
    • I would attribute this opinion in text to Kimba. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Done.
• I think the list of his three tenents would be better as prose.
  • Done.
• "In May he traveled to the United States at the invitation of the American government." What was the purpose of this trip? Why is it worth mentioning in this article?
  • The purpose was probably a goodwill trip and an attempt by the US to create connections with key Congolese politicians. CRISP usually added information that was timely and relevant, but obviously the lasting notability of this trip seems minimal (in contrast to trips by other Congolese that fostered longer standing connections in Belgium or the Eastern Bloc). I'll remove it if you think it adds nothing.
    • I don't think it adds to the article. I would remove. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Done.
• "In the national elections before the Republic of the Congo's independence on 30 June 1960 Sendwe was elected" comma after 1960
  • Done.
• "Invested with the responsibilities of his office," Sounds puffery and POV. Perhaps, "After assuming the role of State Commissioner of Katanga, he attempted to restore central control over the province." Also, what does central control mean? I would change this wording.
  • Revised, also "central government control".
• "Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army" Who chose him? What were the circumstances of him being chosen?
  • See Invasion of South Kasai, it's disputed as to who planned the offensive, and thus we don't know who ultimately decided to include Sendwe. As for why they would have chosen him, he held the job of State Commissioner, which made him the designated representative of the central government in the province. So the job he had made it a logical choice for him to lead the army on a campaign to restore central government authority. He also, as a BALUBAKAT leader, would have had popularity among the Luba population in northern Katanga. But this is all just my reading of the situation.
    • Do any sources describe who or the reasons he was chosen? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • To reiterate, no.
• "brokering an understanding between Kasa-Vubu and Lumumba" What's an understanding? A peace deal, a ceasefire, a political alliance?
  • Revised to say "political agreement". This was meant to break the constitutional deadlock that the situation left the country in (see Dissolution of the Lumumba Government), and probably would have involved a revised coalition government.
• "to neutralise Lumumba," What does this mean? What happens when Lumumba is neutralised?
  • See Ceoil's comments above, where this is discussed at length.
    • So after reading Ceoil's comments above, I get the impression that neutralise is quoting Mobutu? If so, why not just attribute what Mobutu said to him? That will remove the impression that this is scarequotes, and conveys to the reader that the ambiguity of neutralise is coming from Mobutu, and not OR from the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Attributed.
• "On the whole his tour improved security in the region," Delete on the whole
  • Revised.
• "and BALUBAKAT began to organise its own administration" -> "and BALUBAKAT organised"
  • Done.
• "the UN feared this was so he could use them to boost his support." Does the "them" refer to the UN, or to the refugees?
  • Refugees; clarified.
• "which was reversed by the intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister." So did the Deputy PM reverse the ban, or did he convince Sendwe to reverse the ban?
  • The Deputy PM simply overruled him; revised.
• "On 27 May 1964 a coup in Albertville by Simba rebels led by Kabila overthrew Sendwe's government." put a comma after rebels and Kabila
  • Done.
• "including having him shot," -> including executing him
  • Done.
• "reestablish his authority" His authority as what?
  • The fact that he was leader of the Nord Katanga government is mentioned two sentences previously, I don't think the point needs clarification, though if you insist I can add "authority as provincial president."
• "Political scientist Erik Kennes examined various testimonies." testimonies about what? I assume Sendwe's death, but this sentence's wording is awkward.
  • Clarified.
• "wanted Sendwe dead so as to make rapprochement with Tshombe easier." -> wanted Sendwe dead to make rapprochement
  • Done.
• "Kennes discounted the theory, reasoning that it was unlikely" -> Kennes reasoned that this was unlikely
  • Done.

Those are my comments in the first readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• • @Z1720: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I responded to some comments above. If I didn't comment, it means I think the issue is resolved or I will check when I do another readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Indy beetle Pinging just in case you didn't see my above comments. There are some points that I responded to that need to be resolved before I do another readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments, Part 2

• "He served as Second Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Republic of the Congo)" Does this sentence mean that he was PM or DRC, then the PM of RoC, or does it mean that the RoC used to be called the DRC? Please clarify in the article.
• The "Rise to prominence" section is very long; consider breaking it up with level 3 headings or with another level 2 heading.
• "He undertook another pacification trip in July." Was this pacification trip also in Belgium?
  • Northern Katanga, clarified.
• "On 2 August a new government was" -> "On 2 August a new government in Congo was" or something similar, to identify which government.
  • Clarified.
• "An état d’exception (state of emergency) was proclaimed on 28 November" Why? Why this date?
  • The logic of the Congolese central government during the Congo Crisis isn't always clear. The state of emergencies weren't always immediately preceded by some major development (sometimes they were, see Laurent Eketebi#Provincial government career). I would presume they issued the state of emergency for Katanga on 28 November 1961 for four reasons; one, PM Adoula needed to show Parliament he was serious about bringing Katanga back into the fold or he would lose their confidence; two, Tshombe was given the chance to try and reconcile his differences with the new government when it formed in August and by late November it would appear to the central authorities that he didn't care to; three, UN peacekeeping operations in August and September had failed to end the Katangese secession; and four, Tshombe's refusal to negotiate with the central government and allow CONAKAT deputies to sit in Parliament weakened and angered the conservatives, who would have by late November come around to using more forceful measures against Katanga. But that's just my opinion!
• "Though he had the support of most of the Katanga Baluba and the BALUBAKAT deputies in Parliament, the Adoula Government sought to divide Katanga to weaken it while BALUBAKAT officials in northern Katanga wanted an exclusive polity in the region under the domination of their own party." Can this sentence be split in two?
  • Done
• "On 15 March[68]" Since 68 is cited at the end of the sentence, I do not think you need a footnote here, as it might be WP:OVERCITE. You could also move [67] to the end of the sentence if it doesn't verify the 15 March date.
  • Done, though in the process of doing that we lose knowing what source supports what information.

Those are my comments from the second readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Indy beetle, this is getting very long in the tooth, could you pls complete the responses ASAP and let Z1720 know when done? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My comments have been resolved so I support this FAC. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• Source for him being second? (And this should be split to |order=)
  • Yes, Hoskyns 1965 p. 377 which is in the text. Also this is not a matter of he was the second person to hold the office of deputy premier, the office he held was "Second Deputy Prime Minister", because he was one of three deputy PMs at this time.
    • This isn't clear from the text as it stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how else to explain it, "Second" is capitalised, which would be unusual if it were not the actual name of the title/office.
        • Can you add an explanation of what this role is, or accompany it with something like "alongside First Deputy Prime Minister XYZ"? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Added in note that he served alongside First Deputy Prime Minister Antoine Gizenga.
• "He was educated in Methodist schools and medical institutions" - the text makes a point of saying there weren't medical schools available, would suggest rewording. Similarly the following sentence, "Unable to become a doctor due to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony", doesn't quite line up with the body text
  • Clarified; for the record, the Belgian Congo had plenty of nursing schools for black Africans, just not medical schools where one could get an MD.
• FN66 leads to a general Google search
  • Fixed.
    • Now FN68, this reference is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in when you include publication location
• Colvin: verify publisher?
  • Not sure what you mean, the publisher was Ferwin.
    • The linked version gives a different name; are you looking at another version? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh, nm, fixed typo.
• Gérard-Libois: who was the translator?
  • Rebecca Young, added.
• Hoskyns 1969 has a double location
  • Fixed. University College has multiple campuses, so University College, Dar es Salaam was a reference to the specific branch, though that's made obvious by the formal location parameter.
• Horizon: is there a specific article being cited here? What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • There probably is an article, but google books only has the compilation and I can't pin down the article title. The magazine was apparently affiliated with Rhodesian Selection Trust, a mining conglomerate. Probably biased and pro-Tshombe for sure, but I don't see why their use as a source of the single point would be much in doubt.
    • Did the magazine have an editorial policy of some kind? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Unclear, though it did have an editorial staff and its office was in the Elkaim Building along Cecil Avenue in Ndola. It seems academic sources have treated it as a reliable source for local mining issues; this book cites it at least four times and this one and this one cite it at least once. According to this source the magazine won some awards in 1960, though it is unclear what for.
        • I wouldn't say this use qualifies as a "local mining issue". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• How does Kennes meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • For one it is a PhD thesis. Two, the thesis has been cited by other reliable works such as the Provinces series edited by Jean Omasombo Tshonda and published by the Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale. Three, Kennes was already an established researcher on African affairs who had written journal articles before writing that thesis; this confirms that in 2000 he was working at the African Institute in Tervuren. This also includes more detail on him. He wrote a biography on Laurent-Desire Kabila in 2003 which has been cited by others (example). Since writing that thesis in 2009 he has written/coathuored several works published by university presses, including The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home (used in this article).
• How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
  • Earlier year comes first.
• Omasombo 2014 is missing publisher
  • Fixed.
• Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, are you satisfied with the sourcing on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator query

Hi Indy beetle, have you addressed all of Z1720's points? If so, could you ping them? Similarly with Nikkimaria. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: working on it, I've been busy these past few days. I'll ping them when I've responded to all of their comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think everything has now been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [86].

---

Plants vs. Zombies (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies is a video game developed and published by PopCap Games. When it was first released, it became the fastest-selling game developed by PopCap Games. I have worked on this article since November 2020. It passed a GA nomination on February 18, 2021. Now a peer review and a copyedit has been done on the Plants vs. Zombies article and now it is ready for Featured Article Candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Plants vs. Zombies (video game)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'm very familiar with the game. My comments:

• "If a zombie makes it to the house on any lane, the level is over." Would it be more accurate to say the game is over, or that the player has failed the level?

• Done

• Zombie is linked on a second or later use in the lead.

• Done

• "The player can only pick a limited number of plants through seed packets at the beginning of each level,[7]" Perhaps you mean "... limited number of types of plants ..."?

• Done

• It might be better to describe the stages as the Zombies advancing across the front yard by day, then night, the pooled backyard by day, then night, then the roof. The Lawnmowers are not used on the pool lanes, nor on the roof, though there are analogues, by the way.

• Comment: It is already made clear that stages 2 and 4 are night levels, stages 3 and 4 are pool levels, and stage 5 is a roof level. Also, the gameplay section did originally did mention the different types of lawnmowers. I removed them following a peer review in order to make the gameplay section more consise.

• Something more could be said about the role of Crazy Dave, that in addition to running the shop he offers (somewhat eccentric) help and advice, and "chooses" the preselected seed packets when playing Adventure Mode after beating Zomboss.

• Comment: Like above, they were originally mentions of this but were removed for more conciseness following a peer review.

• It might be mentioned that as one advances in Adventure Mode, there is access to more types of seed packets.

• Done

• You are not consistent on whether the "M" in "Adventure Mode" is capped.

• Comment: There is only one instance of the "mode" in Adventure mode is capitalized and that is the heading in the gameplay section.

That's what I mean. Does it need to be capped?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't. Done

• There is a clarification needed tag that should be resolved.

• Done

• Perhaps something could be said about that the zombies' intent is to eat the brains of the house occupants, and if they get past the defenses, they do so.

• Done

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I have addressed all your current problems. Lazman321 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "On May 20, 2009, Plants vs. Zombies was reportedly the fastest-selling video game created by PopCap Games.[103][104]" This seems awkwardly phrased. Perhaps the game "was declared the fastest-selling" or similar.

• Done

• Some of the strings of citations are not in numerical order, which is OK if what you are doing is always putting the most important citation (the one the cited material most relies on) first. Is that what is going on?

• Done

• Can anything be said about marketing of objects based on the game, toys etc?

• Not Done Information about that is only possible if reliable sources report on it, which they haven't.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAntro

I'm ready to look at this again after the peer review. I will say that I disagree with the use of present perfect tense in the third paragraph, as all of the citations are reviews from 2009, upon the game's release. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

• A possible comprehensiveness issue. I see no representation from scholarly and academic literature; this is especially concerning given that this game has been analyzed for its contribution to the tower defense genre, and the fact that, according to the Edge source in Ref 17, "during the making of this game tower defence kind of exploded in popularity" only adds to this problem. The only thing the Legacy section discusses is its DLCs, sequels and cultural references, but nothing about its impact on the design of games in the industry.

• Comment: I am looking through the sources and none of them seems to help say how this video game impacted design on video games or the genre of the tower defense genre. While its design was definitely unique, especially in terms of its tutorial, it wasn't ever stated to be influential or having an impact. A lot of the sources just say that Plants vs. Zombies was a popular tower defense game. They often just use the game as examples of something with occasional but trivial analysis. Saying in the article that Plants vs. Zombies has been the subject of many scholarly sources is original research unless a reliable source directly says so, which none have. Maybe if you can find some sources that directly state significant information about Plants vs. Zombies's legacy, maybe that will help.

• Working: You know what. I've found some sources that I could probably integrate into the legacy section and Plants vs. Zombies impact on tower defense and overall the industry. Lazman321 (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not Done Nevermind Lazman321 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Some cites have work names linked in every instance, while others not all the time and at random moments. This is inconsistent and not in line with the manual of style. You either have to link all source names the first time they're cited, or link them in every citation.

• Done though I can't do anything about Metacritic at the moment.

• Whoever programmed cite MC needs to understand Metacritic is not a work. Until he realizes that and changes the template accordingly, you're going to have to manually cite the Metacritic sources with a cite web template, and the name of Metacritic in the publisher= field. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: That was not was I talking about. Metacritic is a website, which by definition is a work, not a publisher as per WP:CS1. I was talking about its link being on every single citation. I can edit the template to remove that. Lazman321 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• " tower defense and strategy video game" Redundant. Tower defense is a subgenre of strategy.

• Done

• 1b issues. The article does state Weedlings was a working title, but never gives the reason for why its change, which was to differentiate itself in the saturated market of gardening games, which is in the Edge interview. In the same instance where he discusses this, he also gives a reason for why he ultimately went zombies as the antagonist, which I also see nowhere in the the Development section: "In fact, the game was called Weedlings, but many gardening games were coming out at that time and that just didn’t sit well with me. I tend to try to make games that are a little bit original. That’s when I came up with zombies, which are perfect because they move slowly so you have a lot of time to react to them."

• Done

• "Showing her how to customize their card decks inspired him to design Plants vs. Zombies with seed packet"
  • (1) I don't see how the experience of teaching her how to play Magic plays into this conception. I think the customability of the Magic is what influence the seed packets, not the girlfriend's learning of Magic. Presenting it like this without specifying Magic is a custom game is both misleading and too vague.
  • (2) Who is "their"? Were there multiple people whose cards were owned by while the couple played Magic?

• Done

• "finding common tower defense gameplay elements to be awkward, such as mazing and juggling," I know "mazing and juggling" is linked, but I still think how this sentence interprets the Edge interview is too vague. I find Fan's words in the Edge interview to be far clearer, that the "awkward" thing was that enemies would never go after towers obviously attacking them: "Originally the game was laid out the same way, but I realised there was something unintuitive about it. I always wondered why these guys never think to attack these towers that are shooting at them, so I was looking for a way to have the towers be directly threatened by the antagonist."

• Done

• "The Jackson-inspired zombie" Not in citation given. It is only from the subjective viewpoint of the sources currently in the article that it looks like Jackson in Thriller. "Jackson-inspired" implies the creator intentionally was influenced by Thriller to make the dance, which is not covered in the MTV Multiplayer source that cites this phrase. Sure, Jackson's actual estate perceived it as a rip-off, but that's not evidence the game's creator intended it that way.

• Done

• I don't see any reason to have the first two sentences of the Legacy section in that section and not in a section about the game's sales. The events discussed in those sentences happened close to the game's release, not a decade later, and the citations used for these sentences were published upon release as well.

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Done with more of your commments. Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments

• "The team discovered" Wait, this game was done as a team? I initially thought Fan made the game by himself with his girlfriend. [Looks at infobox] Oh, there definitely was a team to this. Any info on how this team came together? Did PopCap sign the man to make another game with staff? A team is randomly introduced here, and this sudden first mention of it may confuse readers.

• Done

• Link "real-time strategy" in "Design" section.

• Done

• I would really give Ref 27 another read, because I'm finding major details about the making of this game in it that I don't see in the wikipedia article. For example, Fan designed all of the concepts based on the knowledge of casual players: "Fan knew he wanted to use stationary "towers," and players immediately understand why rooted plants are unable to move. Zombies, on the other hand, are known for moving slowly, making them a perfect fit for the game's single-screen fields." Another example, specifically about how the characters were designed: "In Plants vs. Zombies, Fan made sure that each character visually represented its function. The standard "Peashooter" plant, for instance, has a giant mouth for spitting projectiles, and its name further suggests what it's capable of."

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @HumanxAnthro: Addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

4/11/21

• I echo yet again for the nominator to give Ref 27 more reads, because only those two examples have been added. Trust me when I say there is more than 2 cites worth of material in that source. Given missing info I have found in other citations in this article, I'd recommend the nominator read the other references to look for any other missing details himself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• @HumanxAnthro: Done Lazman321 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please excuse the lack of comments over ten days. I have been juggling other reviews and articles on Wikipedia and sometimes delays like this happen. My apologies.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

4/22/21 Now that this has a re-write and expansion, here's some more comments. I'll have more to make after this.

• The lead is well-written but feels short a little on summary of development.

• Done

• "who want to eat the player's brains" (1) This might get nitpicky, but the cited source only describes the game as the player defending themselves from zombies, without specifying the zombies want to eat brains. (2) The eating-brains is probably fluff. It is common knowledge that zombies try to eat humans' brains, and in the slim chance a reader doesn't know that, they have the zombie article currently linked to read that.

• Done

• "five or six horizontal rows and nine columns," This is cited both to PopCap and GamesRaders+ cites (or Refs 7 and 8). PopCap source does give numbers for the amount of rows, but not for the amount of columns. I also saw no specification of the number of columns in the GamesRadar+ source. Did I miss it, or is it covered in another source?

• Done

• "The player places different types of plants and fungi on individual squares of the grid" The only citation for this sentence is the GamesRadar review. The source talks about there being a variety of plants and seeds as the game progresses, but never specifically discusses a grid or the player specifically placing a planet on the square of a grid. It also doesn't talk about fungi also being usable to defend against Zombies.

• Done

• Per MOS:CITEPUNCT, you must place references after punctuation marks. There are references in the middle of the sentences, something I noticed in the Gameplay section. Check for others.

• Not Done: That is not what the guideline says. It says that if the reference is located next to a punctuation mark, it should be after the punctuation mark. Citations are allowed to be put mid-sentence as long as it is next to the cited material. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Multiple reference numbers are not in increasing numerical order. "[7][5][11]" "[7][6][9]" "[7][6]" This is what I noticed just reading the gameplay section. Check for others.

• Done

• The Critical response section is navigable and well-written, but a couple of spots use full quotes that could be paraphrased or be partial quotes in some sports, and an issue, which I brought up in the peer review, of not using past tense for 2009-published reviews in the third paragraph remains.

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments (4/23/21)

• "generally stylized as a lawn" Why not just say it's a lawn? Why say it's stylized as one? The GamesRadar source citing this statement certainly doesn't put it that way. It just says it's a lawn

• Done

• "Each plant has a different style of defense, such as shooting" Why only one attack method listed? I get we're trying to make this a little of a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but if there are multiple types of attacks, why only bring up one? Can't you bring up any other examples that reliable reviews provide, cause I've spotchecked a few of the currently-used review sources and I know they talk about them?

• Done

• "by using certain plants that generate sun, like Sunflowers." Again, why only one example listed? The VideoGamer brings up the sun-shrooms, which "produce sun during the night."

• Done

• "Different types of zombies have their own special behaviors and their own weaknesses to different plants." Same issue. I know we're not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but I think we're leaving readers in the dust by not giving them examples, especially when they the types of Zombies, especially the dancing and football ones, are enthusiastically covered in reviews. Again, only use the ones brought up in reliable sources so it's not GAMEGUIDE-ish.

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: Any more to come here? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I've haven't re-looked at the rest of the article, but other commenters are and are giving it a thumbs up, so I'll let them handle the rest, given that I want to work on other varied topics. The incorrect tense in the third paragraph is still not addressed, however. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed the incorrect tense in the third paragraph. It was addressed, I simply forgot one of the words. Lazman321 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria

• Don't use fixed px size

• Done

• Missing alt text

• Done

• Done for one, not the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• File:Plants_vs_Zombies_Gameplay.png needs a more detailed FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's been expanded, but not appropriately. It looks like it's been largely copied from the lead image? They serve different purposes within the article so should have different rationales. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The templates being used are different. I'm mostly using the default text on the rationales. Is that wrong? Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. It reads as if the default text is for a lead image; that's not the use of the image here. What are you trying to convey with this image? What benefit does it provide to readers to have it here? Why is it needed in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free? These are the sorts of questions that the rationale should answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is used for readers to have a better understanding of the gameplay itself and can also be used to tell people that they made it to the right article if it was what they were looking for. This is what is mentioned in the rationale and I believe it is sufficient. Plus, I can't even change the descriptions. Lazman321 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• The explanation currently in the FUR is insufficient, because it doesn't tell us what benefit this image provides in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free. If there is no added benefit we won't be able to use it. You do have the ability to edit the FUR here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I replaced the rationale with a non-free media rationale in order to actually edit the descriptions. I have clarified the purpose of use in the rationale. Lazman321 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Still have an alt missing, licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria I have inputted the alt text now. Lazman321 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

I am not sure I have time for a full review but I have a few comments:

• Per WP:VGBOX the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. The current cover art has various PC logos, etc, found a platform neutral one free from of them here [87].

