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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2021 [1].

---

R-1 tank

Nominator(s): Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, fellow editors! I have just published the R-1 tank article and I am attempting to promote it to the FA class. It's the first time I am doing this. I've read through the criteria and used multiple FAs as models, namely Panzer I and Verdeja (both of which are old nominations), as well as a more recent one—Union of Bulgaria and Romania. I hope my article is good enough to join the FA club. :)

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: The Flickr photos that have been nominated for deletion have had their license changed by the uploader since then, which has led to the nominator withdraw their request. All of the article's other photos have been reviewed as well, their license having been considered adequate. Lupishor (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—not passed

I see some serious issues with the image licensing in the article. A lot of the images are derived from photocopies with unknown authors. But reproduction of a two-dimensional work doesn't generate a new copyright, what we care about is the original photograph and whether it is in the public domain both in the source country and the United States, or the photographer / their heirs have agreed to release the photograph. (Some WWII photographs are public domain, but by no means all.) I can help with determining copyright status, but in general you have to know more information than you have provided, especially the author of the photograph and the first publication date. Also, for future reference, the WP:Volunteer Response Team should be contacted by third parties who own the copyright to media and want to release it under a free license.

• On the other hand, the flickr photograph licensing looks acceptable since these are original works that have been released by the copyright holder.
• Less important issue: what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Ideally it is stated in the image description for verifiability. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, @Buidhe:. I wasn't aware that the original image matters more than the photocopy. Considering that the three licenses that were used here can also be applied to the photos of the article in question, changing the license should solve the problem.

What exactly do you mean by what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Do you mean the program I used? If yes, I will just write it down in the image's description.

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by what it says in PD-RO-photo. It says "since issuance", is that since creation or since publication? If the latter you need a publication date that's sufficiently early. Also, several of the captions indicate that the photographs were taken in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak requirements are different, to be in the public domain a photograph with no known author must have been published before 1946.

Ideally you would specify the source you consulted to determine the colors and other information in the image (such as the shape) but the means of creation is not necessary to specify. For example, this map cites a source. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The photos used in the article are from Czechoslovakia and Romania, with one being from the Soviet Union. For the Czechoslovak ones, this license should do it, since they were all taken on territory of what is now Czechia. I see that the photos used on LT vz. 34, which is a Good Article, also use a similar license. The Romanian license I've linked above should also work—there are photos on Commons using it that have been uploaded 10 years ago, such as this one. From what I understand, what matters about that license is that "non-artistic photographs were not expressly protected by copyright", with the "issuance" part you referred to only counting for photos meant to be "artistic" (works of art?). For Soviet photos, the license used here should work.

Thanks for the explanation on the source thing. I will make the changes tomorrow. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The PD-RO-photo explains what happened to the copyright where it expired, but I don't see where it says that non-artistic photographs remained in the public domain after the 1996 law. The Czech template cannot be used unless you find a publication at least 70 years ago as stated on the template. For it to be PD-US all the conditions listed on the template need to be satisfied, including previous publication (before March 1989). (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Hello. So I've read through the full Romanian license. "Since issuance" is given as de la apariție, meaning "since it appeared/since creation". It doesn't specify they are referring to publication, so I think the license is safe to use. As I said, there are many photos using it on Commons that have been around for 10 years. I don't think it would have been the case had the license not been adequate. This license can also be used.

For Czechoslovak photos, the EU license should also work. The photos were first published in the 1930s, since they had to be shown to the Romanian side who was interested in acquiring that vehicle. What confirms this is that I've found at least one of them in Romanian works, which are based on Romanian archive material, indicating they had been made public to the Romanians back then, despite having been taken in Czechoslovakia.

I am going to modify the licenses right now. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot assume that the photographs were published in the 1930s. Publication requires that these particular photographs have been distributed to the public, so anyone could obtain them, while military technology is often not fully disclosed to the public. There's a ton of copyvio on Commons and the deletion process is broken, so you cannot assume that if the photograph is not deleted it must be OK. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: All I can hope for then is that the Romanian photos are still ok, given what I said above about the license, so the image review can at least get an "only partially passed". About some of the photos taken in Czechoslovakia, it is possible they were taken by Romanian military commissions. However, I'm not sure if this makes the Romanian license applicable to them. Lupishor (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If a Romanian person or entity was the original copyright holder, then I think the source country would be Romania. However, it's not sufficient to be public domain in the source country, it also has to be public domain in the US for use on Wikimedia. I think it may be more productive to revisit the licensing issue after you get some supports based on the content of the article. (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It is regrettable that this has not attracted more attention, but I am afraid that it has timed out. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• As a general rule, I'd discard all Cold War-era technical sources as tainted by incomplete documentation and political agendas. So no Chamberlain & Ellis, Kliment and Doyle, etc.
• Kliment & Francev needs its title translated and I'd be curious to know if it had any relationship with an apparent 1997 English translation. But that bit's not really a concern for this review.
• Volonchuk needs an OCLC number.
• What makes articles on warspot.ru reliable?
• Be sure to tell the reader what each non-English language source is written in.
• Zaloga, Kliment, Spielberger and Axworthy are known to me as highly reliable sources on Romanian/Czech armor. No way for me to evaluate the foreign-language sources.
• No formatting issues for the citations.
• No spot-checks made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2021 [2].