• Done

• In the lead and body "Plants vs. Zombies received critical acclaim" 8 versions on Metacritic 2 (iOS) recieved "universal acclaim", DSiware " mixed or average" and rest "generally favorable", not sure how that results in overall critical acclaim.

• Comment: Is generally positive a better summary? Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe so yes, should be reflected in the lead as well

• Surely Stephen Notley should be mentioned at least once in development section since Notley was the writer, or the fact he only wrote the almanac section.

• Done

• Are there any free images avaliable of development staff or any other relevant images (appears to be this at commons [88] though not sure how copyright works in regards to that).

• Working: I have asked Dean Takahashi through Twitter to license a picture of George Fan he took during a 2018 interview about Octogeddon under Commons. Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done: @Spy-cicle: Takahashi agreed to send OTRS an email saying that he will license the image under Commons license. He chose CC-BY-SA 4.0 International and now the image is in the article. By the way, in regards to the cosplay images, the problem is not copyright. The problem is this article does not have a cultural impact section as there is little-to-no information about its cultural impact. The closest would be the cultural references section, but adding a picture of cos players would add nothing to the section or this article. Lazman321 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ah I see nice one on getting that free image. I understand what you mean about the relevance of cosplayers if there is no cultural impact section.
• The Fan image should have an alt text, and should be on the right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Possible to mention the link to the series article in some way (i.e. it spawned a series including third-person shooters, etc or something)

• Done

• The way it was placed seems a little MOS:EGGy, may need to reword a little bit.

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• The release section only mentions a PlayStation Network (should also be linked) port as if it is digital only on ps3 there appears to be a disc version also.

• Not Done: There needs to be reliable sources that mention the physical copies of the PS3 version, not store directories. If you can find some, I will definitely add them. Done for linking.

• There seems to be some strange inconsistent linking in the reference sometimes websites like IGN other times they are not.

• Comment: Can you please specify. Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• For example in ref #37 IGN is linked, whilst in refs #40, #44, #45, etc it is not. The website parameters (IGN is just one example) should either be consistently linked or consistently not linked in references (iirc MOS does not mandate which one but may be worth double checking).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I've always been told that you only link the first instance of a work in a citation. But, I guess it is allowed to link every instance of a website in a citation. Done. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• First reference to readme appears to be dead (url-status should be changed)

• Done

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#GameplayFor readability, choose either "the player" (singular) or "players" (plural) and stay consistent throughout the section. inconsistent across the gameplay section.

• Done

• The usage of USD $ need MOS:NBSP and the M needs to spelt out on first usage per MOS:CURRENCY or spelt out both times since they are in different sections.

• Done

• The nbsps do not appear to be placed correctly (example $11{{nbsp}}billion, see MOS:NBSP).

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your requests.

@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your second set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll circle back to this once I have some more time on my hands, but it is certainly looking better.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Spy-cicle, any more to come on this? Don't feel obligated, but if there is I don't want to close the nomination when you are in mid-review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah I have a few more comments that should hopefully come over the next few days (if I don't get it done by Friday then don't worry).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• "The Nintendo DS port was commended for its four new mini-games and its versus mode from the Xbox 360 version, but was considered inferior in its animation and graphics." Yet only one cite to one IGN review is cited.

• Done: Moved back the IGN DS citation to the other DS citations. Lazman321 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 7 a primary source is acceptable but I think we should really mostly be using secondary sources. I am not saying it cannot be used at all but considering the number of times it is cited that stuff should cited to mostly be cited to secondary sources (from MOS:VG As with most Wikipedia content, gameplay details must be appropriately verifiable to reliable sources. While secondary sources like reviews are preferred, primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable,)

• Done: I removed citations to the readme where secondary sources could reasonably already confirm the information. Lazman321 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 2 Could you link to the specific where Fan confirms this rather than the whole post (same goes for the archive if possible)

• Done

• Ref 4 does not list the author (Earnest Cavalli)

• Done

• Ref 8 Date is does not match what it says on wiki, on their website it says May 13, 2009

• Done

• Ref 12 No author (Alice Laing)

• Done

• For older reviews (like in 2009) are often over a number of different pages like the case for GameSpy and GamePro. For those two for instance are cited 5 and 4 times respectively and I doubt in all 9 cases that you are only referencing the first page. Could you ensure you are citing the correct pages for reviews where there are multiple.

• Done

• That was just looking from scanning over the first the first handful of references which makes me slightly worried.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Spy-cicle: I have done your requests along with adding names of authors to sources that previously didn't have them. Lazman321 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are currently some ref errors (36 and 38 for PC Gamer interview and edge)
• I made a few adjustments here and there
• Is it clear when development started, do sources mention when (I guess sometime after the release Insaniquarium but if there are no sources that say that then do not worry about) I know it says total time was 3.5 years?

• Comment: No source I looked at ever stated when exactly Plants vs. Zombies started. Lazman321 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• It appears the PlayStation ports were published by Sony Online Entertainment not PopCap [89][90][91].

• Done

• There is also does not appear to be any said summary of what critics thought of said playstation 3 / psvita ports unlike some of the other consoles there certainly seem to be enough reviews covering it. [92][93]

• Done for PS-Vita. Not Done for PS3 as for that one, the only reliable source I have access to that I know of is the IGN review. As far as I know, there isn't a significant difference between the Xbox 360 version and the PS3 version.

• Reading over it The gameplay, development, legacy sections are solid but release and reception needs a little work but I'll address that more directly later.
• Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Spy-cicle: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber

Nice work - made some tweaks. Seems alright on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments by Qwertyxp2000

Independent thinking here, but I would like to say that the content coverage of the article as a whole feels complete. It covers a well-balanced amount of both the in-universe and out-of-universe content in both quality and quantity, including the ratio between them. The word variety and sentence structuring appears to be clear and concise; neither too excessive nor too vague. Sources appear to be reliable and primarily secondary upon first glance, and source formatting feels well-structured upon a brief look at the reference list. Balance in Critical Reviews section appears to be done exceptionally well for tower defense games. The entire article provides a good example of how a tower defense game game should be formatted. The legacy section is also structured very clearly, and I can easily understand the content of those sections just by reading the entire sections within several minutes of deep reading. The leading section is a bit long for my liking, but the leading section sure sums up the entirety of the article sufficiently, keeping the most important points written there including the basic information about the game itself, the design and development, and the critical reviews and legacies.

If I have some criticism, I would probably work a bit more on the Legacy section and its subsections by introducing a bit more about each stage of the legacies, like perhaps add a leading section in Legacy about the general legacy of the Plants vs Zombie original game, obviously backed up with reliable secondary sources that is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, I would like to say this is a good candidate for Featured Article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will get to soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Non source-related comment - You use both Stephen Notly and Stephen Notely. Which is correct

• Done: The correct spelling is "Stephen Notley". Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• No action needed - while the Reddit thing looks a little dodgy, the verification checks out, so I'd say it's about equivalent to using the subject's social media and is cited very minimally, so its probably fine
• Who is James Gwertzman? That Slide Share source linked to him looks WP:SPS. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: He is a primary source. At the time of the creation of the slideshow, James Gwertzman was the vice president of the Asia/Pacific division of PopCap Games located in Shanghai, China. [94][95] Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• In the body, it's the Suburban Almanac. The two times you cite it, it's Suburben Almanac. Which spelling is correct?

• Done: The correct spelling is "Suburban Almanac". Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Padgadget appears to be a blog, what makes it high-quality RS?

• Done: I have removed the blog but kept the other citations as they are considered RS. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• One source links to Major Nelson, but that's a dab page.

• Done: Clarified the link. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• WP:VGRS says that Kotaku is reliable post-2010. There is a single 2010 cite to Kotaku that might ought to be replaced to be on the safe side.

• Done: Considering USA Today is reliable in it of itself, I just removed the Kotaku citation. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's it for formatting/reliability. Will conduct spot checks for text-source integrity and copyright soon. Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/PlantsZombies. No issues detected with copyright or text-source integrity. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Passing on source review - no issues with copyright or text-source integrity; satisfied with source reliability and text-source integrity. Sourcing seems to be a thorough and representative survey, as well. Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• Link "ported".

• Done

• " Magic the Gathering" is "Magic: The Gathering".

• Done

• "and Swiss Family Robinson" this is odd, so probably best to note that it was the movie, not some game.

• Done

• "game took three and half years to make. Rich Werner was the game's main artist, Tod Semple programmed the game, and Laura Shigihara composed the game's...." game game game game...
• In fact "game" appears 13 times in the lead alone, excluding "gamer" and "gameplay" etc. It's jarringly repetitive.

• Done: I've gone through the article to remove many instances of "game" and "the game". Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "to casual and hardcore.." to both

• Done

• "fastest-selling video game developed by PopCap Games" without context this is meaningless, what did they launch before this that was popular?

• Done: Bejeweled and Peggle. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "A few years after" not encyclopedic.

• Done: changed to "In 2011". Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "followed by a series of follow-ups" followed by follow-ups? Repetitive.

• Done: Changed to "series of games". Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "ups; including" not a semi-colon, maybe a comma.

• Done: Ditched the punctuation. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• The engine is mentioned in the infobox but nowhere else.

• Done

• If strategy is mentioned in the infobox, shouldn't that also be in the lead as the genre?

• Not Done: Tower defense is a sub-genre of strategy, making the inclusion of "strategy" in the lead repetitive. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "game[3][4] in which" move awkward refs to end of sentence.

• Done

• "types of plants on" singular, types of plant.

• Done

• Zombie doesn't need disambiguation.

• Done

• own special behaviors" particular.

• Comment: I listed examples of their "own special behaviors".

• I get what "Cactus" is but "Blover"?

• Comment: I'm just going to remove its mention. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "can only pick a " only not required.

• Done

• "called "sun".The" space.

• Done

• "Sunshrooms.[7][6][8] Each" order.

• Done

• "type of plant recharges between each placement of the plant" -> "of plant ... of the plant" repetitive and awkward reading.

• Done

• "a lane, the lane's Lawnmower will kill all the zombies in that lane " lane three times in one sentence...

• Done: Removed one of them. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "drop money when" do you mean "drop sun"

• Not Done Nope, money. Zombies don't drop sun when killed. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Saving for now, I need to re-boot. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "iddyDinkies.[11][7]" order.

• Done

• "Zen Garden.[6][7] The Zen Garden" repetitive.

• Done

• "and has the player water and maintain " allows the player.

• Done

• "player money" sun?

• Not Done: No. Money. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "has some mini-game challenge" why "some"? why not "a"?

• Done

• "without a mini-game-type gimmick" why not just "without a mini-game"?

• Comment: That wording just sounds awkward. I'm just going to remove it. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• How many levels are there?

• Comment: The article says "There are five stages in the Adventure mode, each comprising ten levels." What do you mean? Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "lanes.[11][9] On" order.

• Done

• "On the pool, plants are placed on top of Lily Pads which" -> "Plants are placed on top of Lily Pads in the pool" and why are Lily Pads capitalised?

• Comment: Because in this context, Lily Pads is a proper noun. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Zombot's feet and vans" feet and vans? like vehicles?

• Done: Clarification. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The player subdues these" The player can subdue...

• Done

• "After beating the " completing.

• Done

• "other side of each lane.[11][6] Survival"" end of each lane, and order.

• Done

That takes me to Development. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I am done with your current set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "make a tower defense game" overlinked.

• Done

• "DS. In the initial" merge for better flow.

• Done

• "the fact that enemies in tower defense games would never attack the towers was unintuitive" I don't quite follow that, don't enemies attack towers?

• Comment: No, they simply walk towards the end goal while they are attacked by the towers. Keep in mind that I am going off of what the sources say. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "which a family defends against" defends what?

• Done: Themselves and their home. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "by the game Tapper" some context for this would be good, it's somewhat a classic and dates back almost three decades before this game was developed.

• Done

• "video games were being released at the time" can you list any examples?

• Not Done: I would if George Fan himself did in the interview. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the enemies changed" were changed.

• Done

• "But Romero did..." avoid starting sentences with "But..."

• Done

• "errors.[28][26] " order.

• Done

• "at PopCap Games, PopCap helped" repetitive.

• Done

• "based in ... was based in Seattle" repetitive.

• Done

• "the plants and zombies descriptions" -> "the plant and zombie descriptions"

• Done

• I suspect "the Suburban Almanac" should really be "the Suburban Almanac"

• Comment: I don't think so, as the Suburban Alamanac is fictional and as a result, may not be a major work. However, since it is based on actual almanacs, there may be a chance you are correct. I can't decide at the moment. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "internal forum. .. internal forum" repetitive.

• Done

• "years to make overall" does "overall" add anything?

• Done: Removed. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "would later be" why not just "were later"?

• Done

• "polishing and fine-tuning" I would suggest that "polishing" is not encyclopedic in tone here.

• Done

• Hardcore gaming just redirects to gamer.

• Done: Changed

• Couldn't you just say "hardcore and casual gaming"?

• Done

• "attract casual gamers. It had" overlinked.

• Done

• "It had the player learning by doing actions"" really awkward phrasing.

• Done

• Of course, this kind of tutorial is commonplace nowadays, is there any source that this was a novel approach back then?

• Comment: Not really. Why would that be needed anyway? Lazman321 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• "fun on level paired up with it" I don't follow this.

• Done: I just removed the statement. Lazman321 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• "strategy often had difficulty learning the strategy" repetitive.

• Done

• "lowered from 100 to 50 sun," without context this makes no sense. Perhaps just "halved" would be better unless you want to discuss the whole "sun" value/price/acquisition rate in more detail?

• Done

• "Early in the development of Plants vs. Zombies was spent brainstorming" this doesn't parse for me, maybe "Early in the development of Plants vs. Zombies, time was spent brainstorming.." perhaps?

• Done

• "a big mouth to shoot projectiles out of its mouth " repetitive poor prose.

• Done: Rewrote to be more concise.

• "shoot projectiles out ... it shoots projectiles" likewise...

• Done

• "plant crushes enemies" zombies?

• Done

• "placed next to plants" no need for italics.

• Done

• "51 types of zombies" zombie.

• Done

• "designing the fight against him at the end of the game" so is he a Boss (video games)? Link that.

• Done

• "on their father, as their father" repetitive.

• Done

• "these songs were reactionary songs" repetitive.

• Done

• "playing through it" it through.

• Done

• "song was inspired by the song" repetitive.

• Done

That takes me to "Promotion and release". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• "eventually released" when?

• Done: May 4, 2009. Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The edition was" repetitive.

• Done

• "the port's release" link port here too.

• Comment: Why? Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "a tweaked interface" not encyclopedic tone, perhaps "modified".

• Done

• "and added back in the Survival mode and the Mini-Games mode" -> "and restored the Survival and Mini-Games modes"

• Done

• Link iOS.

• Done

• "games, etc" I don't like "etc" in an encyclopedic article. What else was the "etc"?

• Done: Replaced with "and additional achievements" Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's "Amazon Appstore" and we have an article.

• Done

• Also, Android Market could be piped to Google Play.

• Done: Android Market already redirects to Google Play. As per WP:NOTBROKEN, I linked it to Android Market. Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "On June 23, 2011, the game was ported to" no, I assume it was released on that platform that date, not ported on that date. Same applies to subsequent sentences here.

• Done

• Link Xbox Live.

• Done

• "as a singular copy and as a " -> "both on its own and as part of .."

• Done

• "versus mode, a co-op mode, and a new mini-game mode"" modes were previously capitalised.

• Done: Capitalised. Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "2011[83] with" comma after year.

• Done

• "being its publisher" as its publisher.

• Done

• Link PlayStation Vita.

• Done

That's down to Reception. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Done with this section. Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "game created by PopCap Games.[112] It quickly became PopCap Games's best" overlinked and repetitive, maybe: "game created by PopCap Games, quickly becoming their best"

• Done

• "James Gwertzman" who?

• Done: The vice president of the Asia/Pacific division of PopCap Games. Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "from hardcore gamers" this was (IIRC) linked before but to a different target?

• Done: I removed the link. Previously, I changed the redirect itself for consistency.

• "Live, reports that" reported.

• Done

• "iOS app store" isn't that the "App Store" i.e. App Store (iOS/iPadOS)?

• Done

• "number one in amount of sales and amount of money grossed" no need for "amount of".

• Done

• "received positive reviews" I would dare say "very"

• Done

• "all versions received generally..." this sentence has versions three times, repetitive.

• Done: Replaced the two others with "According to Metacritic, the only version that didn't receive "generally positive reviews" or "universal acclaim" is the DSiware version, which received "mixed or average reviews".[103]" Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "premise; He clarified" no need for cap after semi-colon.

• Done

• "Rock, Paper, Shotgun " according to our article there are no commas.

• Done

• "at some moments" sounds Germanic, perhaps "sometimes"?

• Done

• "of new units" first time you've used the term "unit" so needs reword or explanation.

• Done

Gotta rush now, more soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done with this now. Also, I apologize for not doing some of the release section stuff earlier. Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Some noted the game's humor" you've already explicitly noted a quote which says "the game's sense of humor will really have you grinning" so that's obvious, no?

• Done: Removed that portion of the quote. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• " new exclusive mini" sounds a bit adverty, do you mean it's a mini-game only available on the iPad?

• Done: Removed "new". Yes, it is only available on the iPad. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "mode.[107][83][121] " order.

• Done

• "The Nintendo DS port"" overlinked.

• Done

• "Awards earned" strictly its Awards and nominations

• Done

• "laid off as part of the systematic lay-offs in" repetitive.

• Done

• "named Plants vs. Zombies 2 was" overlinked.

• Done

• "third third-person shooter," likewise.

• Comment: I'm not sure what you want me to do? Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• It was another duplicate link, I fixed it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• "is currently in" as of?

• Done: As of October 2020. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats it, just the refs to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:: Done with this set, ready for the refs. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 12 - Popcap -> PopCap

• Done

• Ref 30 - Slideshare -> SlideShare

• Done

• Ref 41 - space after "?

• Done: Removed the apostrophes. Lazman321 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 43 - is NG his surname? Should it be Ng?

• Done: Yes, Ng is his surname. It is apparently a common surname from China.

• Ref 48, 52 etc - not archived, any reason?

• Done

• Ref 79 - IGN not linked.

• Done

• Ref 117 - for me NYT is a subscription only access.

• Done

• Ref 122 - Nick, not Nicj.

• Done

And that ... is that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:: Done with all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Good work. Article is in excellent condition, reads well, is comprehensive, sourced well and meets all the bits of MOS that I know of. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2021 [96].

---

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

Nominator(s): Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time. This is my first FAC nomination, and in preparation, the article has undergone a peer review earlier in the year: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1.

Being a remaster of an existing product, my only major concern with the article is that (as I've experienced already by editors) coordinators may struggle to reach a consensus on whether the article's Gameplay section should simply list the notable changes between it and the original game, whilst linking to the original game's article for a full rundown of gameplay features (as it currently does). The other alternative is to give the remaster article a full breakdown of gameplay information, mirroring the original game's article, and allowing the remaster article to stand on its own and not rely on the other for clarity. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by AviationFreak

This will be mostly a prose review, but if I happen to see anything else that needs fixing I'll point it out. I tend to be pretty nitpicky and generally go by what sounds best to me, so feel free to ask me about these changes and/or not make some of them.

• The second sentence in the lede has a few issues - 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare sounds like the game was published/developed by "2007", it's unclear whether initially released as past of... applies to the base game or the remaster, and I believe the comma after November 2016 is extraneous.

• I've re-worded to "the 2007 game". To avoid repetition and length, and the fact it's a remaster (self-explanatory), I didn't bother to give the genre again, and the alternative "the 2007 first-person shooter" didn't seem suitable. My only concern now is that the sentence length is almost at that point where someone might ask for it to be split (again). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Online petitions aren't really "released", perhaps "gained traction" or something similar would work better here?

• Changed to "circulation", in line with how it's described in Development. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Raven Software assisted in the development of previous games.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• remastered original sound effects - There's nothing inherently wrong with this and it gets the point across well, but perhaps an adjective besides "remastered" would work better given the game title?

• Changed to "revised". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• While the preceding sentence makes the changes sound sweeping, they are then described as "small improvements".

• The "small improvements" are referring to the gameplay changes, hence why it's mentioned straight after gameplay in that sentence. I've added "to it" at the end for clarity though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe ...multiplayer content, and additional single-player achievements... should be multiplayer content, as well as additional single-player achievements

• It was actually that initially, but was changed during one of the copy-edits. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• enhanced graphics, sound, and range of improvements. - This is awkward, perhaps it should be enhanced graphics, improved sound, and a range of other improvements.? The word "enhanced" should apply to only the first item or all of the items, not the first two.

• Changed to "revised sound" (and used the same prose for its mention in Reception), but I feel it sounds better without the "and". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oops, meant to say I don't agree with the "a", considering both use "and". Changed your edit. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• What exactly does "grounded" mean in the context of single-player campaigns? I've never played the CoD series, but this adjective seems weird in this context. The same applies to "freshness" in the next sentence.