---

Sustainable energy

Nominator(s): Clayoquot and Femkemilene Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Over the past 2.5 years, this article has been completely rewritten from high-quality sources. I believe it’s now global in scope, reflects the most current accepted knowledge on the topic with balanced coverage of its many aspects, and gives the general reader an understandable overview of a complex topic. In the past six months, this article has been given Good Article status, copyediting, and a round of in-depth Peer Review, and we've incorporated very valuable feedback from these processes. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this; we look forward to your comments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I will leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• "Definitions of sustainable energy typically include environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions, and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty" - The comma before "and" is unnecessary. Unless this is a serial list with an Oxford comma and more than 2 terms (which this does not appear to be), if the clause that follows isn't a standalone sentence, you can usually do without a comma before "and". Additionally, do you mean "There are many definitions of sustainable energy, most of which include..."

  You're right. Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Switching from coal to natural gas has environmental benefits" - Has environmental benefits in the short term, I assume.

  It arguably has environmental benefits in the long term as well, as coal emits a lot more CO2 per unit of energy generated. Should the lead say something about this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Clayoquot, yes, I think it would be good to mention that briefly. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I added "including lower greenhouse gas emissions". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The global energy system, which is 85% based on fossil fuels" - This is worded awkwardly. Something like "The global energy system derives 85% of its output from fossil fuels" or "Eighty-five percent of the global energy system is based on fossil fuels" may work better.

  Great suggestion. Reworded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Paris Agreement" - This may be well known now, but I would put a date to this, like the "2015 Paris Agreement", since this may get a bit out of context later.

  Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "To make deep cuts in emissions" - "Cuts" sounds informal, I'd just say "decreases".

  Changed to "reductions", which is more usual for the literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Well-designed government policies that promote energy system transformation can lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality simultaneously, and in many cases can also increase energy security." - Similar to my first point, the comma that precedes "and" is unnecessary. I'd check for this throughout the article.

  Done this one. Will start looking for the rest. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done, I think - I took on a comma-scrutinizing trip through the article.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitions and background:

• "1987 report, Our Common Future." - This comma may be omitted.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "sustainable development as development" - The repetition of "development" in such close succession is awkward, so I would suggest rephrasing this as something like "It defined sustainable development as meeting 'the needs ...'"

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another thing I noticed is an inconsistency in the usage of an Oxford comma. "environmental, economic, and social dimensions" uses it; "access to affordable and reliable energy for all people, workers' rights and land rights" does not. I would standardize this through the article.

  Most of them were Oxford, so tried to make consistent. Likely that I missed at least one. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I searched for the word "and" throughout the article and found a few more places to add Oxford commas. I think this item is done now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The international Paris Agreement on climate change" - Would mentioning the year of the agreement be effective here, too?

  Done, not quite sure. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limits" - This should be "World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended limits", because "recommended" is a suffix to "WHO"; i.e. the WHO recommended the limits, so there should be a dash.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which causes in an estimated" - "which causes an estimated"?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• (Image caption) "A woman in rural Rajasthan,India collects firewood. The use of wood and other polluting fuels for cooking causes millions of deaths each year from indoor and outdoor air pollution." - There should be a space after the comma after "Rajasthan" and a corresponding comma after "India". But more to the point, the image pushes down the next graphic, the map of people with access to energy. I would recommend relocating the image (or just removing it if the image isn't essential).

  Corrected caption, not yet puzzled with image placement. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed the other figure, as I found it difficult to understand without zooming in. Too much of the text / graph could only be understood on the full-screen image. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Energy conservation:

• "Paris Agreement" is already linked above; I think it can be unlinked per MOS:DUPLINK.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "use less materials" - This should be "use less material" (where "material" is a generic uncountable noun) or "use fewer materials".

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "development of energy-efficient infrastructure to encourage changes in transport modes" - Toward the aforementioned public transport, walking, and cycling?

  Yes. Would you like to see this added? If modes is jargon, happy to of course, but prefer to keep sentence length lowish. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Modes" is fine, but I think the clarification would also help. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "United Nations targets for 2030 include a doubling of the rate of improvement in energy efficiency" - I think this should be rephrased slightly because it currently is an awkward phrasing. Do you mean something like "The United Nations aims to double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030"?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "however improvements have slowed in recent years" - Any specific decades?

  Done. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Efficiency improvements often lead to a rebound effect in which consumers use the money they save to buy more energy-intensive goods and services.[43] Recent technical efficiency improvements in transport and buildings have been largely offset by trends in consumer behaviour, such as purchasing larger vehicles and homes." - To me, the second sentence seems like a continuation of the first sentence. So would this be "As a result, recent technical efficiency improvements..."?

  I've combined the sentences with "for example". FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Epicgenius:, did you want to have a look over the rest of the article still? No hurries of course :). Femke (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll conduct the rest of the review now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sustainable energy sources:

• "far less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels." - I'm not sure if this should be "far fewer...emissions" or if "emissions" is uncountable here, so I'm not going to explicitly recommend changing it, but I'd recommend taking a look.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "providing access by 2030.[49] United Nations targets for 2030" - "Providing access by 2030" refers to the targets, correct?

Not as far as I know although the main authors may correct me - tweaked to hopefully clarify Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The panels are mounted on top of buildings, or installed in utility-scale solar parks." - The comma is unnecessary as this isn't a serial list, and the last part of the sentence does not stand alone as a clause.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Solar panels require energy for their production, equivalent to under two years of their own generation" - Not really an issue, just a general question, but does this mean it takes fewer than two years for a solar panel to produce as much energy as was used for its production?

  I've changed to your wording. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also a general question, are there specific countries that specifically stand out for their use of solar, wind, and hydro? If so, are they worth mentioning?

  Historically, Japan/Germany for solar, and Denmark for wind and Brazil for hydro. For hydro there is enough geographic concentration that it's worth mentioning. Sun and wind are less remarkable. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turbine blades are not fully recyclable and research into methods of manufacturing easier-to-recycle blades is ongoing" - This sentence would benefit from a comma between "recyclable" and "and".

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Power is produced from the steam created from underground reservoirs" - Should this be "created in" or "created by" underground reservoirs?

  In. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It can either be burned to produce heat and to generate electricity or converted to modern biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol" - I think this sentence structure could be revised to one of two options: "It can either be burned ... or be converted", or "It can be either burned ... or converted".

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the United States, corn-based ethanol has replaced around 10% of motor gasoline, which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" - Does the ethanol or the motor gasoline require a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest? If the former, then the phrase "which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" should be moved to just after "corn-based ethanol".

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Deployment of BECCS at scales described in some climate change mitigation pathways would require converting large amounts of cropland" - I assume said pathways describe large-scale deployment.

Depends what you mean by "large" - personally I cannot see that happening anyway because surely the aviation industry would outbid them for cropland to make biofuel for long-haul flights. So I would like to remove the sentence entirely but I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, however in the long term it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions." - I would suggest "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, but it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions in the long term." for consistency in sentence structure.

I would like to remove this sentence as some reliable sources describe it as a "bridge fuel" for example https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/16/the-first-big-energy-shock-of-the-green-era But I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "progress has been limited" - Economics of nuclear power plants may be an unexpected link for this one per WP:EGG, but I'm not sure if there's a better way to address this.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Energy system transformation

• "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify" - Is this related to the second point of the preceding bulleted list? I assume this is regarding converting energy sources to electricity rather than using an energy source directly.

Amended. If still unclear please ping me Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Building overcapacity for wind and solar generation can help to ensure" - "can help ensure" may be more concise but I don't know if this is different in other varieties of English.

Done - fine with us Saudi Arabians of wind Chidgk1 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy share consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020" - A doubling from 2020?

seems correct and clear to me already - if you think unclear please could you explain further Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I think the em-dash (as used in this section) would be unspaced, while an en-dash would be spaced, per MOS:DASH.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some air conditioning units are still made to use refrigerants that are greenhouse gases; as some countries have not ratified the Kigali Amendment to only use climate-friendly refrigerants" - The semicolon should be a comma since the second part of the sentence wouldn't be a standalone clause.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is LPG? I don't think the acronym is too widely known compared to others.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are there figures for how much buildings use energy in comparison to the whole? (Overall I couldn't really find too much to nitpick about this section.)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Government policies

• "or new buildings are heated by electricity instead of gas" - This should be "or that new buildings..."

Ha as British English has been specified for the article I trump you - er I mean I out-biden you Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can carbon pricing be briefly described in a few words?