• I did think recently this might prove confusing for some. I basically meant in the sense that it was down-to-earth in contrast to later installments that have futuristic elements (e.g. jetpacks). Replaced with "realistic". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The lede sentence on criticism seems like it's trying to fit too much information into one thought, resulting in a lot of commas - Maybe split it into one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer?

• Probably best it is changed as the criticism and controversy sentences do flow very similarly from both giving three examples on the topic in question. I've re-worded but I can't really decide what sounds better; it's a toss-up between "Criticism focused on the multiplayer mode for balancing issues and the single-player mode for its pacing and artificial intelligence." or "Criticism focused on balancing issues in the multiplayer mode and the pacing and artificial intelligence in the single-player mode." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd go with the first one. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• in the eyes of players - I assume this would be more correct as in the eyes of most players.

• True, but I think this is potentially WP:OR. None of the sources explicitly describe it as "many" either. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Gotcha - Hadn't looked at the sources. If that's what they say, I agree with the current wording. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• ...overcharge for the downloadable content and standalone version of the game. - Can't quite place it, but this just sounds a little off to me. It may very well be grammatically correct and not require an edit.

• Left as is, but I know what you mean. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The second sentence in "Gameplay" is a bit confusing to me. "Encompassing" doesn't seem like the best verb here, but more importantly I can't understand what "remained nearly identical to their original counterparts". Was it the controls? The timing of existing animations?

• Both aspects remained nearly identical. Propose the following: "However, it includes a few modifications comprising of improved controls and timing of existing animations, while remaining nearly identical to their original counterparts." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still a little confused - If both aspects remained nearly identical, why are we mentioning the modifications? I would think those modifications would be insignificant if the aspects they modified remained nearly identical to the original. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, but I still think it's still worth mentioning as almost all of the interviews highlight it. I've just read through it again and it's kinda tricky how I should word it because of this, but seeing the player character's arms while prone doesn't fall under what's sourced as the improved controls or animation timing; as such, the sentence erroneously starts off with "For example", so this bit should probably be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if replacing the NPCs' heads with watermelons warrants mentioning, even if it is funny. This sentence could also use a change, maybe something like ...keeps the same collectibles and cheats while adding several new cheats.... As-is, it seems clunky to me.

• Changed to suggestion. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe "as" would work better than "from" when talking about the differences between MW and MW:R's multiplayer modes.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• new modes like "Prop Hunt", in which players hide as inanimate objects from the opposing team is a fragment, because it doesn't fit into the "modes present in other installments" category. Maybe append , are included as well to the end of the sentence.

• Done, and split into two sentences as it was getting too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• "through microtransactions" could be appended to completing challenges, crafting, or buying in-game currency to give an inline definition of the term.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after the SAS team escapes with its manifest.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Should "Ultranationalist party" be capitalized?

• It's the name of the political party in-game so yes. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There should be something like "in another" after ...in a secret level titled "Mile High Club" since we have during one level in the previous statement.

• Done, and removed the title of the level as it's unnecessary. The prose on the Plot and Characters has been taken from MW's article and simplified. However, I'm just thinking, and no one has ever brought this up before, but is it an issue that the Characters section in MWR is not sourced at all? The Plot section of MW is wikilinked from MWR but this is only referencing the plot, not the characters. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the relevant guideline here is MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which says that plot citations are nice but not necessary. If secondary source summaries of the game exist it would probably be worth citing them in the Plot section. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The first image in "Development" features a weapon being held by the player, while the second doesn't. Unless this difference is part of the remaster, it should probably be consistent in the comparison.

• It's a change in the remaster. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Source 18 uses "source code", not "source codes" as the article does - I believe the source is correct since we are only talking about one program, even if it may contain multiple scripts.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Full" 1080p? Also, does the game use a more widely-known engine (e.g. Unreal, Source)? If so, it should be mentioned and wikilinked.

• Changed to "a native 1080p", per wording in the source. The problem with details on the engine is that they don't explicitly give the name of it, only that it's an upgraded version of the one for MW, which is the IW game engine (and its unique for MWR owing to some tinkering), so I'm not sure this warrants wikilinking to the IW engine page as proof. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the IW Engine is used exclusively for the series, so I think it would be worth piping "the series' game engine" to the IW article. This does mean we'd have to remove the link to game engine though, so I'm open to other suggestions. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about wikilinking the IW article, primarily because it doesn't mention Remastered and games that use heavily-modified or almost brand-new versions of the engine aren't listed in its table, but maybe it's acceptable. We also have a note for the engine section on MWR's article, saying "Do not add any engines without a reliable source", but now I don't know if this should remain if we link to the IW engine. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Gotcha - It's not crucial that the engine is linked, but from my perspective it would be useful to identify the engine somehow somewhere in the article. This could even be in the infobox, with something like "IW Engine (heavily modified)" for the Engine field. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Put it in the infoxbox. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after nostalgic experience for fans of Modern Warfare.
• Extraneous comma after and the desire to meet expectations.
• Unless Pellas was encouraged by the leading principle, there should be a "they" before were encouraged by their leading principle...

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Source #1 supports almost the entire 2nd paragraph in "Development" - If possible, there should be corroborating sources added.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the article describes "paint-over" very well - Is it just adding assets to existing environments?

• It's basically a draft in preparation for when they're properly created. Propose the following: "Enhancements to the environments were designed (or perhaps "drafted"?) using a procedure called "paint-over", establishing a color scheme and taking screenshots of levels from Modern Warfare before overlaying them with concept art." What do you think? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Much better, prefer "designed" to "drafted". AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• While the last sentence in "Development"'s third paragraph describes its idea well, the "vice versa" doesn't really work - Does the environment now respond more realistically to the NPCs' artificial intelligences?

• Propose the following: "The artificial intelligence of NPCs was improved to respond more realistically to the environment; conversely, grass was animated to react to the player character's presence." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Better, but I don't know that the average reader will recognize the connection between the two statements. Maybe instead of just "grass" we could say "environmental features" or "aspects of the environment, including grass,"? The source uses the term "foliage", which would work better as well IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to look into changing the prose on character AI because reading the source again, reacting to the environment was just one improvement made to them; their movement system was also another. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe spell out "Experience" in "Call of Duty: XP 2016"? My brain intuitively reads "XP" as an emoticon, but if this is how the event is marketed/commonly referred to it should stay how it is.

• Left as is. Seen several articles that refer to it as such. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• the weapon audio was revised to more closely resemble those found in the original game. - I believe this should read that the audio was revised to better resemble that found in the original game, since we're talking about "audio" and not "audios".

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the remastering process, the game had an array of new features. - For a paragraph lede, "had" is a bit lackluster. Consider "contained", "offered", or something similar.

• Changed to "contained". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Cheats are mentioned three times in the article, from the lede to "Gameplay" to "Development". "Gameplay" and "Development" basically the same thing about them, so they should probably be scrapped from one of those sections.

• Removed from Development. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the comma after ...released as a free update several weeks later is extraneous. Ditto for the one after Raven published various playlists and seasonal events.
• Target is not an exclusively online store - If the reservation was explicitly for Target's online store, the sentence should be reworded. If not, just say "Target". Also, I may just be out of the loop, but what exactly is a "reservation card"? If an article exists it should probably be wikilinked.

• Changed to just "Target" as the sources don't give further details. One of them calls the reservation card a "pre-order card", so have just wikilinked to the pre-order page. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• CoD:XP is duplinked, and see my above comment about the use of "XP".

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think ...other improvements to Remastered should be ...other improvements to Modern Warfare, since it's the product that was improved upon.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Push Square opinion at the start of the third paragraph in "Reception" needs an inline citation, either at the comma or along with Electric Gaming Monthly's citation.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after writing it was welcoming to more casual players.
• more enjoyable from allowing different gameplay styles - The "from" doesn't make grammatical sense here. I can't think of anything particularly concise as a replacement, so maybe something like "more enjoyable because it better accommodated different gameplay styles" would be better.

• I don't see an issue with the grammar here, and I feel this alternative is too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me the "from" still sounds wrong in this usage. Looking at it again, "more enjoyable because it allowed for different gameplay styles" would also work IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• and attributed this to a desire to preserve... can be shortened to "attributing this to a desire to preserve..."

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the last paragraph before "Infinite Warfare bundling" is clunky.

• See below comment re. Pellas.

• The Pellas sentence looks great, but I'm talking here about the first sentence in that paragraph. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• My bad! The wording was changed during a copy-edit from the similar "The multiplayer mode in the Windows version of Remastered was criticized by players for the available settings and from suffering from a number of technical issues." If it still sounds clunky then I don't know if the copy-editor was intending to avoid this or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, those both sound "off" to me - I think the issue is using the structure "Players criticized <x> and (for/from) <y>". Removing the "for" or "from" would create a smoother structure, so you could say something like "Players criticized Remastered's limited number of multiplayer settings and its large number of technical issues", or something similar. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after "On Steam".

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• It should probably be mentioned that David Pellas was closely involved with development in this paragraph, even though it is stated earlier in the article.

• Propose the following: "As part of his close involvement in the game's development, David Pellas playtested the PC version, stating before release that it "play[ed] amazingly" and had a "fantastic" frame rate; he acknowledged, however, that the game had been played on a high-end gaming PC." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• This looks great to me. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe Hardcore Gamer noted many fans had... should be Hardcore Gamer noted that many fans had...
• In the sentence on Rock, Paper, Shotgun in the "Infinite Warfare bundling" section, I don't think we need to use "fans like themselves" - just "fans" would work.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• ...some perceived as a future inclusion of virtual goods should probably be ...some perceived as an indication of future inclusion of virtual goods or something similar.

• Changed to "an indication of future virtual goods". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Follow MOS:INOROUT when adding quotes. For instance, this is done incorrectly at the end of the "reeks of money grubbing" quote.

• Done. I'd checked all of these previously, so must have missed this one. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe there should be a "that" between "PCGamesN lamented" and "Activision".
• I have to assume that not all of the guns were "locked behind [a] paywall", but the article doesn't make that clear.
• Need a "that" between "Complaints highlighted" and "the publisher". This sentence is also quite long and overuses commas, consider splitting it.

• Combined the end of the sentence with the following one, so both sentences are of similar length. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoo, that should give you a bit to work on! Don't worry too much if this seems overwhelming, most of the changes are small and should only take a minute or two, tops. As this appears to be your first FAC, I want to say congratulations and good luck! Looking over the talk page, the only thing that appears as an outstanding issue to me is the question raised in the "Use of quotations" section. If possible, I would recommend slimming down or eliminating some of the direct quotes. Overall this article looks nice and doesn't contain too many MOS issues (it could use a few more images, but I understand that as a copyrighted work this is not easy). Again, good luck and stick with it! I completed my first FA a few weeks ago and it's a great feeling once you get all the source and prose drudgery out of the way. Let me know if you have any questions! AviationFreak💬 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak Hi, and thanks for the response! I'll go through those presently. I had extensively trimmed down the length of quotes (and all but removed them for the Development section) as part of the peer review, but I understand where you're coming from in that I think perhaps a few could be removed from Reception (I did struggle with how I might paraphrase these though). The use of an image for the Gameplay section I'd proposed previously, and I will look further into the possibility of using one; at the time, I think ImagineTigers' wording confused me and thought he meant only one image should be in the article, period! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, almost all of the extraneous commas (which I sympathise with) and the omissions of "that" were made by two editors as part of full article copy-edits, so while I disagree with most of these choices I'm sure their editing prowess gave them good enough reason to believe these changes were preferable. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha - Again, I tend to go by how things sound to me. If other commenters here at FAC agree that some or all of those changes should be made though, I think they ought to be implemented. AviationFreak💬 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak I've now made all the required changes, with the exception of a couple I wanted to know your thoughts on first before I published them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

These look great! I believe I've replied to all of your questions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak Made the agreed changes. I've still queries about the gameplay modifications, linking the engine, line summarising criticism of the PC version, and the prose on the AI/environmental behaviour. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I've responded to all of these, contact me with any follow-ups! AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I missed it in my Watchlist when you finished the changes - Support, and best of luck with the image and source reviews! AviationFreak💬 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Coming soon to theatres near you. Panini!^🥪 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll publish each section individually so you can work while I review it. If you're present, that is.

Miscellaneous

• Noticed this right off the bat, so looking at miscellaneous first. The article switches between abbreviating Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered to Modern Warfare Remastered and Remastered. I believe sticking with one or the other would be a benefit. It appears most sources abbreviate to Modern Warfare Remastered, so I'd stick with that in my opinion.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have noticed that using its full title makes the already-long subsection heading of "Pricing of DLC and standalone version of *title*", compared to the others, strikingly longer. Do you have any objections in replacing it with "game" instead? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Gameplay" and "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Plot"; I normally see this formatted as "X of Y", so this could look like "Gameplay of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" and "Plot of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" if you prefer.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• A glance at Plot, it might be confusing to some readers. You could cite the game for clarification if you believe some parts are confusing to explain in simplicity (you can check out Paper Mario: The Origami King#Plot for an example of this)

• These are not citation types I'm familiar with (not that I'm familiar with most anyway), although I have seen one or two examples on articles for older games. Is it literally just a case of citing basic game data (game title, publisher, platform, release date, etc.) and writing a quote? What sort of information would you suggest needs citing for Remastered? The Origami King seems to focus on three statements that are slightly vague or not elaborated upon. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Good Job! I really like this lead.
• However, I strongly dislike parenthesis, as to me they simply look unprofessional. They could be changed to hyphens, I guess.

• This was done during a copy-edit but I wasn't keen on it either; we have another use of hyphens in the lead so makes sense to do the same here. Changed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "In the multiplayer mode, if a weapon is equipped, players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example." While this is not really important to understanding gameplay, it doesn't hurt to have anyways considering the length of this section. Your choice.

• I'd say mentioning you can see your arms and gun while prone matters even less, but yes, without them the section would be notably short; will keep. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• "... and cheats while adding several new cheats." "Cheats" is repeated twice here.

• It's because there are only new cheats, not new collectibles, or are you saying it would sound better without the noun being used twice? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's what I was implying. Maybe "... and cheats while adding several more of the latter."

• "The multiplayer mode offers a greater ..." -> "The multiplayer mode offers a larger ..." because "greater" sounds more ad-like.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• "A number of weapons not featured in Modern Warfare were added." This sounds rather clunky to me. They simply added more guns, correct? Maybe something along the lines of "Modern Warfare Remastered also added additional weapons" or something like that.

• Used your suggestion but with "the game" instead as having the title mentioned near the end of the paragraph didn't seem appropriate. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• I have nothing specific to point my finger at. I'm angry about that. I promise I'm nitpicky! I'm a Wikipedian!

Even the Reception section, which I always have something to say about, looks good! I'm gonna be bold and say right off the bat Support. A lot of the articles' problems were dealt with in the very extensive peer review. Panini!^🥪 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Panini!! Do you have any thoughts on the article needing another image, as this is one area that I don't know could end up being a factor in determining whether or not the article will reach FA. The other query I have, and I don't know if this is an area you particularly focus on, is whether there are any sources you think might not be considered FA standard; those couple that are good, but not amazing, are New Game Network, Windows Central, and Comicbook.com, the latter two of which appear in the "Other reliable" section on WP:VG/S. I was told during the review that even ones like Push Square might not fly, which is concerning. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish I was good when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not skilled in authenticating sources. Someone will come around and give a full source review in due time. Panini!^🥪 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Panini!, do you have anything further to add to this review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Maaybe; I've diverted my entire attention to getting my Paper Mario FAC done, but I'll probably come back after. Panini!^🥪 01:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm back; although I've supported I've got an answer to your first question that I missed. In theory, there are no issues with images, and the one there is within WP:NFCC. However, you could use a second image for gameplay reasons. Panini!^🥪 10:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Panini! I've been seriously contemplating putting in an additional image after AviationFreak also suggested it last month, and I've compiled examples for use in either one of two sections. One would be a screenshot I've found of the new Prop Hunt mode for the Gameplay section; the alternative is a marketing image for Infinite Warfare's special edition with Modern Warfare Remastered, which would go in the criticism section on the product bundle. However, in the peer review, ImaginesTigers said I would likely have to settle for one gameplay screenshot, and we already have two in Development for the purpose of highlighting and comparing the games' visuals. On the other hand, I notice the Paper Mario article, which is now an FAC (well done!), does have two gameplay screenshots, so I'm sure it's not impossible, provided the rationale is very good. What would you suggest?

The other issue for me personally is that I'm still really not very knowledgeable on the process of uploading and formatting images, in addition to how the process changes depending on whether they're uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. I notice those I've seen from WC, among a whole host of other changes to file information, don't include a rationale; am I right in thinking they don't need these because they're free-use? And would a marketing image fall under free-use? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've uploaded dozens of fair use images, so I can take care of that part for you. One of the rules of non-free images WP:NFCC is that the article must have significant commentary to warrant its importance; in the case you mentioned, Prop Hunt has a small sentence and doesn't fit this criterion well. You'd be better off with a simple gameplay image in my opinion, similar to that of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Boring, but more necessary and efficient to the reader. The marketing image should be fine, in theory. Is it a real-life image taken by another person? If so, it should be freely licensable and wouldn't have to adhere to NFCC if uploaded, due to it being in the commons. However, if it is not your own work, you would need to get permission from the person that took the picture. If and once you do that, I can hunt someone down to put the rest together for you. For an example of free liscencing, view [[File:Nintendo 64 with Paper Mario.jpg]]. Panini!^🥪 10:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Panini! As the Gameplay section links to the Modern Warfare article for further information anyway, I don't know if having an image in both sections would be necessary (although I do think the image in Modern Warfare doesn't show a whole lot and it only concerns the multiplayer). The advertising image isn't a photo or a screenshot, it's just a graphic (see examples here and here). Also, does it matter if the source it came from isn't considered reliable? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will conduct the source review and first-timer's spot checks. Hog Farm _Talk 04:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 10 (Call of Duty's Prop Hunt) is missing the author

• Done.

• What makes New Gamer Network high-quality RS? Not listed at WP:VGRS, and the credentials listed in their About section are all about playing video games, and not about writing for significant RS

• Removed all mention of NGN and cited with other sources; changed or removed prose as necessary.

• Destructoid is listed as situational at VGRS. I believe I've been informed at a FAC/FAR somewhere that Chris Carter is a useable author, but I'm not familiar with Peter Glagowski. Does Glagowski have credentials? Ditto with Jordan Devore.

• Glagowski appears to be a former Destructoid writer, and has also written for Flixist, PC Invasion (these two are owned by Destructoid per Enthusiast Gaming), TheGamer, TechRaptor, and New Game Network, sources of which are either classified as situational or don't appear at all on WP:VG/S. I can't seem to find anything on Devore, other than that he was a founding member of Destructoid (per the footer tagline in his written articles).
• Hog Farm. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• I believe a different FAC I was involved with wound up determining that Devore was okay, but it would probably be good to replace the references to Glagowski. Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done.

Beyond that, I think everything's reliable for what it's cited for, and nothing really stuck out as formatting issues. Spot checks will be done at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One thing came up with spot checks; may have been me missing something. Looks to be in pretty good shape here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing now look good, passing the sr. Hog Farm _Talk 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• The licencing and the free use rationales seem fine.
• Could we have alt text for the non-lead images?

  Gog the Mild There is existing alt-text but it's very simplified so I presume you just mean better ones? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. Ignore that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Is it worth me improving it anyway as it doesn't explicitly describe what's in the images? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it anyway. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "offering a number of small improvements" this feels like an opinion, not an encyclopedic assessment. Maybe "modifications" or similar.

• I've changed most of the uses of "improvements" to "modifications" and "adjustments".

• The lead doesn't really offer any insight at all as to the plot of the game. If you don't know about CoD: Modern Warfare, you really aren't left with any clue as to what this game is about from the lead.

• In the lead of Call of Duty 4's article, the plot summary is included in a paragraph on the story and multiplayer. Obviously I will re-phrase the wording, but would you suggest doing the same for Remastered and making the plot its own paragraph, or trimming it and putting it on the end of (which I believe is most suitable) the first paragraph?

• I'm not fussed either way, but those of us who aren't intimately familiar with this game are left wondering what it's all about... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've used near-identical wording to the plot summary that used to be in the Plot section and included in the first paragraph. Both the lead and Plot use the full titles of the SAS and USMC and their abbreviations in brackets. Do both sections need the abbreviations? Should the Plot just use the abbreviations (and have their first instance wikilinked)? Etc.

• It works fine for me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• " IW Engine " why capital E? The target article doesn't use E.

• Uncapitalized.

• Notes [a] and [b] appear to be unreferenced.

• I've sourced [a] but I'm having a bit of trouble with [b] and [c]. The thing is, I want to cite the same source for both, and for [c] I've included a quote from the article for further clarification on the subject. I only want the quote shown in the one for [c], not for [b], however if I put both sources under the same ref name the quote is then used in both notes and I don't want that. I also don't really want the source to appear twice in the references list if one doesn't have the quote. Are you able to assist? If not I can just use another source for [b].

• I don't see an easy solution for this, other than your suggestion to use another source. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example" I'm not sure I follow how this taunts someone?

• I'd wikilinked to the video games section on taunting for this reason, but I can put the word in quotation marks or otherwise clarify further by giving more detail; whatever you see fit.

• I think more detail on what this means in the video gaming context would be good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've given a bit of explanation based on what the source indicates.