Unfortunately I cannot think of a way of describing it using a number of words between 2 and many Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've given an example, and made another sentence simpler. Femke (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "These place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that industries subject to internal carbon prices remain competitive." - The comma here probably is not necessary.

I think it is necessary for screenreaders to pause very briefly Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the fossil fuel industry, 6 million jobs would be lost" - Would any other industries be hurt by a transition?

Good question - I was surprised to read that in Turkey where I live economists say some jobs would be lost in low-skilled industries such as textiles due to workers moving to higher skilled industries such as our solar module and wind turbine factories - but I am afraid I don't have any info on global effects on other industries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is a bit vague on where those jobs are lost, but mentions mining and fossil industry. Reading the underlying report, it's clear that this number includes other sectors. I've amended the text. Femke (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Finance

• "which are not attractive to the private sector" - I guess this implies financing is provided by both governments and the private sector, but government funding is more prevalent in low-income countries?

Yes the source says " International public financial flows are critical to reach these investment levels and to leverage the necessary amounts of private capital, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has dramatically increased investors’ risk perception and shifted

public funding priorities in developing countries." but just copying that would be a bit long. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of an extra $100 billion per year " - Immediately after the signing of the agreement, or by some certain date? This is a pledge from all signatory countries, I guess.

As far as I know there is no timescale - but I have clarified re countries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks good. Most of my nitpicks are grammatical and not content-based. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius I hope Femke and I have answered to your satisfaction. I am not watching this article but please ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support - I don't see any significant issues with the article. There are a few minor things that were more rhetorical than in need of actual repair - for example, my "A doubling from 2020?" comment was more of a confirmation than an actual query. But they shouldn't impact the FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by JJE

Is it imperative to have citations in the lead? I am not sure whether the sources like swissinfo, New York Times, www.canada.ca and Vox are good enough for a FA. Images seem well placed. Is ourwordindata a good source for File:Elec-fossil-nuclear-renewables.svg, File:Global primary energy consumption, OWID.svg, File:Energy use per person 2019 - OWID.svg and File:People-without-electricity-country-2016.svg? I remember reliability concerns in the context of their COVID-19 coverage. Some of them are also old. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo, it's good to see you here. Femke, do you have any thoughts on how we're using OWID? I'll start looking into the other sourcing issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo do you have links to any past discussions about OWID where concerns were raised? I searched the Talk archives of WikiProject Medicine and could only find positive things being said about OWID's maps.[3] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't really familiar with OWID before working on this article, but became slowly convinced its a HQRS based on its exclusive use of HQ sources itself, its transparency/explanation of data use and the fact it won a few awards for scientific reporting. Also curious to indicators to the contrary. For each of those images, we have the most recently available. FemkeMilene (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like I was mentally confusing worldometers with OWID, so nevermind what I said about OWID. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed or replaced the Vox, Swissinfo, and Canada.ca refs. Canada.ca is the official website of the government of Canada so in general it's a solid source, but the source I replaced it with is somewhat stronger and more neutral for this particular claim. As for the New York Times, my impression from WP:RS and WP:Identifying reliable sources (science) is that it's a high-quality source for news and current issues but not for "science". Jo-Jo can you elaborate on your concern about the NYT, e.g. are there particular claims sourced to the NYT that should be sourced to a non-news source? Also, do you have the same concerns about using the BBC as a source? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"news and current issues but not for "science"." that's exactly the concern I have. It's one thing to use a source like that to establish that something has been noticed (I use NYT on Uturuncu for this reason) but it's a different matter if you are using it as a source for a fact.

However, I am not sure how widely shared my concerns are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're one of the very few brave souls who's volunteered to review this article, so I'm interested in your concerns whether or not they're widely shared ;) The article's current use of the NYT is for the following statements:

1. In Malaysia and Indonesia, clearing forests to produce palm oil for biodiesel has led to serious social and environmental effects, as these forests are critical carbon sinks and habitats for endangered species.
2. Developing natural gas infrastructure risks carbon lock-in and stranded assets, where new fossil infrastructure either commits to decades of carbon emissions, or has to be written off before it makes a profit.
3. Nearly all of the world's current supply of hydrogen is created from fossil fuels.
4. Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance.
5. Energy-specific programs and regulations have historically been the mainstays of efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
6. Carbon pricing has encountered strong political pushback in some jurisdictions, whereas energy-specific policies tend to be politically safer.
7. Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments, which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that their industries remain competitive.

These are all factual claims, but they're in different disciplines. I'd say #1 is a science claim so I agree that one should be replaced with a scholarly reference. The rest are claims about technology, economics, and policy issues, which the NYT is generally very good at. Looking at claims #2 through #7, do you think all of them would benefit from different sourcing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer if most of that were sourced to things like textbooks and academic sources since many of these statements are really academic ones not journalistic things. But one issue with FAC is when reviewers start demanding that articles comply with personal preferences that aren't based on the actual FA criteria. So I am a little uncertain on how much to push this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a case can also be made that #2 would benefit from a scientific citation, but I feel #3-#7 are fine. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll look for better sourcing for # 1 and 2, and also 3, 5, and 6 as I can probably do these quickly. My thinking on when to use academic vs. journalistic sources is a bit different from how Jo-Jo approached sourcing in Uturuncu: There are times when it's hard to find academic sourcing for a basic fact because the academic literature assumes the reader knows it already; #4 is a good example of this. #7 is another kind of statement for which I think news sources are valuable because they have the most up-to-date information. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I added new refs for #1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Let's get ourselves together again at some point to have a broader discussion around how to define "high quality" sourcing. While it's fresh in my mind, background information like #5 can be very difficult to source in the academic literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede is now reference-free. Femke (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Some more comments. Citation format looks consistent. Is there any kind of history behind the sustainable energy concept? Political opposition and debate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Definitions section covers the history and evolution of the concept. In terms of political opposition, the Nuclear energy section and the Government policies section describe some controversial aspects of sustainable energy. There are differences between academics on how to define "sustainable energy" but I didn't find evidence that these differences have been political in nature. Is there something in particular that you'd like to see more detail on? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I wanted to make sure that the lack of discussion of these aspects was deliberate & well-justified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Any more comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus:? And would you maybe be willing to turn this into a source review? Femke (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but between moving houses and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Ojos del Salado I am a little indisposed at the moment. I'll try to get a source review done here, but it may take days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll try to make this now on the basis of this version. Are these sources well reputed enough to be quoted in Wikipedia voice? They look like they might be advocacy sources - reliable but not necessarily for a broad judgment. Why does #21 and #137 have a quote? Sometimes publishers are italicized and sometimes they aren't. Ditto for links. I don't see any other citation that prints out the website like #168. Some references link the organization(s) and others don't. Beyond this it seems like the source usage here fits the FA requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

IEA and IRENA are considered the two authorities on energy matters. Both have a bit of a bias: the IEA has a history of underestimating renewables, whereas IRENA is sometimes said to be too optimistic of renewables (but has also underestimated solar historically). They are both intergovernmental organisations. IEA is a part of the OECD, whereas IRENA has a more global membership. As high-quality sources, they tend to agree. Where they disagree (mostly about future projections), we've either used indirect voice or used a different high-quality source.

The quotes in 21 and 137 are scars of an old edit war. I think they can be deleted. @Clayoquot:?

Nikkimaria has just taught me below how to use publisher/work properly, so bear with us while we're correcting that. Femke (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with deleting the quotes. Good description of the biases of the IEA and IRENA. One of the reasons we relied on the IEA so heavily is that it's historically been perceived as an economic organization rather than an environmental organization. The New York Times recently said, "The influential agency is not an environmental group but an international organization that advises world capitals on energy policy. Formed after the oil crises of the 1970s, the agency’s reports and forecasts are frequently cited by energy companies and investors as a basis for long-term planning."[4] So when the IEA says that the energy system can be made more sustainable, we wouldn't expect the reader to roll their eyes and think, "Of course the IEA would say that". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the quotes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe we've fixed the consistency issues with the formatting of citations, and all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems like this passes the source review. Note I didn't do a spot check and I don't know enough about the topic to say whether any major source was missed, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• achieving this goal will require that emissions be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero by mid-century.[16] – is this still up-to-date?

  Yes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Together with solar thermal, geothermal energy met 2.2% of worldwide demand for heating in buildings in 2019.[78] – That unfortunately doesn't tell us what the share of geothermal energy is without including solar thermal?

  Because it's such a small share of global demand, it's difficult to find a good statistic. Spent about an hour searching. I've replaced it with a Our World in Data source about geothermal energy (heat+power). This source puts it at 0.9% together with tidal and wave. Given that tidal and wave are insignificant, it's probably 0.9% on its own. I've said less than 1% in the body. Femke (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Second-generation biofuels which are produced from non-food plants – only non-food plants, or waste as well?