• " full PlayStation Network trophy " two links here, the second linking to a section of the first, just link the whole thing once.
• Same for " Xbox Live achievement"

• Done for both.

• "game released" game was released.

• Done.

• What's a killstreak?

• Explained with sources (as I've used an em dash, should the comma I removed have remained somewhere?). The problem I've got though is that one refers to them as "killstreaks", the other as "scorestreaks" (scorestreaks are the revised version of killstreaks in the series; Remastered uses Modern Warfare's killstreaks). I scoured for sources that explained what killstreaks are and these were the only reliable ones I could find, and I can't really go without one or the other either.

• You can footnote the fact that killstreaks == scorestreaks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• ""such as "Gun Game" and "Hardpoint"" what do these modes mean?

• Explained the modes with additional source.
• Can I ask for your thoughts on Gameplay having a "See also" section to the Call of Duty 4 article? During the peer review here it was suggested that I try and expand signifcantly on Gameplay so it can stand on its own rather than rely on the other article, and mirror the gameplay information by possibly using the same sources Call of Duty 4 used due to it being essentially the same game. I also brought this up at FAC here but the few I spoke to were generally against the idea if we were explaining gameplay that was near-identical in both versions.

• Do you mean a hatnote? I wouldn't have a problem with it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think you need a single subheading for Characters. you have a section 2 and a 2.1 but no 2.2 so I don't really see the point.

• I've removed the subheading, merged with the Plot section, and made some improvements to the wording. However, because the introductory paragraph is as large as the first two describing the plot, do you think it would be best to include a "Plot" subheading, or even restore the "Characters" subheading for the first paragraph as well?

• I think it's fine now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• " detonated" and "effects" are different subjects.

• Linked to Nuclear explosion page.

• "rebuilt [...] from" do you need the square brackets?

• The quote reads "rebuilt a ton from" so I believed brackets were needed.

• ""iteration of the series' game engine" you name (and link) it in the infobox, could do so here.

• This was discussed previously in the review, but in the end I decided against doing it.

• I don't see why it wouldn't be included here, it's useful detail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Changed.

• Spell out HUD.

• Done.

• What's an NPC?

• It's short for non-player character. Used the full term.

• "at Call of Duty: XP 2016, the " worth some context, like "at the gaming convention ..."

• Done.

• "a reservation card for Target with " this is a bit of a mystery for people who don't have Target to shop at.

• I wikilinked it to the page on pre-orders, but if you think this needs further clarity would you suggest I just use the term "pre-order"? Do you also think just having "Target" on its own is fine? This was also brought up earlier in the review.

• You could add "supermarket chain" or whatever you might call in. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• E3 2016 has its own article.

• Wikilinked. As it is, "2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo" redirects to the E3 2016 article, but do you think I should bother pipe-linking it as "E3 2016|2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo"?

• Sure, pipe link so people aren't left in the dark over what E3 means. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• "and 10 rare supply drops" what are those?

• These are explained in Development.

• "use of microtransactions into " overlinked.

• Removed link.

• "incorporated a grind for those not " not clear at all what that means unless you click away from the article.

• Paraphrased.

• "Pricing of DLC and..." haven't yet explained what DLC means so expand that in the heading.

• I think "downloadable content (DLC)" should be used in the article, but I'm undecided whether to put it in the lead or in said subsection where the abbreviated "DLC" is used several times. If it was in the lead, would this justify DLC remaining in the table of contents?

• Well it should probably go in both places. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 21 has a couple of spaced hyphens instead of en-dashes.

• I think it's because this is how they were in the game's subtitles, but changed.

• Publishers/websites etc, what's the approach to linking in the refs? Is it every time, first time only? E.g. Destructoid is linked a couple of times out of half a dozen or so uses.

• This was an oversight. Linked for all relevant examples.

• "" to Call of Duty 4 at Wikiquote" game title should be in italics.

• I'm not sure why as I'm not familiar with using Wikiquote, but while the current non-italicized title links to Call of Duty (series), putting it in italics however redirects to a page on Call of Duty 4 that does not exist.
• Upon further investigation, it seems subject titles at Wikiquote which are in-lined are formatted automatically without italics (but can be italicized through pipe-linking), per several examples I've just come across (League of Legends for one, which recently became a FA). If the link isn't in-lined, however, it's automatically italicized.

That's a very quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Responded to your comments. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff, I'm satisfied that my major concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Thanks, but I still have several remaining queries with regards to the notes and killstreaks sourcing, Target prose, E3 linking, DLC abbreviation, and wikiquote formatting. Are you able to assist further? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Given we have consensus to promote, and the age of the nom, I think we can leave any such adjustments till post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose The Rambling Man sorted this shortly after I replied. Thank you very much for promoting the article! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2021 [97].

---

Shoom

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seminal late 1980s Acid House nightclub in London that almost single-handedly introduced Chicago house and Detroit techno music to the UK mainstream, creating an explosion of interest in electronic music and repetitive beats that culminated in the Second Summer of Love and still reverberates in contemporary European dance music culture. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Alts now added. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support: I have issued, now resolved, comments on the talk page. I'm satisfied that this article is comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced—although a separate source review is still absolutely necessary. DMT biscuit (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for support, talk page suggestions, and copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Shoot for the Stars

I'll be leaving some comments in a few hours after I get some sleep -_-. ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• User:The Ultimate Boss? (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi User:The Ultimate Boss, will there be a review forthcoming? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ultimate Boss has said on my talk that unfortunately they will be taking an extended break from wiki matters (never a bad idea, esp with exams and that), so in other words, not at this time. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(This is TUB. I changed my name to something for meaningful.) The article looks amazing so I support! Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

• Three weeks in and only one general support. Just a heads up that if there is not a fair bit of further activity over the next three or four days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  User:Gog the Mild, as an update, Sandy has expressed further concerns re grammar and prose, but before issues below by TRM were addressed, while another top to bottom rewrite is underway. Apologies that this is happening so late, but a much better article is developing. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil. I confess that some of this has me wondering if the article was actually ready for FAC when it was nominated, but as you seem to have addressed TRM's concerns - although we have yet to see how they view your changes and responses - it seems that this may be getting close to consensus to promote. Can I enquire as to what progress has been made to date in addressing Sandy's concerns? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that, in the cold light of day, that it was nominated too early...so my bad and learnings, genuinely. However Sandy has put quite "a lot" of effort into detailing specific and general areas for improvement, which were mostly addressed, and now we are down to tense, capitalisation and things like that. TRM has been sterling here, and most of his points were of the clearly actionable (change this to that) type, so I considered them resolved. He reviwed about half the article, but on the back of his points have audited the rest. I realise I'm pushing my luck here, but if its ok, can we let TRM finish up (in a few days), and then I would be happy to ask Sandy to sign off if she sees improvement.. All this brings us to next Thursday, as I have a beast of a week ahead from tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been crazy busy IRL but am now done with project and can revisit whenever Ceoil is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging SandyGeorgia, as The Rambling Man has now completed a thorough and detailed review during which no punches were pulled ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ceoil; I have been extremely busy IRL, but am putting this on my list to complete ASAP; hard to know where to begin catching up, but I will get here soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rush here. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

Commenting at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, will be giving you the go ahead to revisit probably early next week. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I will revisit today or tomorrow ...have been busy in the garden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#Revisit SG, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As relatively little was commonly known about ecstasy, a common misconception was that it was legal, when it was legally classified as Class A under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.

• This is the first sentence I happened upon on my revisit. There are three instances of a need to vary wording in one sentence (common common, legal legally, classified class). Then the year 1987 is referenced twice in that same para. I am not sure what the first "commonly" refers to (as opposed to medically maybe?), I am not sure why the second legally is needed, and it seems that the class classified issue could be resolved better. Could the whole sentence be fixed with something like ...
  • Although it was listed as Class A (deemed the most dangerous) under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, a common misconception about little-known ecstacy at the time was that it was legal.

... the music worked so well with the drug because the warm and empathetic high from E's aligned with the both small, intimate size of the early London clubs, and the shared excitement of discovering a new and revolutionary form of electronic music.

• I don't know what the "both" refers to, and don't know if the baker's apostrophe on the E's ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Realistically, should I expect any further comments or changes before I talk a walk through the article myself with a view to closing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ian, I’ll be looking again in a few hours. Ceoil (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Have done some further editing, and trimmed out repetitive things. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, any update? Or should we go ahead and review with an eye to closing? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time to put this one to bed, any further tweaks can take place post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas

Support. Everything seems to be in order. I have no problem supporting this for a FA. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate this considering all you have done here on electronic music...the article was started after admiring your work on "Acid Trax" last year. Ceoil (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

Lead

• "sucessive nightclubs" first it's a typo but secondly I don't get it, do you just mean different?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Was it a one night per week kind of event?

• Yes said later, but will clarify also in lead. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "between September 1987 and 1990" this is an odd span, is it September 1990 too?

• Unfortunatly, after much searching, have not been able to find out when in 1990 it closed. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Now reclarified as "early 1990", but thats all I have. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• One ref in the lead always seems very odd to me. That material should be in the main part of the article and indeed expanded upon and referenced there.

• Removed Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Surprised that Raw isn't notable enough for an article.

• It is, and have red linked for now. Shoom was only created Nov 2020, and intend to also create something for The Trip and Spectrum shortly. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• What is "door policy"?

• Clarified as "entrance policy" Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "media "black-out" approach - isn't blackout just a standard English word?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "also taking" personally.
• "viewing the club" as this was held at three clubs, shouldn't this be "event"?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why is "Rave" capitalised?

• Fixed Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Formation

• "The much larger Amnesia nightclub..." largre than what?

• Larger than Shoom. But fixed. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "DJ's" no need for apostrophe, consistency within the article seems to favour "DJs".

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "at Alfredo Fiorito's open-air" open-air what?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "on return" their return.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm always amazed by the number of times I see a single subsection used, e.g. we have 1 Formation and 1.1 Early nights but no 1.2.... Would early nights not just stand in its own level 2 heading?

• Merged...formation and early nights coving similar period/ground. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The club opened..." Reinforce "Shoom" here as it's been a while since we mentioned it.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "5 am" should use a non-breaking space per MOS.

• Sorted Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "he did not view it as successful" which he? Several individuals have been mentioned preceding this.

• clarified as Danny Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "played. [1][15][16] By" no space before refs.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "and House music" why suddenly capitalise house?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "where is was cool to be seen" it was and this isn't encyclopedic in tone, is it a quote? Wikipedia doesn't tell people where it was cool to be seen.

• Clarified Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "UK acid House" that capital H again. I don't really favour one way or the other but you need to be consistent.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the queue grew" the queue to enter the club.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "to Thursday nights " you said the previous location opening night was Saturday, were subsequent nights Saturdays?

• It was Saturdays until the first venue change. Then went to Thursdays at would attract less punters. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think "scenesters" is (a) not a real word and (b) if it is, it's informal and not encyclopedic in tone.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "so tried to minimise attention from the music and general press. So as to avoid mainstream notice" these are kind of saying the same thing...

• Cut half this. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• (There's a "Jenny" later on which I guess should be Jenni?)

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "showed up" a shade informal.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a start, more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks TRM for the look and observations. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I believe all done to here. Again, going to this level of detail is very much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• No worries, I'll continue as soon as I can although the weekend can be a bit tricky to get too much spare time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sound. No rush - I'll go over again based to the type of thing raised above, so hopefully your list for the 2nd half wont be so long. Prob wont edit between Sunday and Thursday pm, so no pressure. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Club

• "a imported" an
• "mostly black" isn't it "Black"?
• "Jungle nights, where house was played" was that also jungle music?
• "compare it to the Muzic Box club made famous by Ron Hardy" with a red linked club and an unlinked "Ron Hardy", this comparison falls somewhat flat for our readers.
• "Californian Summer of Love" vs "the summer of Love" capitalisation inconsistency.
• "1988 was based on" this is a weird way of putting it. Don't repeat "scene" but something like "the 1988 scene" would be preferable.
• "a handful published" of
• "contemporarily" do you mean contemporaneous?
• "acid-house music" why hyphenate here?
• "popularise Humanoid 1998 crossover" either "the Humanoid" or "Humanoid's".
• "The Rampling's early" shouldn't that be "The Ramplings's early"?
• "early adaption" I guess you mean adoption?
• "than a few feet" these could easily mean feet rather than feet....
• "unable to see" then "unable to see" in the following sentence is repetitive.
• Could link dungaree?
• "well established figures" hyphenate well-established
• "towards scasual, functional" is that odd word and piping deliberate?
• "Until the summer of 1987, ecstasy..." giant sentence with one or two too many run-ons.
• "ecstasy was a legal but obscure" vs "a common misconception was that it was legal" seem to contradict one another.
• "Until the summer of 1987..." while this para is useful, it doesn't bring in any mention at all of Shoom.
• "and the energy soda" I think if we're sticking with BritEng we should call this an energy drink, not a soda.
• "also reduced drug's impact, so" the drug's?
• "asking for life advice to people" "asking to give" or "advice from"...
• "newsletters.[67][2] " order.
• "The early Shoom clubber..." starts two consecutive sentences, mix it up a bit.
• "This similarity lead many" led
• "no nonsense personality" hyphenate no-nonsense in this adjectival usage.
• "off ...I admire her...its" needs MOS:ELLIPSIS attention.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. All done except that have retained the "Until the summer of 1987" para...shows the roots of the sub-culture that Shoom popularised in the UK, and also how the early adoptees later became Shoom patrons...are each mentioned later in the article. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The rest

• "dungaree" is linked to a dab page.
• "become embroiled in criminal charges" does one become embroiled in or subject to criminal charges?
• "and undertook a successful career as a" -> "and became a successful"?
• "He said that by 1990 dance " -> "He said that, by 1990, dance "
• "1990s rave scene" you linked rave in the previous section to something different.
• "the Balearic sound" you say this like it's a "thing", is there a link?
• "before the larger-scale, often illegal..." no need for "the".
• "the Balearic had" should "sound" be in there?
• "members Bernard Sumner and" you didn't repeat Faver's first name but you do Sumner... Be consistent.
• "Weatherall produced" hyphenate.
• "and to me it wa s... the ... dream"" typo and MOS:ELLIPSIS here (non-breaking spaces in all the right places).
• crossover or cross-over?
• "by Billboard Magazine in their" magazine isn't part of the title, it's just Billboard so perhaps Billboard magazine.
• "in the US..[1]" double full stop.
• "well established" hyphen.
• "Rampling disputes this and said ..." needs ref.
• "time E became" ecstasy.
• "which in section 63(1)(b) outlawed" -> "in which section 63(1)(b) outlawed"
• Be consistent with linking works/publishers in the refs e.g. why not link The Guardian?

That's probably it for the first reading! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Great. All done....Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lots of work has gone into this, and I feel it's been much improved since my first read, so I'm happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate all the time you put into this. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Link National Institute on Drug Abuse in ref 2
• Ref 68 seems to be in a different template
• The Guardian should be italicized in Snaped
• Are we sure "Positive Energy of Madness" is the publisher for Sedazzari?
• You have "Shoom.london" here but have it lowercased in Notes; either is fine, of course, just needs to be one or the other
• Should be The New York Times I believe
• A minor quibble, a bit confused on your linking of publishers/works. I was guessing you're linking non-book sources in their first mention, but i-D is linked twice, as is mixmag.

Reliability

• Looks good from what I can see

Verifiability

• Page number for ref 79 (Hook 2009)?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• page number for ref 18 (BrewsterBroughton 2014)?

• Removed Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks v much Aza. All sorted, except the NYT is often here minus the "the", and I bought both Hook and Brewster & Broughton as an e-book; hence no page number. Not sure how linking to a kindle "area" works, though the format makes it none the less valid. ps Sedazzar now removed. Anyways, thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil on specifying a section where you have no page number, see dementia with Lewy bodies#References and use of | loc = SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Also this is a change in citation style that is not required (and has introduced harv ref errors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

ok, this has been fixed again. Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ceoil, we're still missing a page number for Hook 2009 and BrewsterBroughton 2014 (now refs 17 and 78)—a chapter would do too, I would think Aza24 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorted Aza in case you missed the above. Adding chapter nrs/sections for e-books is a new one for me...thanks for tips; Co-vid and its many weird impacts on ordinary life eh. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops yes I don't know how I missed you comment now—but yeah, tis odd how Covid manages to sneak its way into everything—looks good now, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Looking now...tweaking as I go.....queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• At the end of the first para you have In the club's first months, Danny and Jenni Rampling would greet each patron as they arrived, and say goodnight to them as they left., which has been mentioned in the preceding section - should be merged and placed in one spot or the other. Actually I'd probably move para 2 of Formation onto para 1 of early nights TBH.

• done Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Does Rampling or anyone else recall how many turned up on the first night?

• Around 100. Added Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Within months of opening, the queue grew from a few hundred into over a thousand, leading to a move in March 1988 to Thursday nights at Raw - should this be "attendance"?

• Thinking about this. The thing is that only around third of them would have gotten in. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• That is a valid point....I should have remembered that from queuing all those years ago...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• The club's popularity began when it was praised... - I'd probably say, "The club's popularity grew after it was praised..." (more natural and chronological)

Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Shoom's interior design tended towards minimalism architecture, mirrored walls and smiley face logos - "minimalist"?

Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I guess...what happened to the Ramplings afterwards...how did it change their lives?

  Good point - will add. Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks okay otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I know that he became a rather boring internationally renowned mainstream DJ, while she went into private industry and became very successful as a formidable character. Hang on; searching through the sources to find about her. Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this and for the edits Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess you've found everything that could be found. A nice read :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cas for all the direct and suggested improvements. Re queuing not knowing if you would get in...remember it all to well. The trick was to look them in the eye and show no fear, which worked around..."some" of the time :) Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will take a look at this soon. As a country person who's never ingested anything worse than caffeine and some accidental pesticide exposure a couple years ago, I expect to be completely unfamiliar with a lot of this topic matter. Hog Farm _Talk 22:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• " But this time, electronic music had crossed into the mainstream as the heavier sounding rave style became popular, leaving Shoom to seem outdated" - It's unclear to me why this sentence starts with "but". It seems to me that "by" would be a better first word.
• "Chicago DJ Bam Bam played at Shoom in 1988, and was impressed enough to compare it to the Muzic Box club made famous by Hardy" - Who is Hardy?
• " Pernod water and the energy drink Lucozade" - Is Pernod a brand name or a special variant with some sort of additive? It's unclear, especially since the company described at Pernod Ricard (where Pernod redirects) appears to primarily produce alcohol
• "Boy George believes that use of ecstasy had a profound effect of many people" - I suspect you want "on", not "of"
• I have very strong suspicisions that both of the external links to Youtube fail WP:COPYLINK; they should probably be removed and only seem marginally relevant, anyway.
• Is it really necessary to have in both the categories for Nightclubs in London and Nightclubs in England, since the former is a subcat of the latter?

This should be it for my review; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 01:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for edits and review. Have resolved those now. Ceoil (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; not familiar enough with the subject matter to assess other criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 03:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [98].

---

Code of Hammurabi

Nominator(s): Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Code of Hammurabi is an enigmatic legal text with powerful literary passages. It’s also one of exceptionally few bits of Assyriology known to non-Assyriologists. Politicians and curators pay it lip service and buy expensive replicas, and the page gets 1.5k–2k views in a day. All in all it deserves an article above C-class. I've rewritten it, and have had some very generous FAC mentoring from A. Parrot (talk · contribs). Feedback much appreciated! Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't know how to go about mentoring, so I subjected the article to what is effectively an FAC review (permanent link here for transparency's sake). All my concerns were addressed there. A. Parrot (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Image review:
  • File:Tranchée de Jacques de Morgan sur l'acropole de Susa en Iran (Musée du Louvre, Arch AO 2267).jpg The image description needs to state clearly why PD-Iran applies. (t · c) buidhe 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Done. Emqu (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• • File:Lex talionis or hit the first (BM 1868,0808.9437).jpg I don't think this image actually explains or illustrates Lex talonis at all. To most readers it just looks like a brawl. (t · c) buidhe 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Scrapped.

Also: what sort of citation do you think is needed for the cn you inserted? A few examples to show that the terms are conventional? Emqu (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just delete it. To keep you would need a source that explicitly discusses use of the terms, not just some examples which would be WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: OK, done. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks for the edits. I've just unlinked the guilt/shame/fear spectrum which I always found rather suspect. Emqu (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• Should there be a "circa" before the date range in the lede?

Done. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hammurabi's letters suggest that he was You can remove "that".

Hmm, this sounds odd to me? I feel that I would always use "that" in this context. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but I saw the folks at GOCE doing it to my last request. ~ HAL333 13:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. Emqu (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• The "cm" in the body look strange. I think there's a template for that.

Is it seeing dimensions in the body per se that is strange, or specifically the abbreviation "cm"? And were you thinking of a template like height? Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the template. ~ HAL333 13:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Emqu (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• many alternative interpretations Is "alternative" needed?

Have changed this paragraph, hope it is clearer now. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

More comments later. Like what I see and the subject matter definitely deserves this treatment. ~ HAL333 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Can references be in the middle of sentences rather than after punctuation? Not sure myself. If not, I would address that.

Fixed. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• These are all expressed --> "These are expressed"

Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• wrath of all the gods --> "wrath of the gods"

Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a source for the order in which Gods and goddesses are invoked?

Have supplied a Roth ref as per the rest of the section. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• For the Justinian and Napoleon caption, why not make it a single sentence: "Justinian I of Byzantium (L) and Napoléon Bonaparte of France (R) both created legal codes to which the Louvre stele has been compared." You can also apply this to other captions.

Done: for this, for Ea/Enki, and for Moses. I'm inclined to keep "The text. ..." as it is, though. Unlike with Justinian and Napoleon, without a simple label it is not at all clear that the image shows the text on the stele. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a huge fan of many of the captions having full stops despite not being sentences.

MOS:CAPTION says that if there is any full sentence in the caption, then all sentences and sentence fragments must be capitalised. The only caption which I think violates MOS:CAPTION is the Capitol caption, and I had actually removed the full stop there before. I've removed it again now. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Akkadisches Handwörterbuch should be italicized.

Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Code and, e.g., United States law and medieval law Is it okay t have "e.g." in the body of the text? I have only seen it in notes and parentheses. If so, ignore.

Ignoring as per your edit. (WP:MOS uses it 37 times so I think we're safe.) Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some have remarked that the punishments Who?

The two cited sources. It seemed too wordy to say "C. H. W. Johns and... and...", so I just put them in the footnote, but let me know if this is not acceptable. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some writers incorrectly state Which?

Ditto. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is "Civilopedia" a high quality reliable source?

No for history, yes for the game. It's published by the game's publisher and I believe it's just a copy of the in-game encyclopaedia. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure ref 170 is reliable or that it fully supports the dependent text.

Is this the soundtrack link? I thought the Apple Music page was a reliable source for a soundtrack. If not, I will scrap the mention of the series because I couldn't find any more concrete link to the Code. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• A relief portrait of Hammurabi hangs over the doors Does it hang?

Fixed. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 18:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi HAL333: do you feel able to either oppose or support this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 12:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM and a caption to the table per MOS:DTAB :) Heartfox (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I hope the alt text is OK? Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Wretchskull

Review after a quick skim through the article. Thorough review coming soon

• However, he invokes the wrath of all the gods on any who disobeys or erases his pronouncements. Remove the 's' from "disobeys" and "erases" because they should not be third-person singular simple present.

Fixed. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• The beginning of the "Theories of purpose" section is unreferenced. 20th century dispute or jurisprudence theory having more support should be referenced.

Addressed. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Many footnotes use the same books frequently, I'll check for possibfle plagiarism soon, and perhaps look for weasel terms. Great job on bringing this vital article all the way to FAC rather quickly! Wretchskull (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I would say, regarding samey sources, that most instances of Roth (1995a) are page references to Roth's translation. I incorporated these at the end of the FAC mentoring. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There are many overlinked words, even some words that shouldn't be linked at all per WP:OVERLINK. You could fix these manually or with a script if you wish.

• Remove all links from:

1. "Justice"
2. "Law" (only if it stands alone, do not remove links from words such as Mosaic law, etc.)
3. "Portrait"
4. "Legal system"

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• If these words have been linked once in the lead and once in the body (or in an infobox/image), remove all other links from these words:

1. "Relief"
2. "Stele"
3. Any names: scholars, writers, historical figures, etc.

Done. (Some of the duplinks were there because I thought the captions had their own "count" for links.)

"Middle chronology" is technically linked twice in the body, but the second is for the "ultra-long chronology", which is covered in the same article.

Would you say that the infobox is part of the lead, and that I should therefore remove infobox links found in the lead? Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: Information below.

• Add missing links to the following words:

1. First mention of "stele" in the lead section (note that this word is also in the bullet above)
2. The city of "Isin"

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• References:

• In the Jurisprudence section, the references of laws should be placed after the law number. Placing it after the text is fine but for MOS, it would be best (-Law x[reference], etc.).

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That is all I have for now. Wretchskull (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thorough review

• More about links:

• In the Louvre stele section, you should be careful with how you link acropolis, as in this case, it leads to the ancient Greek settlement. Also, you could link the city of Susa in the images, as the rule of thumb goes: One link in the lead, one in the infobox, one in the body, one in images, and more if they aid the user. You could say that the lead is separate from the infobox. I will come with more soon. Wretchskull (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have relinked the captions on this basis. Delinked acropolis too. Emqu (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

• Hammurabi claims in the prologue to have been granted his rule[...] Somewhat incorrect adjunction of words, change it to "In the prologue, Hammurabi claims to have been granted his rule[...]".

Changed (though I disagree that it was incorrect). Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Their scope is very broad, including, for example, criminal law, family law, property law, and commercial law. "Very" is a redundant adverb, because it would be used when the mentioned verb or explanation is beyond its scope of the subject. In the text, it talks about laws, which is part of the subject despite its broadness. Remove "very".

Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hammurabi

• Hammurabi (or Hammurapi), sixth king of[...] There is a missing definite article "the" before the word "sixth". It should be used because it is about Hammurabi specifically.

Neither phrasing is obviously preferable to me. Changed nonetheless. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• In contrast to his aggressive foreign policy, Hammurabi's letters suggest he was concerned with the welfare of his many subjects and interested in law and justice. I understand the gist of the sentence, but it is worded rather unclearly.

How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• He commissioned extensive construction works, and in his letters he frequently[...] There should be a comma right after "letters" because it is a subordinate clause connecting with a main clause.

Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Earlier law collections

• Several earlier collections survive, in Sumerian as well as Akkadian. Remove the comma, the whole sentence is a main clause.

How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Louvre stele

• The main copy of the text was found on a basalt stele now in the Louvre. Replace "main" with "original" as it is has a more direct definition for the subject.

How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• It is 225 cm (7 ft 4 1⁄2 in) high; its circumference is 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) at summit and 190 cm (6 ft 3 in) at base. Add the definitive article "the" before both "summit" and "base".

Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Scheil hypothesised that the stele had been taken to Susa by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakhunte, and that he had commissioned the erasure of several columns of laws in order to write his own legend there. Remove the comma (main clause grammar rules), remove "in order" as it is redundant, and remove the redundant word "own" because "write his..." already suggests that it is about himself.

Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Other copies

• Over fifty manuscripts containing the laws are known, found not only in Susa but in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and more. Slightly clear but grammatically unsound. Change it to "Over fifty manuscripts containing the laws are known. Among them, they were not only found in Susa. They were also in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and more.". If it is unsatisfactory to you, you may alter it however you see fit.

Amended. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign: after, it became a part of the scribal curriculum. Unclear wording within two main clauses sandwiched by a sunordinate one. Consider changing it along the lines of "Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign. After his reign, they became a part of the scribal curriculum."

Amended. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: I will continue with the other half of the article later. Apologies if this is too much, an article this important deserves to be a FA. Wretchskull (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not at all—thorough feedback is always the best! I'm very grateful. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: you may alter unsatisfactory/unconfident suggestions however you want

Lead section

• Their scope is broad, including for example criminal law, family law, property law, and commercial law. Add a comma before the word "for" and right after "example".

I think this makes it significantly harder to read. Comma soup. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hammurabi

• Hammurabi's foreign policy was aggressive, then, but his letters suggest he was concerned with the welfare of his many subjects and interested in law and justice. Remove "then," because "was" suggests that it is past tense. Adding the pronoun "that" after "suggest" seems logical, but I think it is already correct; unconfident about that one. Add "was" before "interested" because verbs should certainly be repeated after multiple words explaining the previous verb; the sentence would be unclear otherwise.

Added "was".

I agree that a "that" makes it flow better. I had one there but removed it (see above on this page).

I'm inclined to keep "then" to indicate that it summarises the preceding paragraph rather than adding new, uncited information. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Early scholarship

• [...]Scheil gives a transliteration and a free translation into French, as well as a selection of images. Using third-person singular simple present about the past is strange, change "gives" to "gave" or "had given" if it is discussing what happened after the brief introduction.

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]this is an earlier estimate than even the "ultra-long chronology" would now support, and the "middle chronology" is now favoured. There are some weasel terms, vague attribution, redundancy, and unclear grammar. Consider changing it to along the lines of "[...]this is an earlier estimate than even the "ultra-long chronology" would now support. Therefore, the "middle chronology" is favoured."

How about now? Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Code was compiled near the end of Hammurabi's reign (1792–1750 BC); this was deduced partly from the list of his achievements in the prologue. Unnecessary semicolon and incorrect pronoun. Replace ";" with "." and replace "this" with "It". I see misuse of semicolons quite often, but that will be fixed.

Changed the semicolon. "This" is definitely correct though. "It" can only refer to the stele itself, whereas "this" clearly refers to the estimate of date given in the previous sentence. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]history of the human race"; he remarked that[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "he".

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Relief

• Contrastingly, Scheil in his editio princeps identified[...] Add a comma before "in" and right after "princeps".

Again, really seems like comma soup to me. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Prologue

• The prologue and epilogue together occupy one fifth of the text, the prologue 300 lines and the epilogue 500 lines out of around 4,130 total For clarity and consistent style, add a dash between "one fifth" and rewrite the sentence to "The prologue and epilogue together occupy one-fifth of the text. Out of around 4,130 total lines, the prologue has 300 lines, and the epilogue has 500."

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Anum, the Babylonian sky god and king of the gods, granted rulership of humanity to Marduk; Marduk[...] I assume you mean that Marduk became ruler of humanity, if that is the case, replace "of" with "over". Misuse of semicolon, replace ";" with "."

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]shepherd also recurs; it was a common metaphor[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "it".

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]maintaining temples, and peerless on the battlefield. There are two main clauses, remove the comma.

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Epilogue

• He exalts the laws and his own magnanimity (3152'–3239'). Remove "own", because "his" with "magnanimity" suggest that it is about himself.

Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]legal imagery, and notably the phrase[...] Add a comma right after "notably".

How about now? Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• However, the king's main concern appears to be ensuring that his achievements are not forgotten, and his name not sullied. Main concern? "Main" seems redundant. Remove the comma after "forgotten".

Comma done. I disagree with "main" though. The aforementioned appears to have been his main concern but not his only concern. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Legislation

• Only if the text was intended as enforced legislation can it truly be called a code of law and its provisions laws. "Truly" is redundant as the whole sentence already suggests that with context.

I'm inclined to keep it. Even scholars sceptical about the "code" and "laws" being a code and laws have not produced a satisfactory alternative. Because of this, and because the terms are convention, it would be confusing and original to call them "code" and "laws", even if that is not strictly what they are. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• The document does on first inspection resemble a highly organised code, similar to the Code of Justinian and Napoleonic Code. Remove the comma. The sentence can be worded trivially better, also, add "the" before "Napoleonic". You could write "The document, upon first inspection, resembles a highly organised code similar to the Code of Justinian and the Napoleonic Code."

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Vital areas of society and commerce are omitted: for example[...] Replace ":" with "." and capitalize "for".

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• No Mesopotamian legal document explicitly references the Code or indeed any other law collection[...] "Indeed" is unnecessary, "any other law" addresses the point concisely.

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Tip: Rosetta stone is a featured article and you might see some similar details that you could add onto this article.

Will have a look tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: That's all I have for today. I will continue with the rest of the article tomorrow. Best of luck! Wretchskull (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Law report

• Image: library of Ashurbanipal Capitalize library, it's a proper noun.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]law report, containing records of past cases and judgments, albeit phrased in an abstract way. Remove the first comma because it is a main clause. "In an abstract way" is redundant, rephrase it to "abstractly".

How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed, these judgments were concerned As per MOS:WTW (I highly suggest you read some points there), one should maintain an impartial tone, and "indeed" is not allowed (MOS:EDITORIAL). Either remove "Indeed" or rewrite the sentence to fit the references but without the word.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Jurisprudence

• [...]within Assyriology, is that the Code is not in fact a true code, MOS:WTW here again, "in fact" is not allowed. Also, it is redundant because "not a true code" already suggests that. Also, remove the comma next to "code".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Others have provided their own versions of this theory. "Own" is redundant. "Their" already suggests that by definition.

Inclined to keep this one. I think without it there would be ambiguity. For example, "their" might refer to the two omen collections just mentioned. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]pursued, in order to generate a sequence. Remove "in order", "to" should be alone.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Van De Mieroop provides the following examples. Replace "." with ":"

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Here, following the principle of pointillism, circumstances are added to the first entry in order to create more entries. Link "pointillism" as it may be confusing to some. Remove "in order", again: redundancy.

Removed "in order".

I can't link pointillism, since the article is about the painting technique. I would normally scare-quote "pointillism" to remind the reader that it was defined above, but I see that scare-quoting violates WP:MOS. Do you still think it is a problem? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• For example, in the case of the goat used for threshing[...] Link "threshing".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• In addition, linking the Code[...] "In addition" is used quite frequently, change it to "also" or "besides" to avoid redundancy. If the wording is important as it is, you could perhaps change "in addition" in other parts of the article.

Done x3. Only kept it where it is "in addition to...". Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Code in fact appears in a late Babylonian[...] "In fact" is not allowed (MOS:EDITORIAL). Remove it or rewrite the sentence.

Done x2. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]it may best be considered a scholary treatise. Add missing a missing L: "Scholary" ---> "Scholarly". Also, "it may be best considered" according to whom?

Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]legal system: for example, that it demonstrates that there were no professional advocates, or that there were professional judges. Replace ":" with "." and capitalize "for". Remove the comma after "advocates", two main clauses connected.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Underlying principles

• Indeed, laws 196 and 200 respectively prescribe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when one man destroys another's. Same issue with MOS:WTW, remove "Indeed" or rewrite the sentence. Remove the comma after "tooth".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]house's builder; the following law[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "the".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• before the law: not just age Replace ":" with ";"

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]though contentious it seems likely[...] Missing comma, add one right after "contentious".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• In addition, most readers will be struck[...] Rephrase "In addition" to "also" or "besides" unless it is significant.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• innocence: the very first two laws Replace ":" with ";". Remove the redundant "very"; if you mean the first two laws of the entire stele then it may be an exception.

I did mean that, but have removed anyway. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]laws, and as Owen B. Jenkins observed the Replace ", and" with "." (two independent clauses) and capitalize "as". Also, add a comma after "observed".

Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Language

• (In the second paragraph, add the missing indefinite article "a" before the words "sequence". Also, link the first mention of "clause" if it hasn't been linked once in the article as it is very relevant to the subject.)

Linked "clause". "Sequence of action", though, is an uncountable grammatical term. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• muškēnum is now thought to derive[...] The first word of the sentence should be capitalized. Never use vague attribution (MOS:WTW). I see the word "now" used incorrectly throughout the article quite often.

Assyriological scholarship never capitalises Akkadian words. MOS:LCITEMS isn't clear about what to do here. (Anyway, I changed the sentence to avoid vague attribution so it doesn't matter.)

I've removed a bunch of "now"s. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Other Mesopotamian

• [...]god-given legitimacy in a similar way. Unnecessarily wordy, rewrite "in a similar way" to "similarly".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also like the Code of Hammurabi[...] Add missing comma after "Also".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that scribes were still copying e.g. the Code of Ur-Nammu when Hammurabi produced his Code does suggest that influence can be inferred from this similarity. A rather unclear sentence and is wordy. Can't the sentence be reworded and reduce the extremely wordy "suggest that influence can be inferred from this similarity" to "influenced" in a way?

How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Middle Assyrian Laws, and to the Neo-Babylonian Laws Remove the comma.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]tradition of legal writing, outside Mesopotamia proper. Remove the comma.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mosaic, Graeco-Roman, and modern

• There are certainly similarities between the two law collections[...] Remove "certainly" per MOS:EDITORIAL, using such words is not allowed.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]collections is very difficult to establish. Is "very" necessary? If not, it is redundant.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]Twelve Tables; however, this is highly conjectural, as are most arguments for Mesopotamian influence on the Graeco-Roman world. Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "however". It is "highly conjectural" according to whom?

Full stop done. Removed the resulting second sentence. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Even Van De Mieroop acknowledges that the majority of Roman law is not similar to the Code, or likely to have been influenced by it. Replace "the majority of Roman law is" with "most Roman laws are"; more concise and could lessen the risk of plagiarism if the previous text was closer to the reference.

Changed to "most Roman law is". Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]the Code and e.g. United States law and medieval law. Add a comma right after the first "and".

Done. Based on your other suggestions I assume you also wanted a comma after the "and", but let me know if this is wrong. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Code are no more severe and in some cases less so. Add a comma right after "and" and "cases".

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception outside Assyriology

• The king's reputation as a lawgiver presumably inspired the name of Iraq's Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, and of the South Korean novel and television series called Ms. Hammurabi, which are about a judge. Remove the comma after "Organization". Also, this sentence is unreferenced. Even if it may seem logical, using words such as "presumably" to hypothesize and speculate something is not allowed in an encyclopedia and is original reseach. Unless there are references, the sentence must be removed.

How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are replicas of the Louvre stele in institutions around the world, including the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York City; the Peace Palace in The Hague, seat of the International Court of Justice; the National Museum of Iran in Tehran; the Pergamon Museum in Berlin; the University of Chicago Oriental Institute; the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; the University of Kansas Clendening History of Medicine Library; and the Prewitt–Allen Archaeological Museum of Corban University. Replace all semicolons with commas (incorrect clause listing).

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Notes:

• I notice that you sometimes do not like "comma soup". These commas are actually fully justified and grammatically necessary, and paradoxically, it would be invalid and ugly not to have them. If there are some instances where you feel like you could rewrite a sentence to avoid it, that is an option.

Have changed them. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the Hammurabi article, there are some sources and details in the "Code of laws" section where you could use sources that aren't used in this article. That could perhaps diversify your sources to avoid possible plagiarism of Roth-sources. You could also add and alter information there as you obviously know a lot about the Code.

I'll have a look at these sources. Initial impression is that they are not the best. Also, at least two were written much earlier than the article attributes and have not been updated.

The Code article itself is not reliant on Roth. As stated, during the FAC mentoring, I added a Roth page ref after every line number ref and changed my own translations to hers. I grant that this may create an impression of uneven source use. Is this a problem? Is the current scheme necessary?

Yes, once this FAC is done I might go and improve the articles that reference the Code. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Yep—the sources in that article aren't ideal, and most of them are mis-dated. I've added some highlights though. The Hazor paper is somewhat interesting, and I had forgotten about the Ziolkowski book.

I also added stuff on the Civilization games because they are doubtless responsible for many of the pageviews. Emqu (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• If you see that I have missed some words to watch, you could fix them.

Have done so. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: That's my review of this article. I'm sure promotion will be a cakewalk for you, good luck! Wretchskull (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thorough and upbeat comments. I'm touched that you also want to speed this along to FA! Do let me know if you're unhappy with the edits. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Wretchskull: just wondering whether you would now support this? Emqu (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: Sorry for the delay. I have three minor things to say. If you look at the footnotes section, there are some short citations that do not have page numbers. Another thing is that before you started your rewrite of the article, I saw that the relief at the top of the stele is referred to as the "fingernail". Is that something significant that could be included once or twice in the article? Also, are there any good references prior to the rewrite that could be used here to diversify the sources? Apart from that, I absolutely support this nomination! Wretchskull (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Re footnotes: yes, in those cases it is where I make a general point about the work. Is that OK? Re "fingernail": the only sources I have seen calling it that are the old Wikipedia article and the iconography article it cites, which I could not access to check, so I'm inclined to avoid it. Re sources: a few are obviously non-reputable, and numerous are from general history books. Unless the latter are of special significance (e.g. the H. G. Wells), I would also consider them non-reputable.

Notes on the old sources:

• Moorey says it's granite, most sources say basalt. I'm inclined to defer to the consensus but if you think it's worth mentioning then I will.
• As mentioned, I couldn't find the Collon, and I wouldn't want to include the fingernail thing anyway.
• Ragozin is actually from 1896, not 2017, so deserves caution. Secondly, Magan's location has been somewhat controversial since then. Thirdly, I couldn't find any mentions of Magan (or Makan) in the Google Book at all.
• The H. G. Wells and the Barton would improve the article so I'll add those.
• I'm inclined to ignore the constitution footnote. The Flach article is bad (and Flach was not an Assyriologist). The Thomas & Stevens source is a kids' book.
• I checked Victimology already. The Hammurabi coverage is not reputable.
• Fant & Mitchell, Ancient Orient, and Sax are also bad. Emqu (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: Very well. The only thing left is the concern that some text in the article may not be supported by the corresponding references as per, for example, the few ones raised by Ovinus in a spot-check. If that is because it does support the text but is unavailable then that is fine. You can add and remove whatever point you raised as you see fit; you are the only Wikipedian who I dare say is an expert about the topic. Wretchskull (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: I had another look today at citations not included in Ovinus' spot checks. I can only say that, to the best of my knowledge, the article's claims are justified.

I've now added Wells and Barton from the earlier revision.

And thanks for the archive links, I didn't think of that. Emqu (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Wretchskull: is your support now without caveats? Emqu (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: Without a doubt! I keenly support this nomination. Wretchskull (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Thanks again for how much you invested in this!