Good catch. The source says waste is also used. I added it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• My biggest concern so far is the nuclear power controversy section, which I don't think meets WP:NPOV:

• The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy,[121] although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources.[122] – This reads like "science" vs "public", which I don't think is true (science itself is split about the topic). And the "perceived risk" sounds a bit as if the public would be ignorant and if the risk would not exist.
• nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources – this is stated here as fact, but is certainly not an universally accepted opinion. It obviously depends on how "safe" is defined and measured, and then, there is a risk factor that is very difficult to quantify (e.g., natural disasters, potential terrorist attacks on power plants), especially when accessing the risk for future generations.
• Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement. – For which parts of the world is this valid? Even in Europe, there is considerable political opposition as well. Can we really blame the "public" here?
• You give a lot of room to the EU expert groups, maybe reduce that to one shorter sentence. There is a similar debate if gas should get the "green" label in the EU, which is not mentioned in the article at all, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are all good points. We should describe the aspects of safety that are in any claims about safety, and I think we can summarize the conclusions of the JRC with more nuance than the single word "sustainable". I'll revisit the sources and propose some new wording in the next few days.

W.r.t public opposition, the source says this is an issue "in democratic societies" as opposed to authoritarian governments. I think the current wording already implies that the statement is about countries where public opposition matters. The point this sentence is trying to make is that from a policy maker's perspective, nuclear involves both technical and social challenges/obstacles, regardless of whether the social concerns are justified. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In trying to rewrite the JRC findings before and especially other expert groups, I found few mainstream sources covering it. I think a short sentence max is better. I had hoped that the EU would have made a decision on this by now. Femke (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In terms of safely: estimates of mortality from nuclear differ by an order of magnitude between the industry's estimate and Greenpeace's estimate, but all fall squarely below fossil. The problem here may be that people underestimate how deadly fossil fuels are, making this sentence seem more controversial than it is. We can more explicitly put this in the past tense (has been). I agree with Clayoquot that explicitly mentioning mortality rather than the vaguer word safety can be a solution? Femke (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes that sounds reasonable. It needs to be clear that, what is described, is the mortality per unit of energy in the past, and doesn't include potential future disasters that are difficult to predict. But when talking about safety of nuclear power, I think the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• How does this sound to replace the first two bullets above: "For each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy has caused far fewer accidental and pollution-related deaths than fossil fuels, and the historic mortality rate of nuclear is comparable to renewable sources."?
• I think "Experts from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the scientific expert arm of the EU, stated in April 2021 that nuclear power is sustainable.[122] Two other groups of experts—SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) and the Euratom Article 31 expert group on radiation protection—largely confirmed JRC findings in July 2021" should be deleted. I don't see much point in including the opinions of named expert committees because expert opinions vary on the nuclear issue. It's become apparent over the past few months that the JRC's findings don't even represent an EU-wide consensus.[5] As Jens pointed out we don't, and shouldn't, name supporters for other controversial energy strategies such as fossil fuel switching, hydrogen production from fossil sources with carbon capture, and the burning of wood pellets as fuel.
• Your comment "the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it" inspired me to do some digging on the unpredictable disasters (e.g. terrorism) and on the reasons for public opposition. A 2010 OECD report (p.27) found that terrorism and waste disposal were the biggest reasons for opposition (note that this report was pre-Fukushima). A 2017 U.S. study that asked people to give reasons for opposition in their own words found that "Dangerous, unsafe, accident, leaks" was the biggest reason, which is a much more general concept than accidents. In light of these two sources, it's probably undue weight to say that "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy" so I think we should remove that.
• I drafted how the above three changes would look [here].
• If we remove the two sentences about the JRC above, we should add something else positive. What do you all think of adding a sentence saying that multiple analyses have found that nuclear power is crucial for reaching climate targets, sourced to this new UNECE report (p. 1) and the IEA Net Zero report (p. 14)? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• That all reads very good! Regarding your last point, you already have this: Climate change mitigation pathways consistent with ambitious goals typically see an increase in power supply from nuclear.[10] – This seems to be almost the same content, so maybe the new addition should be combined with/connected to this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IPCC SR15 still managed to create a 1.5 scenario without nuclear iirc, so the word crucial may contradict that. More importantly, that would make the wording stronger than for solar "Various projections of future energy use identify solar PV as one of the main sources of energy generation in a sustainable mix.". However, solar plays a bigger role than nuclear in all those scenarios. We already have a sentence about nuclear's role in reaching net zero. Don't think we need to add another. Femke (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Great point about solar and wind having robust consensus for a much larger upscaling. I didn't know that the IPCC created scenarios for 1.5 degrees - can you point me to the section number for that?. I thought they limited themselves to analyzing the scenarios that had been created by others, and in this analysis they recognize that some scenarios no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century.