@Gog the Mild: I think that's consensus. Emqu (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is for the coordinators to decide. As a first time nominator I would prefer to see more than the bare minimum of three supports, comprehensive as they have been. The nomination also needs a source review. (I have had it Source review requests for a while.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: I haven't seen you active for a while, I hope you are still there. Wretchskull (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: Check your talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks from Ovinus

• [5]: Footnote, not a source

Done. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• [11]: I'm getting a 404

That could be a localised issue; at least it is not happening to me, not sure. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• [16]: "This remains the consensus." Doesn't seem to be found in the source? Roth says "for it was taken to Susa, perhaps by Shutruk-Nahhunte I, a Middle Elamite ruler, or by" (emphasis mine)
• [25]: good
• [31]: good
• [40]: good
• [41]: good
• [44]: good
• [53]: good
• [57]: good
• [62], [65], [68], [69], [73], [75], [76], [78], [79], [106], [130]: @Emqu: I have the 1997 edition of Roth 1995a, which looks to line up, but I don't understand the conversion between line numbers. Perhaps you could explain, then I can check these ones?
• [88], [102], [107], [113], [127], [149], [155], [158], [160]: unobtainable print sources
• [144]: Not seeing it in Roth, but maybe it's in the others
• [150]: Roth seems to support the last half, can't check the first
• [169]: good
• [176]: good
• [177]: good

I programmatically chose 35 random numbers, so coordinators let me know if more would be appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ovinus, that looks more than good enough to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The citation issues that persist are the ones Ovinus pointed out but also that some citations do not have page numbers. I fixed some since Emqu has not been online for a while now, unfortunately. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ovinus: @Wretchskull: So sorry, for some reason I missed your last ping Wretchskull! I will get on these tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Thanks for these, and for the article edits.

• [11, now 10]: The Louvre had a page on the stele, which was of course a useful source, but it appears to have removed it since I submitted the article for FAC. Infuriating. Should I assume that the removal is temporary and leave the article, or assume it is permanent and remove all references to it in the article?
• [16, now 15]: Removed the "consensus" sentence.
• Re line numbers: Roth's edition doesn't give precise line numbers (at least, the 1995 edition doesn't). The article needs to cite an edition which does. I chose CDLI's edition for these since it is open-source and very thorough. (I initially pointed the reader to CDLI instead of Roth, but my FAC mentor commented that CDLI was less useful without knowledge of Akkadian.) However, CDLI uses a different line numbering scheme.
• Is "unobtainable print sources" an obstacle to FA status?
• [144, now 143]: Reworked.
• [150, now 149]: Rephrased.

@Wretchskull: Re page numbers.

• Louvre is (/was) a web page.
• Winckler, Bonfante, and Johns in the context refer to their editions as a whole.
• Have clarified that the Harper and Equitable Trust Company citations referred to their titles.
• Souvay and Horne are web pages containing the raw text of early print editions.
• Citation 40 refers to sources which have this as their topic.
• Added for Elsen-Novák & Novák.
• Added for 71.
• 82 cites editions endorsing this view, for which citations are given later. I would have thought this didn't need a citation?
• Would 84, 85, and 97 be improved by "passim"?
• 111: I couldn't find a specific citation for Listenwissenschaft in my notes on that paper, and no longer have access to the paper. Worth retaining?
• Johns 1910 is another web page of raw text.
• Most citations from 163 to the end are web pages. I assume it was not these that you were flagging up. Emqu (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: If you want to return a link to its original form you can archive it via, for example, archive.org. I have archived the louvre sources so do not worry about that. Wretchskull (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at Roth 1995a (1997 for me) for some of those ones and it looked to match up, though I of course couldn't check the exact line numbers. So based on that I support on the spot checks, and it looks like y'all will figure out the page numbers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Fowler&fowler

• I'm making a placeholder here. Delighted to see a traditionally encyclopedic article here for a change. Will begin soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Fowler&fowler: are you still interested in reviewing? Emqu (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I forgot all about this article. I don't have too much time right now, but if it is archived—which I hope it is not as it reads very well in my cursory reading—I promise I will come back and review it with care in its second appearance. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Not to worry. I'm active now so should be able to stop it getting archived. Would you feel able to support it? If you would rather not without a full review then I understand. Either way I'm glad you like it. Emqu (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from The Land

I randomly browsed onto this article, started reading it, thought "Why isn't this a Featured Article?" Then saw the candidacy on the talk page. So here I am!

I don't have a detailed knowledge of the subject, but I can find very little scope for improvement. I have made one small edit to "Reception outside Assyriology" and I would be interested to know in this section if the Code has any impact in modern legal discussion, or if it is simply treated as a curiosity to add weight.

This said, based on my initial reaction and subsequent more detailed read of the article, I am delighted to support it. Great job! The Land (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Land: Very late response, but thank you!

I have to say, 'where it is assumed to be a true code of laws, and that its provisions are laws' seems ungrammatical to me. I have inserted a compromise. I am happy with the other edit you made.

I suppose that depends how you define 'impact'. In terms of influence on modern laws or legal thought, probably only via Roman/Greek/Biblical laws, if it influenced those. Most legal scholars I have read take it as given a) that its entries had legal weight, b) that it was a full code of laws, and c) that it was the first code of laws. Then they move on to whatever point they are trying to make. Emqu (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Borsoka

Thank you for completing this interesting article. Please find my first comments below:

• ... his father Sin-Muballit ... Does the cited source verify it?

Added.

• ... leaving his organisation intact Why is this statement relevant?

It characterises him as sensible rather than vindictive or rash.

• ... forming alliances to do so when expedient Does this statement provide actual information?

Yes, surely...? Though I would agree that it isn't essential to the article. Removed.

• All these preoccupations surface in the Code, especially in the prologue ... and epilogue.... OR?

Removed.

• ...(e.g. 37–39, 51, 90–97) ... (e.g. 3154'–3164', 3240'–3253') What are these numbers? Consider moving them to a footnote.
• Is the ISBN for Van De Mieroop (2007) correct?

Have changed to the 2007 edition.

• It was excavated by the French Archaeological Mission under the direction of Jacques de Morgan.[14] Susa is in modern-day Khuzestan Province, Iran (Persia at the time of excavation). Consider changing the sequence of the two sentences.

Done.

• Introduce Father Jean-Vincent Scheil.

Done.

• The introduction is problematic, because it is not verified (see my comment below).

Can I just remove it? I didn't initially have one and it doesn't seem necessary to the article.

• The editio princeps of the Code was published by Father Jean-Vincent Scheil in 1902, in the fourth volume of the Reports of the Delegation to Persia (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse). After a brief introduction with details of the excavation, Scheil gave a transliteration and a free translation into French, as well as a selection of images.[23] Editions in other languages soon followed: in German by Hugo Winckler in 1902, in English by C. H. W. Johns in 1903, and in Italian by Pietro Bonfante, also in 1903. OR?

Surely a plain edition history is not OR??

• The above statements about the books are verified by references to the books themselves. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Meaning it's not OR, right?

Does it state that it is the editio princeps? Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• (1792–1750 BC) Repetition (that Hammurabi ruled from 1792 to 1750 BC is mentioned in the first sentence).

Cut. Emqu (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• ...the French Dominican and Assyriologist who wrote the Code's editio princeps... OR? The same information is repeated some lines below.

See above re Scheil intro. re editio princeps: I have now cited every instance.

• The relief appears to show Hammurabi standing before a seated Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and god of justice. Repetition.

Thanks, done.

• ...before a seated Shamash... OR? (The source verifying the statement does not name the god. You may want to verify the statement with a reference to Roth.)

Done.

• Shamash wears the horned crown of divinity and has a solar attribute, fiery rays,... OR?

Addressed.

• ... in his editio princeps... OR? Perhaps italics?

Added citation, and on my end at least it was already in italics. Emqu (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Recusing to review.

• There are several p. or pp. errors. Eg cites 21, 95, 118.

Fixed.

• Bonfante is missing a publisher location and an OCLC.

Added publisher. Couldn't find OCLC.

It's 458622280.

• Standardise your hyphenisation of ISBNs.

Removed all hyphens.

• Are you sure about the ISBNs given for Barton, Driver and Edwards?

Barton: I was using an online copy with no ISBN. I couldn't find an ISBN for that particular edition. Driver: fixed. Edwards: I think it's correct.

• Barton: In which case, where have you obtained the ISBN you give from?
• Driver: In which case, why are you giving one? (And where did it come from?)
• Edwards: I don't. Where are you obtaining the ISBN from? (Perhaps use the OCLC instead?)

• Breasted needs an ISBN.

Fixed.

You have given the ISBN for the 2015 reprint, not the 1916 edition you cite. Which did you obtain the information cited from?

• The ISBN given for Davies is for the 2010 edition, not the edition cited.

Fixed.

• Equitable Trust Company needs an OCLC.

Again, I wasn't sure how to find this.

WorldCat is your friend. Scroll down.

• The ISBN given for Home is for the 2015 edition.

Fixed.

It still seems to be for the 2015 edition. Where are you obtaining it from?

I cannot find the correct one anywhere. Do I need the OCLC, since I just got it from the URL?

I don't think that you are getting the information from The Code of Hammurabi (1915). I don't even think that there is such an edition. You seem to be getting it from the Fordham University Ancient History Sourcebook and should cite it to there.

• Are you sure about the ISBN given for Johns (1903a). Which, apart from other issues is the same as that given for Johns (1914).

Fixed.

3601005123 is the ISBN of the 1980 edition, not the edition cited. Which did you obtain the information from?

• Could you check all of the pre-1967 ISBNs and all of the works which don't have identifiers. There is a trend developing.

Sorry about this, I think I just misunderstood how ISBNs worked. Have done this, minus a few I wasn't sure about. These were: Encyclopædia Britannica 11 (or whichever volume Johns 1910 is in); The Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1910; and the Wells 1920 edition.

Encyclopedias don't need identifiers, so that's fine. The OCLC for Wells (1920) is 867104710.

• As Stark is listed as a book, why is it under "Web" in "Sources"? It also needs a publisher location.

Well, it's a newsletter, and I'm not certain whether it was printed. I'm also not certain whether simply being printed qualifies a newspaper to go under 'books and journals'. I wasn't sure what cite to use but thought book produced the best result. Added a location.

• Publisher locations: Why is the country given for "London", but not for "Bethesda"?

That's the convention I was taught: that for U.S. locations, state name is sufficient. I don't think WP:MOS forbids this, and I have been consistent about it. Emqu (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You haven't given the state names: you have, I think, given the US Post Office codes. Mostly I was wondering why you felt it necessary to disambiguate Milan, Qxford, London etc, when it seems unlikely that there will be any confusion as to which is intended - you have, as you say, been consistent here; while "Bethesda, MD" probably doesn't tell a non-North America which of these is intended.

I really was consistently applying the convention I was taught, which is a cannibalised APA. It is US-centric, but I am a "non-North American" and I find it perfectly clear. If you would like me to change it, then say the word.

I'll leave things there for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ensure that each "Sources" list is in alphabetical order by (first) author surname.

Some responses above and an additional comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Sorry, give me two days to address these queries and the others. Emqu (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done. Unless otherwise specified, I have added OCLCs using WorldCat (thanks for the tip). Emqu (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Just Horne that I still have a query against, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Emqu, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Note for the coordinators

The nominator, Emqu, has been inactive since 9 April. It may be time to archive this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Very sorry, I have been extremely busy and also didn't get notifications about these. If you could just leave the page open for two or three more days I will address everything. I am pleased that more people have commented and I look forward to replying. Emqu (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I'll give you another three or four days, then drop by again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: I'm glad you came back, but make sure you check this page every now and then; there are more reviews and answers to your previous comments. Wretchskull (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nominator absent from WP three weeks, time to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ajpolino

I admit I knew nothing about the topic except for the whole "eye for an eye" bit, so I'll be reviewing only on criterion 1a.

• Earlier law collections:
  • Not a hill I plan to die on, but "... make it tempting to assume..." is odd to read in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps a rephrase?
  • "practice of law, from before..." - The comma seems purposeless; perhaps the whole ", from" could be removed safely?
• Copies>Louvre stele
  • "However, others,..." could be shortened to "Others, including..."
  • Jean-Vincent Scheil is wikilinked at second use rather than first.
  • "...Elamite city of Susa. Susa is in modern-day..." - a bit choppy to read. How about "... Elamite city of Susa in modern-day..."
• Copies>Other copies
  • I'm not sure I understand "a part of the scribal curriculum". If you're generally referring to texts typically copied by scribes, then I think it's fine. If you mean something more specific or different, perhaps a clarification is in order.
  • It's momentarily confusing to read that the Louvre steel is "most complete" and later that "The additional copies fill in most of the stele's original text, including much of the erased section." Am I to understand that the known copies contain less complete fragments of the code, but happen to also include the sections erased in the Louvre stele? Or am I misunderstanding something?
• Early scholarship:
  • "...first volume of The Outline of History, and to Wells too..." is clunky to read. How about "Outline of History, calling the Code 'the earliest known code of law'." or something that similarly avoids saying Wells twice in a dozen or so words.
  • The two sentences "The Code was compiled... in the prologue" stand out as different from the who-said-what style of the surrounding paragraphs. You repeat the same information in the Prologue section ("The list of his... Hammurabi's reign"). I think it flows a bit better there, so I'd suggest removing it here. Alternatively you could just state it here; either way I don't think the reader needs the repetition.
• Prologue:
  • I'm not sure I understand the purpose of "but is perhaps justified by Hammurabi's interest in his subjects' affairs." You just told us that the shepherd metaphor was common for rulers of that time and place. Is an additional justification necessary?
• Epilogue:
  • I'm not demanding its removal, but I don't think the structured list of god(desse)s in order of invocation is particularly informative to a reader. It would be equally informative without breaking up the page to say "The epilogue continues in this manner, invoking (in order) Anum, Enlil...". Or it could be removed; we get the idea from your description just above.

More to come... Ajpolino (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Emqu: Please keep this article on your watchlist, there are more replies to your previous comments as well as more reviewing above. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2021 [99].

---

Paper Mario

Nominator(s): Panini^🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a sub-series of the Mario franchise, Paper Mario. Someone at Nintendo decided, "hey, the graphics on the Nintendo 64 are not good", and made everything two-dimensional instead. This game was called, and the department team worked overtime on this one, Paper Mario. The game was critically acclaimed. They released a sequel, and it was universally acclaimed. The developers then decided to switch up the genre a bit for the third game, Super Paper Mario, and it was simply acclaimed. Then they released Sticker Star, and everyone hated it. Color Splash, hated even more. The Origami King, eh.

In short, it's a video game series once acclaimed but recently fell to average reception. Still popular, however.

When this article was created by me, I got some initial thoughts from PresN. It also received a very short peer review, a copyedit from Willbb234, slight touchups from (Oinkers42) and through all this Blue Pumpkin Pie watched like a hawk. Panini^🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RetiredDuke

• Minor comments to start off:

• isn't the 2nd game called Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and not "Thousand Year"? Might want to check all of those;

  Done.

• please review so that the references are in order (for instance underdeveloped gameplay.[99][13] and overly complicated,[100][13]);

  Done.

• per MOS:CAPTION, sentence fragments should not end with a period. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done.

• RetiredDuke Considering "to start off," was there anything else you want to comment on? Panini!^🥪 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I won't be able to continue the review though, as I'm a bit short on time right now. Good luck with the nomination! RetiredDuke (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from HumanxAnthro

Hi, Panini, and good work on the article. However, there are a few major problems I have:

1. There is no representation from academic or scholarly literature discussing the franchise, which I found pages of thanks to a simple Google search.
2. This may seem minor, but I'm not a fan of the way the article is currently organized. The gameplay section is fine and does its job of describing the general gameplay of the series, but an issue arises after that section. Most of the "development" and "reception" sections (apart from the paragraph about the criticism of the last three games) describe specific games instead of the franchise as a whole, and the content in those "Games" sub-sections are too little and could be proper length if stuff from the development and reception sections were combined to those.
3. Speaking of reception being only about particular titles, that's the biggest problem when it comes to its compliance of 1b; there's nothing about the entire franchise's impact and legacy, as there is with the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise featured article. Come on, this is a successful Nintendo franchise, there's no coverage about how the Paper Mario games have influenced the gaming industry?
4. Why are there no citations for the release dates in the "Games" section?

   Cited

I won't state oppose because I don't think this article is a lost cause: I don't doubt the game's prose efforts from the users Panini mentioned above, and from a quick skim, most of the citations (apart from IGN not being formatted as a work in one cite, and a Metacritic source incorrectly formatted as a work while its formatted in a publisher in others) look well-formatted and are from reliable, quality sources. But I do think the critiques I imposed above are valid. Any thoughts? HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• HumanxAnthro, before I begin, looking through the book sources I did not find much other than this, and most other instances the games are used as an example. Also, unlike the entirety of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, these games did not move mountains; there isn't any big, cultural impact or references in other media. Although the first couple of paragraphs in the Sonic the Hedgehog article are about reviewers' thoughts of how the series evolved over time, this info is already infused with the critical reception section. Panini^🥪 01:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'll ping PresN here, see what his thoughts are on this and if my legacy/reception merge alternative is alright. Panini^🥪 13:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the comments. Well, if there REALLY is no coverage about the general franchise's impact, then.... Support for completeness. There are a couple of minor issues (like those citation and prose ones I mentioned) but I think those are easily fixable. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

I'll do a full review on this soon! One thing I'd note for now is that ref 28 has a cite error. GeraldWL 14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed

Sorry for the long wait! Doing the review below. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• (HATNOTE) Is the "Super Paper Mario" thing needed? If you argue that there is the word "Paper Mario", I'd argue that other video games in the series also have it. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reason why it's here is just in case readers might get the games confused with the Super Mario series, which this is a branch of. In my opinion, I think it's harmless.

• (GAMEPLAY) The gameplay image is too small for me. Mind enlarging it a bit?

• Yeah, but it made me have to move every other image in the article around to fit it. Thanks for that.

• (GAMEPLAY) "a number of explorable areas, known as worlds"-- link virtual world in "worlds"?

• Virtual world and simply "world" are different things; worlds are different sections in a game, like how New Super Mario Bros. Wii has "World 1", "World 2", etc. shown in this image. The "Virtual World" is simply just something or somewhere on the internet where users interact, such as a chat forum or a game on virtual reality.

• (GAMEPLAY) "(XP, known in-game as Star Points, or SP)"-- I think it'd be better to change the first comma with a semicolon.

• Changed

• (GAMEPLAY) "RPG elements, such as XP, allies"-- shouldn't "XP" be plural, considering "allies" is?

• Honestly, that's just not how the term is used; they call it XP, plural or not, probably because XPs sounds stupid. For this instance, though, I referred to it as its full term to avoid confusion.

• (GAMES) "In Sticker Star"-- I'd rather change "Sticker Star" to "it", since the full name is said just a sentence ago.

• Changed

• (GAMES) "When Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, they find the town to be abandoned." Suddenly jumping to the synopsis without clarifying it in real-world context, like the above subsections do. I'd change it "In it, Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, which is discovered to be abandoned."

• Changed

• Gerald Waldo Luis, would you be willing to support? I'd like to show that this nomination isn't stalling. Panini^🥪 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the watchlist pushed this page down and down and down. But yeah, supporting. GeraldWL 17:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns. Panini^🥪 02:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Shooterwalker

Promise I'll get to this within the week, if not sooner. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, yeah, me too for yours. I cannot do it tonight as I've had a busy day and need to wind down. Probably tomorrow, as I've also promised two others a peer review so I'll make tomorrow a review day. Panini^🥪 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Going to work through the prose and references and see how far I get.

• Lead
• I've never seen the word "sub-series". It might be a little jargon-y and there could be a plainer way of explaining its relationship to the overall franchise, and what makes it separate from the other platform games.
• The commas in the sentence about the allies and antagonists add a lot of wordiness, in two sub-clauses. I feel like you could drop them without losing much information.

• Removed, but left "Primarily Bowser".

• "game to be Paper Mario," → "game to become Paper Mario,"

• Fixed

• "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to keep each game's style, such as in genre and combat, different from the previous game." This type of sentence isn't terrible, but trying to avoid run-on sentences with lots of commas is something to strive for. How about "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to each game to have a different style, varying the genre and combat system for each new title."

• Changed but replaced "and combat system" to "and core gameplay element" as that is what's most often changed (there was also a typo in there).

• "transition from role-playing games to more the action-adventure genre" → "transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure".

• Changed

• "The new format of the games, starting from Paper Mario: Sticker Star onward, received mixed reception, with complaints regarding the new genre style but praise for the writing, characters, music, and reimagined paper aesthetic visuals." → "With the release of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, the series began receiving complaints about its change in genre, but still continued to earn praise for its writing, characters, music, and paper-inspired visuals."

• You, my friend, are very good with words. You should consider Extraversion.

• Gameplay
• You don't need a semi-colon when a period will do. Truthfully, this whole sentence is a slew of commas that should be broken up into smaller sentences.

• What can I say, I, for one, am a comma guy, as they not only help combine sentences, but, in my opinion, help with the flow of transition.

• Maybe find a way to rephrase, without using "each game" so soon after each other.

• Changed the first instance to series.

• "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or help fight in combat." → (parallelism) "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or helping fight in combat."

• Fixed

• "but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used" → "but uses up a finite amount of flower points (FP)."

• Done

• "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead" → "Super Paper Mario is more of a platform game compared to first two role-playing games in the series."

• Done

• Unclear what you mean here: "Although Mario does not fight alongside unique partners"

• Done

• "In addition, allies known as Pixls, which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels, can be summoned and used" → "In addition, Mario can summon allies known as Pixls, who grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels."

• Done

• "the Paper Mario games are more aimed towards the action-adventure genre" → "the series shifted towards the action-adventure genre."

• Done

• "RPG elements, such as XP, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced." → "The series reduced its emphasis on RPG elements, with no experience points, fewer allies, and a simpler plot."

• Done

• Instead, the games are more based on puzzle-solving elements, and, although combat is still turn-based, each game has a unique strategy element in lieu of XP." → "Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat."

• Changed

• Games
• "Paper Mario also saw multiple re-releases, namely on" → "The game was later re-released on"

• Changed

• "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and has stolen..." → "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and steals..." (parallelism)

• Changed

• "Paper Mario's puzzles put emphasis on Mario's allies; most puzzles are based upon the skills of Mario's partners, all of which have a unique ability." → "Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities."

• Changed

• "The story highlight Rogueport, which contains a closed portal that holds great fortune. When Mario and Peach get involved in the discovery, Peach is kidnapped by the X-Nauts, who are also aiming to open the portal." → "The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune. Soon after, Peach is kidnapped..."

• Changed

• Again I might just replace the semicolon with a period, but this might be a matter of style than a hard requirement.

• I'm also a semicolon enthusiast; I'll leave it in for now.

• "which he can use to destroy the universe and replace it with a perfect one" → "so that he can destroy and remake the universe".

• Changed but added a "to his liking" in to explain why a little more.

• "To prevent this, Mario, aided by Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi, set out to collect the eight "Pure Hearts"." → "Mario sets out to stop Count Bleck by collecting the eight "Pure Hearts", with the help of Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi."

• Changed

• "Royal Stickers inside the comet" → "Royal Stickers living inside the comet"

• Added

• "six Royal Sticker" -- plural

• Probably just a typo

• "using coins as currency" -- don't need the currency part

• Removed

• "pre-determines" do you mean "plans"?

• Plans sounded a bit off to me so I replaced it with prepares.

• "against enemies in combat" -- don't really need this. It's implied from being an attack.

• Removed

• "not visible in the regular camera angle" → "not visible from the standard camera angle".

• We're getting F a n c y

• "After noticing the island is also color drained, they are prompted by Huey who explains how six Big Paint Stars give the island color, but the six stars have been scattered, later to be revealed because of Bowser." → "After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing."

• Changed

• Having trouble understanding this one. Try to rephrase. "The player can use the Wii U GamePad which allows Mario to use the "cutout" ability, which peels a part of the environment and reveals locations that were not visible prior."

• "The player can use the Wii U Gamepad to trace a hole in the paper environment to reveal secrets, known as the "Cutout" ability."

• "To engage in combat, Mario uses cards that, much like Sticker Star, pre-determine what ability Mario is going to use or how he will attack the enemy." → "Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target."

• Changed

• You could probably just break this into two shorter sentences. "When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly, with many other residents, including Bowser, meeting a similar fate."

• Split like a Pepto Bismal bottle that was actually cake.

• "some elements of RPGs" → "some role-playing elements"

• Changed

• "For example, allies have been reintroduced, but don't serve as much use compared to the first two games in the series." → "For example, the game reintroduces allies, albeit in a stripped down role compared to the first two Paper Mario games."

• My favorite fancy sentence change so far.

• It is a little weird to put the spinoff games out of order, but I recognize this is a series within a series within a series. Just something to note in case someone else brings it up.
• Again, I might try to find a way to explain the relationship between the series without the jargon of sub-series.

• I settled with spin-off

• "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book in the library of Peach's Castle which contains the Paper Mario universe." → "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book that contains the Paper Mario universe." (you don't really lose any explanation this way)

• Changed

• "After the Paper Mario residents spread all over the Mushroom Kingdom, the two Bowser's of both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach." --> "This causes the two universes to cross over, with the Paper Mario residents spreading all over the Mushroom Kingdom. The two Bowsers from both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach."

• Changed

• "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario; Mario and Luigi can perform their usual actions, and Paper Mario can do paper-like actions such as folding into a shuriken in battle" → "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat."

• Changed

• "In combat, he can make multiple copies of himself, creating a large stack that deals more damage as a special attack." → "Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack."

• Changed

That's quite a bit and I'm going to leave it there. But should let you get started. I will try to work through the Development and Reception soon. The sources look generally good so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Shooterwalker, for the review. I did plan to get to your article today, but Plants vs. Zombies had some big prose issues it burned me out before I got to Namco. I'll get to it tomorrow. Panini^🥪 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying a few more suggestions. Thanks for the kind words! Two general rules that help me write better:

1. Try to avoid sentences where there are more than 3 clauses (e.g.: a sentence with more than 2 commas). Sort of like Wikipedia articles, sentences have size limits where it's more appropriate to split, shorten, or re-organize. (More commas for lists are a funny exception that you can get away with sometimes, especially at the end of a sentence.)
2. Vary the pacing between simple and complex sentences. My last sentence was simple but not necessarily short, and this one is a little more complex without being too long.
3. Avoid passive voice, especially in a more complex sentence, because it makes it harder to understand who is doing what. "The game was designed as..." vs. "Nintendo designed the game as...". Or even shorten that to "The design was..." to make it flow in a larger sentence.

Onto the review...

• Development and history
• I suggest revisiting how these paragraphs are broken up, just to really organize each paragraph around a game, or the period between games. It's possible that all the attention on "announcements" is adding clutter without adding much information, but use your judgment if the announcement is important to understanding the series history.
• "Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro after he was hired as an employee by Nintendo to port games on the Famicom Disk System to cartridges." I think make it clearer that they hired the company but it was effectively one person at first.

• Put an "on his own" in there

• "After his success in developing video games himself, such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, Narihiro hired more developers and expanded the company into Intelligent Systems" → "Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, which allowed him to expand his company with additional artists and developers."
• "now modern-day Square Enix" you could drop this without losing much, and have a simpler sentence.

• Removed. I don't like them, anyway.

• "To try to get fans interested in the genre," drop this too, since you say it better at the end of the sentence

• Removed

• "following this," can cut this

• Removed

• "because he believed players would be tired of low-polygon graphics, as well as an attempt to bring out the "cuteness" in the characters." → "because he believed players might prefer a game with "cute" 2D character designs instead of another game with low-polygon 3D graphics."
• "The game had a four-year development process; it was released in August 2000, late into the console's existence with the Nintendo GameCube about to be announced." → "Development took four years, and was released in August 2000, towards the end of the console's lifecycle."

• Changed.

• "The Thousand-Year Door was announced at the 2003 Game Developers Conference, and was announced to be the direct sequel to the previous game." You say announced twice, and this could probably be a shorter sentence. Try "At the 2003 Game Developers Conference, Nintendo announced a direct sequel, The Thousand-Year Door."

• Fiddled with this a bit but overall changed.

• "in July 2004 in Japan and late 2004 worldwide" For the sake of the summary it might be easier just to say 2004.

• Changed

• "the Mario & Luigi series started in 2003 with Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance, developed by the now defunct AlphaDream" → "Developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series, releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance in 2003." (You could probably drop the semi colon before and just do a full stop.)

• Changed, and for the second suggestion, no;

• "The future producer of the Paper Mario series" Maybe bring this up later more naturally, so it doesn't break the flow and chronology.

• Okie dokie

• "which he says influences changes to the staff or a game's core system" → "leading them to explore bigger changes in each game's gameplay and design team." (This is something that hasn't quite happened yet, and is about to happen.)

• Changed

• "the game's director, Ryota Kawade, " → "game director Ryota Kawade"

• Changed

• "When the idea of being able to switch through 2D and 3D was conceptualized..." Try breaking this into two shorter sentences

• Split like that one kid when he accidentally pulled the fire alarm.

• "Super Paper Mario was originally planned to be one of the last games released for the GameCube, which was announced through a trailer at E3 2006," → "At E3 2006, Super Paper Mario was announced as one of the last games planned for release on the GameCube." (Full stop)
• "when it was switched over to the Wii its motion controls were not implemented" → "it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls."
• "was fully announced" → "were fully announced"

• Fixed

• "The developers, upon request from Miyamoto who was no longer the series producer, did not" → "As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers..."

• Changed

• "Additionally, he also asked for the combat to be changed due to similarities to The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove the story because not many players found it entertaining and he believed the game would be fine without a story" → "Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove most of the story elements due to early feedback from fans." (simpler sentence, and you have the quote off to the right)
• "Core changes in Sticker Star and further games in the series were made to help introduce the series to a new audience" → "Starting with Sticker Star, the series transformed to try and reach a new audience."

• Changed

• "prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise" → "limited outside developers from modifying or adding characters to the Mario universe." (gets you most of the clarity, especially when read with the next sentence)
• Maybe another few examples where a full stop would be better than a semi-colon.
• "last mainline game" needs clarification and could probably be rephrased. Could we just say game?

• Clarified a little bit, meant to say "last game in the series"

• "The artists made the worldbuilding look entirely out of paper," There's maybe a better way to say this.

• Changed

• "through a Nintendo Direct" could be "on Nintendo Direct" or even "through Nintendo Direct"?

• Changed to "via"

• Maybe end that last sentence with a full stop. The negative fan reception is a separate event and separate thought.

• Changed

• "The game released worldwide in early October" what year? do we need to say worldwide for a Nintendo game?

• Fixed

• "in a video in early September" Don't really need to say "in a video"

• Removed

• "in mid-May" is missing a full stop

• Yeah, I just don't like them that much.

• "He stated how due to not being able to satisfy every fan, generally the core fans of the series and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts, which is why The Origami King used origami as a new paper-like theme." This could be simplified a lot.

• Simplified

• I'd say the last paragraph of this section does have a few run-on sentences that could be shortened and/or split.

• Fiddled a bit

Reception

• Maybe try to re-state the timeline for the reader as you start this section off. e.g.: Paper Mario is the first game, it's from the year 2000. Probably doesn't need more than a few well-placed words, but if it starts to add clutter, you can try its own sentence.
• Maybe move the 2006 list ranking to the end of this paragraph, to distinguish between its immediate reception in 2000 and its long-term legacy.

• Fiddily-diddled.

• I think my last two comments also apply to each additional paragraph, establishing a year, if not some other marker of how the series was changing (maybe the platform?). It would help those paragraphs flow, and help the reader keep the timeline straight. As is, it just feels like a few disjointed paragraphs about different games.
• Skipping to the end, the paragraph about the three games since Sticker Star is actually really informative. I saw one of the above FA reviewers comment that this article could use some more discussion of the series as a whole, and I think this paragraph is a great example. I know that's difficult if the sources don't exist. But maybe there's a way to re-organize it to have the reception feel more like a general comment on the evolution of the series, instead of a series of separate receptions for separate games. It sometimes feels like we are losing the forest by staring at each tree.

• Shooterwalker, Just for confirmation, there should still be prose commentary for each individual game, however? Just some extra on the series as a whole?

• "Additionally, the plot was also slightly criticized for being overly complicated" → "Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated,"

• Ctrl C Ctrl V'd.

• If you have three reviewers in the citation who agree, do we really need to name any of them?

• You're right, Eurogamer doesn't deserve attention. Frikin' Europeans, man.

• "the game's reception was mainly mixed and criticized for being centered around stickers" → "was mixed." Saying mixed and criticized is two different things, and you talk about the criticisms later.

• I think I was trying to imply, "the game's reception was mainly mixed, with stickers specifically being criticized for being the center gameplay mechanic." I made the change.

• "Thing Stickers were called" → "Reviewers called the stickers"

• Changed to "Reviewers called the Thing Stickers" as "Thing Stickers" are a different thing than stickers.

• "disdain" is a strong word. Just making sure that's what you mean.

• Oh yeah. Talk to any Paper Mario fan and they'll come to an agreement on "this game is the absolute worst".

• I see why the announcement of Color Splash is important, but you should try to keep a clearer chronology between the announcement and the game itself. Re-organize the first two sentences a bit.

• Re-organized the first two sentences a bit

• "lack of purpose" isn't clear.

• Changed to "lack of overall necessity to the game".

• "Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins in the game was to buy cards for combat, which in return awarded coins which he believed made the system pointless." Try to say this in fewer words.

• Fiddled

• "as it returned old RPG elements and removed other faulty ones in the games before" → "as it re-added beloved RPG elements and removed other elements that had received criticism."

• Changed

• "considering their hiding spots and humorous dialogue" → "praising their humorous dialog and interesting hiding spots."

• Changed

• "The game's combat system was both appreciated and disliked" → "Reviewers gave the game's combat system a mixed reception"

• C ha n G ed

• You could drop the semicolon in the "other media" section.

• Dropped

• Related to my comment about this section more generally, the sales section could benefit from trying to make it flow as a comment on the whole series, instead of several separate sentences about several separate games. It might be as simple as using more words like "also" or "again", and other comparison words that show a when a streak is forming or being broken.

• Added words.

That takes us up to the end and should give you a lot to work with. I know that's a lot of comments but it's on the right track. Feel free to ask any questions and we can revisit after a round of edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, thanks for the review! I've been more busy recently and I do hope I have your patience for the time being. I'll get to your reception concerns in the near future. Panini^🥪 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand being busy. Work at your own pace. Would very much like to see this article improved to FA status. Keep up the good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to check in with support. It would help to have another reviewer take a thorough look on the prose, but it's generally up to standard, in my view. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM.
• Add a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers to the awards and nominations table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Heartfox, that should be it. Panini!^🥪 11:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  The table is still missing row headers, row scopes, and column scopes. Heartfox (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from DWB

• "In the series, Mario is tasked on a quest to explore the Mushroom Kingdom" - Tasked on a quest sounds weird, would "tasked to explore" or "tasked with a quest" be more appropriate?

• Well, he's not going out and having fun for the heck of it, "quest" means he has an official goal. So it makes sense in its right.

(talk page stalker) Actually it doesn't. It's not grammatical. One is tasked with a quest. Or it could be 'sent on a quest'. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Gog, don't call my grammar out like that. It's embarrassing! But yeah, changed. Panini!^🥪 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• "where Mario and an opponent take turns attacking one another" - Just to clarify, is it only ever one opponent or can it be more?

• Ah, good catch, changed to "one or more".

• " feature elements similar to that of a role-playing video game (RPG)." - "feature elements similar to that of a TYPICAL role-playing video game (RPG).

• Added (and made another change)

• "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead." Maybe clarify it is the third game in the series.

• Mentioned

• "RPG elements, such as experience points, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced. Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat.[17]" - I don't think you need to individually source allies and plot, when Ref 17 is used at the end of the sentence anyway.

• Fiddled

• The gameplay section is OK, I'm not a fan of images just being on top of each other but the sections are too short to really stagger them.
• THe development and history section though... The logo images should either be a multi-image box or staggered, and the quote should be staggered from the crew photos.

• Put the logos in a multi-image box (good idea), and moved the quote down a paragraph

• "Color Splash was initially neglected when it was announced, but received generally positive reviews after release. " - Do you mean "ignored" or "interest was low"? Neglected sounds like the studio didn't care.

• I went spicy and changed it to "derided"

• I feel like "In other media" should be the last of the things in that section that it is otherwise dealing with reception.

• Moved

• There's a Red Link for DICE awards.

• Yes, it's supposed to urge the article's creation. It is definitely notable enough to have its own article, considering its many other annual ceremonies have one too.

• Everything seems to be archived properly.
• The non-English language sources needed "language=Japanese" added to their references Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Added

Darkwarriorblake, thanks for the review! That should be everything. Panini^🥪 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Good job Panini. Reading through again I notice that the last paragraph of the lede has two sentences that open with "despite this". I think the second one would be easy to reword to make the whole section read better.
• I feel like the last sentence of the first paragraph should mention the number of games in the series since this whole thing is a summary. Something like (and I'm not saying this is the right phrasing) "The series comprises seven games, beginning with Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64 in 2000, to the most recent game, Paper Mario: The Origami King, released for the Nintendo Switch in 2020."
• Maybe add a date and/or the numerical entry for the mention of Sticker Star in the third paragraph to clarify its positioning in the series and around when it started receiving complaints. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Darkwarriorblake, done, done, and done; easy but beneficial changes. Panini^🥪 22:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Panini, I don't have a tonne of experience with series pages but there are no other issues that stand out to me, so I'm happy to Support Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Paper_Mario_Logo.png: the FURs claim the image is cover art, but then the tag gives it as a logo - which is correct?

• Changed; see below.

• File:Paper_Mario_The_Thousand_Year_Door_Combat.png: the FUR does not provide an adequate rationale for how the use of this image benefits the article - it seems to be almost entirely identical to the lead image, which serves a quite different purpose.

• I've explained further its purpose in the article.

• Good, but this would benefit from further improvement. For example, what does "this image is the best instance where identification is clear and resourceful" mean? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• This does not seem to have changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• It has, I've since added, "not only graphically improved from the game prior, the games following introduced gimmicks that made combat more complex and such combat varies from game to game. Here is where the combat is seen in its simplest form."

• The same is true for File:Super_Paper_Mario_Gameplay.png. Generally speaking, the more non-free works you have in a particular article, the stronger the rationale needed for each, and this doesn't cut it.

• Removed it.

• Ditto File:Paper_Mario_Color_Splash_Example.jpeg, which is also missing a source

• Sourced. The image is to emphasize the whole point of the paper-like graphics.

• Er, there don't seem to have been any changes made here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Still no source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I thought you meant sources as in references in the article, not the website where its found. Wile looking for the source, I couldn't find it so I simply replaced it with an image where a source exists.

• Oh, should've mentioned I had yet to do this one...

• File:Super_Mario_RPG_Logo.png: why is this believed to be free, and the lead image non-free? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• You are the third-ish person to believe the logo to be public domain and not fair use; I've since changed its criteria.

• Nikkimaria, pinging to acknowledge addressed concerns. Panini!^🥪 12:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria Okay, now it should be clear. Panini!^🥪 14:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria Ha! Please forgive me, simply a lack of understanding what you were requesting (see above). I've responded to the remaining issues. Panini!^🥪 16:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will take a look at this. Probably gonna claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Talk 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Destructoid is a situational source based on author's qualifications. What are Chris Carter's credentials? Ditto for Jordan Devore? Johnathan Holmes? (Disclosure: I take a much dimmer view of this source than most, so I'm probably questioning it a bit more than others would)

• Please correct me if you're looking for something specific, I'm not too familiar with what exactly I'm looking for to prove credibility. But here's what I found:

• Jordan Devore is the managing editor (staff). He graduated from Portland State University in business.

• Every other instance I found it easier to remove or replace with something more reliable.

• Hog Farm, I plan on finishing this today. Does Devore seem credible? 11:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Devore seems to be one of the more credible Destructoid people (with Jim Sterling), so it's probably fine here. Hog Farm _Talk 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• GamersHell is listed as unreliable at WP:VGRS

• Replaced

• Be consistent with formatting. For instance, US Gamer vs USgamer vs USGamer

• Should be fixed

• Ref 58 - IGN appears to sometimes have unreliable non-staff content, especially older stuff. Is JKR staff, or is this not going to be a usable source for FA?

• Changed

• Ref 62 - I'm not convinced that 3ds.nintendo.life.com is the right way to cite this - this looks like Nintendo Life should be the publisher to me.
• Fixed
• Ref 68 (Destructoid, Carter) needs an accessdate

• Source removed

• "CESA Games White Papers. Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association." - Too vague of a citation. Which year's are we doing? It looks like some of these may be available online, so is there a URL?
• "2020CESAゲーム白書 (2020 CESA Games White Papers). Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association. 2020. ISBN 978-4-902346-42-8." - Is this a book? If it's more than like 20 pages long, can we get page numbers?

  Using this, I found this. But I don't know how to cite it from there... Panini!^🥪 12:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's evidently a book then. Use the title, publisher, publishing location, year, and isbn (it doesn't seem to have a specific author). It's also long enough you'll need page numbers as well, and if it's in Japanese, then you'll need to indicate that in the citation. @Panini!: - In what form did you access this work? Hog Farm _Talk 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hog Farm, Considering how I have no knowledge of book sources, I found it at List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games. Is doing so a bad thing? Working on citing now. Panini!^🥪 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  So, I got this far:

  2020CESAゲーム白書 [2020 CESA Games White Papers] (in Japanese). Japan: Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association. 2020. ISBN 978-4-902346-42-8.

  But I'm unsure on where and how I can cite its pages. I sent a message to WT:VG to see if anyone has it. Unless if there's a different way I can look through it? It's about 300 pages long. Panini!^🥪 14:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Found and hunted down the user who put the citation into the list article; I've got full info for one, and am working on the other. Panini!^🥪 01:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's good. The potential attribution statement below and finishing off these CESA things are about all that's outstanding yet. Hog Farm _Talk 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Finished the CESA sources, working on attribution.

• Ref 92 lacks publisher

• Fixed

• Be consistent with Metacritic vs www.metacritic.com

• Seems like one slipup; fixes

• ""Paper Mario 3DS Review". Desructoid. Archived from the original on November 9, 2012. Retrieved November 6, 2012." (ref 110) - Lacks date. Lacks author. Spelling error in Destructoid

• Replaced altogether

• Ref 120 lacks accessdate

• Fixed

• Vice Media is listed as non-consensus at WP:RSP, gonna say it's probably not high-quality RS for FA usage

• Removed

• Ref 141 (Jeff Grubb) lacks the publisher

• Fixed

• Ref 145 is missing publisher

• Fixed

Checks for test-source integrity and copyright violations will be at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/Paper Mario. Will be doing those now. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with saying this is copyright compliant, but want to see the replies to some of the spot checks for source-text integrity questions.