Here is a different idea for adding a positive statement: How about "After shutting down nuclear plants in the 2010s, Germany and Japan both increased coal-fired electricity production to make up for the loss of capacity." Sources: NBER, Wired, and Financial Times.? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this isn't simplifying it too much though. Just because there is a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there is causality. In Germany, the share of gas in power production decreased during the same time from 12.1% to 10.5%, even though gas was supposed to replace nuclear (together with the renewables). The problem was the European Union Emissions Trading System: The prices for CO2 emissions became extremely cheap in the 2010s, thus favouring coal (see graph in linked Wiki article). Source for this (although a German one): [6]. Regarding Japan, the article you linked is behind a paywall, this is far from ideal. Do you have another source for it? In any case: Do we need an additional positive note about nuclear at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Germany, see also this graph for context: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg It's in German again, but black and brown are coal, purple is gas, red is nuclear. It also shows that since 2013, coal and nuclear are decreasing in Germany at the same time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jens that we don't need another positive note about nuclear. Almost the entire second paragraph is already positive. The third paragraph is quite temperate in how negatives are described.

The German case is indeed quiet complex. For instance, their anti-nuclear movement was important in the solar revolution.[7]. Femke (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'll implement the other changes I proposed, and won't add a new positive at this time. Fingers crossed that these changes won't destabilize the consensus for this section. Thank you both for a very interesting discussion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Make sure that the images illustrate what is described in the text:

• The image "Construction of salt tanks to store thermal energy": I don't see this discussed in the text at all. And thermal energy from what source? I don't find this very helpful without more explanation.

• I've replaced it with a battery storage facility. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a high-quality picture of a battery home storage pack, which may be even clearer. Femke (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The outdoor section of a heat pump" image: heat pumps are discussed further down but not where this image appears. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed both the caption and the text to make the connection clear. The other logical location, buildings, already has too many images. Femke (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• There now is a formatting issue (stray wikitext) in the "Environmental issues" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Solved. Femke (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent article overall, thanks for working on this immensely important topic. As soon as the nuclear power section is improved on, I should be ready to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Trainsandotherthings

• "The combustion of coal releases gases which form into ground-level ozone and acid rain, especially if the coal is not cleaned before combustion." This comes immediately after a sentence talking about fossil fuels and biomass in general. It might be good to reword this to emphasize that it is not just coal which is the problem (though it is the worst offender).

Reworded to cover more sources of the precursor chemicals to acid rain. BTW I also removed the part about ground-level ozone as it's only one of the types of air pollutant that are dangerous to health (another major one is particulate matter). Femkemilene might want to do further adjusting here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the section on energy conservation, I recommend elaborating a bit more on what energy intensity really means. If statistics are available, I'd suggest their inclusion. Without any units, the concept seems too abstract to me. What does it mean to double the rate of energy efficiency improvement, and are statistics available for that?

Great ideas, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Consider changing the section titled "Energy sources" to "Sustainable energy sources" for clarity.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Costs of solar photovoltaic cells have dropped rapidly, driving strong growth in worldwide capacity." If possible, quantify this for the reader. I know that the costs have quite greatly dropped, but quantifying would make this easier to understand, in my opinion.

I am sure there must be lots of quantification in more specific articles - if done here too it might just become a burden for future editors to keep up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The paragraph on concentrated solar power feels out of place in its current location. I would move it ahead of the paragraph above about solar panel disposal.

Risk of doing that would be that readers might think that concentrated solar power uses panels, whereas any panels are just co-located PV Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The noise and flickering light created by the turbines can be annoying and constrain construction near densely populated areas." I would reword this to "can be considered annoying by humans". As written, it feels inappropriate to make such an objective statement in Wikipedia's voice.

Reworded as "can cause annoyance", which is how the sources often phrase it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would swap the order of the last two paragraphs in the hydropower section.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the geothermal section, I would include a brief explanation of how the heat used comes from the Earth's mantle. I would also mention how geothermal can cause issues with the nearby water table.

As the geothermal section is already almost as long as the solar section I think adding water table info would be too much detail. Also the current "deep underground" is less technical than "mantle" and I suspect some of the heat comes from radioactivity in the crust. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the geothermal section, can you elaborate on what "median life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions" means? It is unclear to me, and I imagine it would be more unclear to an uninformed reader.

Reworded. It means adding up all the emissions of all aspects of what it takes to locate and extract geothermal energy, but I think this is implicit. Let me know if you think it should be said explicitly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the biofuels section, I would add a mention of Landfill gas utilization.

That's an interesting article. Unfortunately I couldn't squeeze this in without giving undue weight to landfill gas, which is a small aspect of bioenergy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Two tidal barrage systems in France and in South Korea make up 90% of total production." I recommend a clarification that this means 90% of total marine energy production globally, not just in those two countries specifically.