• I do have some concerns about statements needing attributed. I saw several spots where "critics" were said to say something, when it was only based on one or two critics. Attribution really needed unless it's being stated that it's a widespread view

  Removed, rewritten, and sources added. The Origami King seemed to be the worse case of this.

• Not sure that the see also link to Vivian is really that useful

• Removed

• Why does the units sold table not have a sales total for Color Splash?

• Simply because full sales numbers don't exist, from my knowledge. In the article, "Although the number of worldwide sales of Color Splash are unknown, Japan sales totalled 63,000 as of July 2020."

Hog Farm _Talk 05:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hog Farm. I will most likely work on this in the near future. Panini!^🥪 12:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, finished the CESA sources and attributed. Anything else you would like to look at or bring attention to? Panini!^🥪 01:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Wikibenboy94

Sorry for the delay in completing this review. This ended up being a lot bigger than I anticipated with regards to prose improvements. Not I'm decrying the quality of your written work, but I've included a lot of changes, perhaps to a nitpicky degree, that a copy-editor would likely pick up on. On the topic of this, and while you've noted it did have one in the past, I would definitely recommend another copy-edit (Twofingered Typist, who I see copy-edited The Origami King, I would ask for again; he also helped me for my peer review of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered). The below suggestions/improvements are more of a helping-hand in getting the prose that bit better before a copy-edit. Feel free to disregard any of the following changes you disagree with.

Lead

I would include the word "released" somewhere in the last line of the first paragraph, preferably before the year ("on the Nintendo 64 released in 2000"). Also, there's more of a structure if you moved "the most recent being" to before The Origami King rather than after, as "the first being" is used before the title of Paper Mario.

Done.

"After Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro, Nintendo was planning to release a successor to Super Mario RPG, which Nintendo had Intelligent Systems develop". When did these events occur? I would definitely cite a release year for Super Mario RPG at the very least.

Done.

"Resulted in the game becoming" in my opinion sounds better than "led the game to become".

Done.

"This led the series to slowly transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure". Omit the mention of "games".

Omitted.

"The first two games in the series received critical acclaim, being praised for their story, characters, and unique gameplay. The series later received multiple installments". While the first two games may have received the most acclaim, the wording of this places emphasis on them and almost treats the successive titles like an afterthought. Also "later" is vague, and makes it seem like there was a large gap between the second and third releases.

Unafterthoughted.

I think there needs to be a reshuffling of the wording in the latter two paragraphs. There are two lines outlining reception, which can be condensed into one, and the first two sentences of the second paragraph should be moved to the end of the first paragraph. We would then have one paragraph focusing on development and the genre changes made to the series, and the other on reception and the response to the changes.

Sounds like a plan.

Gameplay

"that contain puzzles and interactive elements. For example, Mario can hit objects with his hammer, which needs to be completed to progress in the story". "Need" is the correct tense; "needs" makes it sound like it's referring to just one occurrence.

Oops

"These locations". "These" is redundant.

Changed

"and contain coins and other various collectibles". Include some examples of collectibles.

Exampled

"Mario will encounter multiple allies". Is it obligatory that multiple allies are encountered, or is it only some of them? If it's a minority Mario is forced to meet I would change this to "can encounter".

Yeah; the first two games you are forced to team up with someone because certain puzzles need an ally to complete them; the recent games have that one person that is just, "Hey, I could help you" and sticks around the whole game until they die.

"when Mario and his other present allies". "Other" is redundant.

Unredudanted

"Mario and his allies can either perform a regular attack, where they time a button-press on the controller to deal more damage". The player is the one timing the button-press, not Mario.

"The player"ed

"but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used". I would say "in-game statistic" is redundant.

When looking at other video game articles with complicated plots they often introduce locations or content without explaining their significance or purpose. I try to explain new details to someone who isn't unfamiliar with something. For example, I was reading the plot of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train a while back, and it reads out of nowhere, "Enmu, Lower Rank One of the Twelve Kizuki". As a non-anime fan, what does that mean?

"which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels". Change to "abilities for combat and traversing levels".

Changed

I did notice Shooterwalker made six suggestions to the prose in this section last month but you haven't made these changes; had you missed them or just disagreed with them?

Probably missed them, I'll give it a second look.

These were taken care of a while back, I just never marked them off. I did so now.

Games

"Mario must then save[...]" "then" is redundant.

Unthened

"Mario must then save the imprisoned Star Spirits, defeat Bowser, and save the Mushroom Kingdom. [...] Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities". As gameplay centres on puzzles and unique abilities, rather than characters to alternately save and defeat which falls more under story (and I don't know if using "which" was a mistake but it doesn't make grammatical sense), I would re-phrase to "Gameplay centres around Mario and his allies solving puzzles, with many of the challenges[...]"

Yeah, it seems like a typo. Used your suggestion.

"which take up a portion of FP when executed". I presume this means filling up a portion, and not deducting it? If so, change to "fill".

The first is correct; using this video as an example, the player only has ten FP and must use it sparingly. I've tweaked the wording to emphasize this, though.

"The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune". Change to "The game is set mainly in Rogueport". Also "great fortune" seems a bit vague.

Changed

"Peach e-mails Mario, not informed about her kidnapping, that he needs to search". Mentioning Mario being uninformed is unnecessary.

Tweaked

"Mario is given special abilities under a curse". Change to "as a result of a curse". Also, if the curse is important to the plot, I would include it in the story summary above.

Tweaked

"such as folding into a paper airplane and gliding, or folding into a boat". The abilities of the plane is given, but not those of the boat. If the abilities are obvious (gliding and floating), I recommend removing "gliding".

Fair

Trimmed to remove repeated use of "folding into a[...].

"Contrarily, audience members will leave if Mario performs poorly". Does this affect the amount of items he receives?

Shuffled a bit

"battles take place in the overworld in real-time, and upon victory Mario is awarded XP". Would replace the comma with a semi-colon and then a comma after "victory".

Done

"In combat, Mario prepares his actions using the stickers". Not keen on the wording. I would change to something like "In combat, Mario's abilities depend on the stickers obtained."

Changed, and put a semicolon in there while I was at it

"Other stickers, called "Thing Stickers", resemble real world objects that can either be used to solve puzzles in the overworld or be used as a powerful attack against enemies". How do they differ to the other stickers (e.g. the Jump sticker) used in combat, or are they treated equally? As this comes straight after the sentence on combat, I would mention their use as powerful attacks first, and then solving puzzles in the overworld after.

Organized

"where he lays down flat and reveals secrets not visible in the standard camera angle". I would remove the bit about the camera as it seems obvious secrets wouldn't be viewed normally in the default FOV. It's a bit vague though, so explain how they are seen.

Fiddled with

I looked at the source (the Gamespot review presumably, which should be linked direct) and they say "Paperizing causes Mario's three-dimensional papercraft surroundings to fall flat like a Polaroid", but you've written it's Mario that's the one falling flat?

Oof, how did that one that slip through?

Seems like a misinterpretation of the source. Would like to say that I myself have only played one of these six games.

"After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing". Who is Huey? Also I would remove the colon and change to "they speak to Huey, who explains that the six Big Paint Stars[...}".

Hm, I think the colon is there by accident. That's odd.

I've changed the "why" to "that" because it's giving the scattered Stars as the reason for the color-draining.

"when he hits something in the overworld, an uncolored object is colored and rewards items such as coins. Since paint is needed to use the hammer, containers of red, yellow, and blue paint can be found by hitting objects with the hammer". As the sequence of events is getting the paint first before colouring objects, I would switch these around and change to something like the following: "hitting certain items in the overworld grants him containers of red, yellow, and blue paint. Paint can then be used to hit other uncolored objects, coloring them and rewarding Mario with items such as coins."

Reorganized

"To engage in combat, Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target". Mentioning Sticker Star before the bit about planning combat reads better in my opinion.

Fiddled with

"Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, which they quickly discover to be abandoned. When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly." "Quickly" is redundant. Rephrase "When they enter Peach's Castle" to "At Peach's Castle".

Changed

"Unlike Sticker Star and Color Splash, the game reintroduces some RPG elements. For example, the game reintroduces allies". Repetitive use of "reintroduces".

Oops

"albeit in a stripped-down role". "A simplified role" sounds better.

Simplified

"Additionally, he is given a bag of confetti". Change to "possesess a bag of confetti".

Possessed

"knocks over a book that inside contains the Paper Mario universe". "Inside" is redundant.

Unredundanted

"Paper Jam is more geared toward gameplay than that of the Mario & Luigi series". Elaborate, as this is a bit vague.

Elaborated

"The player simultaneously controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat. Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack." First sentence is too lengthy. Re-phrase the two to something like the following: "The player simultaneously controls Mario and Luigi, who use their usual abilities, and Paper Mario, whose actions are paper-inspired; these include folding into a shuriken in combat, and performing a high-damage attack through stacking multiple copies of himself."

Shortened

There's quite a few repetitive "In the game" before describing the plot of each. Switch up the wording for some.

K

Development and history

"Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro on his own after he was hired". "On his own" is redundant. I would also include the year the company was founded.

Fixed

"Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series". Include "such as titles in the" as the wording seems to conflate "games" and "series".

Fixed

"was the first Mario RPG game". As this is the first mention in a new section, per other examples, use the full term of "role-playing".

Done

"Although Nintendo wanted Square to create another RPG game, Square later signed a deal with Sony Interactive Entertainment to create Final Fantasy VII on the original PlayStation, so Nintendo instead had Intelligent Systems create an RPG for their newest console, the Nintendo 64." Sentence is excessively long. Suggest replacing the comma and "so" with a semi-colon.

Done

"Development on the game began shortly after the release of the console in Japan." Again, a year should be cited of when development started.

Done

"and used a similar graphics style to the previous game." Replace "the previous game" to "its predecessor".

Done

"announced the direct sequel". Change "the" to "a" as we're describing the events as they happened.

Done

"released at varying times". Change to "varying dates" as time could effectively means different hours of a day for example.

Done

"The game is known as Paper Mario RPG in Japan." I would remove this sentence and combine it with the mention of its other title earlier in the paragraph, to read: "titled The Thousand-Year Door worldwide and Paper Mario RPG in Japan."

Done

"By the time the game released, a new series of Mario RPGs". Change to "another series" as some readers might think it's still talking about Paper Mario.

Done

"a new series of Mario RPGs was created for Nintendo's handheld consoles; developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series". Move the mention of the series' name Mario & Luigi so it reads as follows: "a new series of Mario RPGs, Mario & Luigi, was created for Nintendo's handheld consoles; developer Alphadream developed the first game in the series[...]"

Done

"releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance". Change "on" to "for".

Done

"Risa Tabata drew inspiration". This first mention of Rita doesn't give her role, but later in the section it does. Include her job title here and subsequently remove it from her second mention.

Done

I've seen examples like this before, but as the placement of the logos are side-by-side shouldn't they should be labelled as "(left)" and "(right)" not "(up)" and "(down)"?

Either that was me copy and pasting the double image template code from another article (probably The Last of Us, or me just forgetting to replace it after I switched the images around. Either way, done.

"being able to switch through 2D and 3D". Change to "alternatively switch from 2D to 3D".

Done

"When he approved". Use Tanabe's name instead of "he" for clarity. Also, "despite the changes, he asked the writers"; is this Kawade or Tanabe?

Done

"Since the game was intended to be played on a GameCube controller, when it was switched over to the Wii it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls." "When it was switched over to the Wii" can easily be taken out to keep the length down.

Done

"As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers did not create any new characters or allies and instead used pre-existing characters already defined in the Mario franchise". Should be "use"; "used" would be referring to the developers' future actions. Also, sentence is lengthy. I would take out mention of allies, as these fall under characters, and re-word the end to "established pre-existing characters".

Done

Replaced the latter use of "characters" with "ones".

"Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door". Change to "Miyamoto also asked that the combat differed from The Thousand-Year Door".

Ctrl C Ctrl V'd

"the series transformed to try and reach a new audience". Replace with "underwent changes in an attempt to reach a new audience" as to me this seems a bit more neutral. "Transformed" in particular seems a bit inflated.

AH! WP:NPOV! BAN HIM BAN HIM BAN HIM

Remove "Since Sticker Star" as the previous sentence it's carrying on from already says "Starting with Sticker Star".

Done

"Nintendo's Intellectual Property team prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise". The paragraph already mentions Miyamoto's same request previously so the two sentences should be condensed and either come straight after the other or merged together.

Done

"and they naturally saw Paper Mario". Remove "they naturally" as redundant.

Done

"Every game in the series from Color Splash onward has a white paper outline around Mario; the developers of Paper Jam needed to differentiate the characters from the separate series." Others might disagree, but to me this reads better with a comma and "as" in place of the semi-colon.

"followed by two remakes of old games". Are these older Mario & Luigi installments (if so mention this) or other unrelated games?

Done

"because the developers found the motion controls fun to use". To me "as" sounds better than "because".

Done

"Following which, the game received negative reception". Having "Following which" to open a sentence seems gramatically incorrect to me. Using "Following this" can work.

I don't understand why my mind defaults to using the word "which" so often.

Panini! Do you agree with changing it as it's been left? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've changed it to your suggestion. Panini!^🥪 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Risa Tabata further noted". "Further" is an additive term that should only be used when absolutely necessary. It can be removed in this context.

Done

"the Paper Mario series would rather focus on non-RPG elements". Wording makes it seem the series is making its own conscientious decision here, not the developers. Change to "would focus more on".

Done

"in early September, but was instead announced in mid-May". Give both years here.

Done

"Despite the return of some iconic characters from the series, critics were still disappointed in their lack of functionality". Can you elaborate further? Is this referring to their roles in the plot?

Elaborated

"The game also featured large overworlds". If they still do, change tense to "features".

Sometimes I have difficulty with determining what type of tense to use. Let me do that L trick with my hands real quick.

"Tanabe reaffirmed that he does pay attention to the general criticism, but still makes sure that he does not ignore "the casual players" and new fans of the series". Change to "Tanabe reaffirmed that while he does make note of general criticisms, he makes sure not to ignore "casual players" and new fans of the series."

Done

The last paragraph needs a few changes.

Let me at em'

"He stated how he could not satisfy every fan amidst the core veteran fans and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts,". There should be a semi-colon in place of the first comma.

Semicoloned

Change correct tense of "he instead attempts" to "attempted", and "how the game's writing is kept surreal" to "was".

Past-tensed

Replace "which is why" with "hence why".

Henced

"He stated how he could not [...] He also explained how the game's writing". Replace these examples of "he" with "Tanabe" as there's too many in the paragraph.

Tanabe'd

The game's writing is mentioned as being kept "surreal". Can you elaborate further?

Elaborated

Panini! You've included "and mixed", but I'm still not sure what this is indicating? Sorry. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"understood by other ages and nations". I would change "nations" to something like "cultures" or "ethnicities", something that's more of a demonination like age is.

Cultured

"He has also since kept away from a complicated plot due to how it "led the game away from the Mario universe"; he instead created a story where different locales would be tied to specific memorable events". To further limit the use of "he", for this example replace the semi-colon and "he" with a comma and a "and". Also, I read the related portion in the source and I couldn't see where he mentioned anything about using locales for memorable experiences?

Yeah, cited the wrong source there it seems. I've added one in there that covers the concept.

Reception and legacy

"Paper Mario received critical acclaim in 2000." This is the only game in this section that mentions the release year so I would remove it if it's not being used for the others.

Changed

"and elements from the Mario franchise". Change to "existing elements".

Done

"Additionally, it was praised for its writing and characters". Re-phrase to "Its writing and characters received additional praise".

Dine

"listed the game among one of the best games". Change the first use of "the game" to "it" to avoid repetition.

Done

"in Nintendo Power's "Top 200 Games", released in 2006". The comma and "released in" can be removed.

Done

"The Thousand-Year Door is considered the best game in the series according to fans and critics". Owing to how this is sourced, and to be more neutral and treating it less like a factual statement, I would suggest re-phrasing to something like "The Thousand-Year Door is often ranked as one of the best games in the series."

Done

"with comments on the story being whimsical in tone". Change to "with the story being considered whimsical in tone."

Done

"Despite changing the RPG style, Super Paper Mario was still met with generally positive reviews. The concept of changing dimensions received positive reception". Change "positive reception" to "praise" to switch up the wording a bit as "positive reviews" is written in the previous sentence. Also change "from" to "for".

Done

"Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated, but most reviewers praised". Remove "reviewers" as repeated twice in sentence.

Whoops

"Sticker Star received more criticism than the prior games. Although critics enjoyed the graphics, worldbuilding, and characters, the game's reception was mainly mixed". "Predecessors" sounds better in my opinion than "prior games". The game's reception is highlighted twice here; I would replace the "more criticism" bit at the beginning with it receiving "a more mixed reception".

Done

"with stickers specifically being criticized for being the center gameplay mechanic". Remove "being" and replace "center" with "central".

Done

"Although some critics praised". Too similar to the opening of the prior sentence. Suggest varying wording to "While some praised".

Done

"Reviewers called the Thing Stickers one of the game's biggest weaknesses". Additional mention of "critics"/"reviewers"; change to "the Thing Stickers were called one of the game's biggest weaknesses".

Wow, looks like I used those terms a lot by accident, huh? Done

"Upon reveal, fans criticized Color Splash." Include "Upon it's reveal".

Its'd

"continuing the trend of action-adventure games". Change to "action-adventure installments" to better specify this is referring to the series.

Done

"and a Change.org petition was created calling for the game's cancellation." Change "the game's" to "it's" as the beginning of the next sentence repeats the use of "the game".

Done

"but received generally positive reviews after release". Change to "upon release" to indicate there was no changes of opinion in the time after it came out.

Done

"Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins". Change "realized" to "noted" as this implies his knowledge of the mechanic changed throughout playing, which the review doesn't mention.

Done

"as it re-added beloved RPG elements". Are the RPG elements beloved as a whole, or just certain examples? Regardless however, "beloved" seems a but too glorified; I would replace with "favored" or maybe even "cherished" at a push.

Yeah, it was a skeptical word that Whillbb when they were copyediting. Done

"The three games since Sticker Star were greatly criticized for the removal of elements that made the games RPGs. The games were often criticized for the removal of an XP system". Second sentence opening is repetitive of the first. Change the former to "These included the removal of an XP system[...]".

Done

Side-note: I noticed this whilst looking through Paper Mario: The Origami King, but there seems to be a discrepancy in that The Origami King says the game was criticized for dropping its staple RPG-elements, whilst (unless I'm misinterpreting the wording) Paper Mario says The Origami King was praised for re-adding "beloved" RPG elements. Which is correct?

Elaborated a little further.

Sales

"and sold over 1.3 million copies since 2007 and is the thirteenth best-selling game on the Nintendo GameCube." Split this into a seperate sentence for the GameCube prose to keep the length down.

Done

"the game had sold about 2.3 million units worldwide". Change "about" to "around".

Done

"As of 2019, the game has sold". Change tense to "had" if we're talking about a previous year. This goes for the other mentions of "the game has" for other years.

Done

"Sticker Star had sold about 400,000 copies". Again, change to "around", and remove unnecessary "had".

Done

"the game has made close to 2.5 million sales". Too definitive; if the benchmark wasn't reached, put "had reached almost".

Done

"Although the number of sales of Color Splash are unknown, Japan sales". Include "worldwide" before "sales".

Done

"and the series' best launch sales". Remove "sales"; "launch" works on its own just as well.

Done

In other media

"The most prominent of which is the "Paper Mario" stage". Remove unnecessary "of which".

Done

The use of "also" is almost always unnecessary in prose; see Tony1's guide. There are quite a few examples throughout the article.

Removed a lot of its instances

• This feels like a ten-pound dumbbell to the head.
• I'm joking of course. I'll work on improvements soon! Panini!^🥪 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Panini!, can I nudge you on this and on the source review. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Consider me nudged. Been dealing with quarantine issues very suddenly, but I will make room for a grind on this today. Panini!^🥪 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Update: Finished the image review (It hadn't been finished yet) and am about to work on the last two comment. I have something planned right about now and will return with 1-2ish hours. Panini!^🥪 16:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Update: I'll get to this tomorrow. Thanks so much for your patience. Panini!^🥪 15:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Everything seems fine so far, though I've got a further query about the wording of the "Paperization" ability. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wikibenboy94, I had a lot of time last night to complete this, but for some reason it spent it on WarioWare Gold. I don't understand myself sometimes. But that should be everything, now onto the source review. Panini!^🥪 10:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, not quite everything Panini!, there was one last unanswered query about the description of the writing being "surreal and mixed". I appreciate you making all these changes; I know there was a lot, particularly with regards to grammar! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wikibenboy94 Changed to "broad in its context and format." Panini!^🥪 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Returning to voice my support for the article. As I mentioned before, it could do with a copy-edit, and based on what little I encountered there might be further discrepancies on whether cited details are actually in the source, but other than that this looks good to me. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wikibenboy94 Thank you! I left a request at WP:GOCE. Panini!^🥪 21:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Mario Galaxy 2/archiveNumber}}

Featured article reviews

Template:FAR-instructions/small navbox Wikipedia:Featured article review