  Reworded. Femke (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add more comments on the rest of the article in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• "Switching from coal to natural gas has advantages in terms of sustainability." I would change this to "Switching from coal or oil to natural gas..."

  Typically, oil is used in transport, while coal and gas are used in power generation. This would unnecessary lengthen the sentence. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "For a given unit of energy produced, the life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of natural gas are around 40 times the emissions of wind or nuclear energy but are much less than coal." If possible, I would provide a number to compare natural gas to coal, to give a better sense of scale.

  Just one sentence further :). Femke (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  You are right, I suppose what I meant is to give a number for the emissions of coal, per unit burned (ex. The burning of coal produces XYZ kilograms of CO2 per BTU or KWH). It may not be necessary though. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Even as a researcher in the field, I don't have an intuition for these numbers. I don't think they will convey information to our readers. Femke (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Building gas-fired power plants and gas pipelines is promoted as a way to phase out coal- and wood-burning pollution and increase energy supply in some African countries with fast-growing populations and economies, but this practice is controversial." Promoted by who, exactly? And who says it is controversial? I don't doubt the accuracy, but a reader may want to know who these views belong to.

Rewrote this sentence to be global rather than Africa-centric and to convey facts rather than opinions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel and biomass power plants can be significantly reduced through carbon capture and storage (CCS)." Consider a wikilink for carbon capture and storage.

  Has been wikilinked before. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the Fossil fuel switching and mitigation section, the last paragraph goes back and forth between cost and efficiency for CCS. It might be better to talk about one of them in the first half of the paragraph, and the other in the second half.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and nuclear power plants can create fissile material that could be used for nuclear weapon proliferation." I would either delete the word "can", or reword this to say something along the lines of "nuclear power plants can be used to create fissile material...".

Deleted "can". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy, although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources. Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement." These two sentences are in a paragraph that deals with the debate over sustainability over nuclear energy. As these two sentences are about safety and public opinion, which is a different issue, I recommend moving them out of this paragraph and into their own new paragraph. This could also go with the last paragraph of the section, which mentions progress in nuclear development has been limited recently.

I shortened this paragraph considerably to address other comments in this FAC. Please let us know if you have further suggestions for reorganization. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The emissions reductions necessary to keep global warming below 2 °C will require a system-wide transformation of the way energy is produced, distributed, stored, and consumed." Change will to would, as unfortunately there's no real evidence the world has agreed to make the necessary changes.

My memory (which may be biased) is that "will" is more consistent with the sources. The world agreed on a 2 °C (or less); "would" would carry a bit of an implication that we're still making up our minds on the target rather than procrastinating on execution. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify, including aviation, shipping, and steelmaking." I recommend adding a brief explanation as to why these areas are difficult to electrify.

Great idea. Added in the Transport and Industry sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Full decarbonization of the global energy system is expected to take several decades and can mostly be achieved by deploying existing technology." Change technology to technologies, plural.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The International Energy Agency states that further innovation in the energy sector, such as in battery technologies and carbon-neutral fuels, is needed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050." This would be a good place to mention the current issues with batteries, and what changes in technology are needed to make them work as a part of sustainable energy.

Working on this one. The issues with grid batteries are somewhat different from the issues with vehicle batteries. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Added issues to the Energy storage and the Transport sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The transition to a zero-carbon energy system would bring strong co-benefits for human health:" Nothing specifically wrong here, but make sure the article is consistent in tense. This is a hypothetical (would) but in other places "will" is used instead, implying a certainty. Double check that will is only used when appropriate.

Changed to "will" Chidgk1 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Historically, several countries have made rapid economic gains through coal usage, particularly in Asia." I feel that this is unfairly singling out Asia, when the same can be said for Europe and North America.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Pumped hydro storage and power-to-gas (converting electricity to gas and back) with capacity for multi-month usage has been implemented in some locations." Can you list any examples of implementation here, particularly installations that can be wikilinked to?

  I think linking to individual installations would be undue. We don't do that for others either. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "One of the easiest and fastest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to phase out coal-fired power plants and increase renewable electricity generation." Consider rewording to "phase out coal-fired power plants in favor of increased renewable energy generation" to emphasize that both steps must be combined.

  Not quite. Going from coal to nuclear is also a really good option for GHG reductions. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020." This can be reworded as "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of the percentage of energy consumption used for electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The predominant method is steam methane reforming in which hydrogen is produced from a chemical reaction between steam and methane, the main component of natural gas." Add a comma after reforming.

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Disadvantages of hydrogen as an energy carrier include high costs of storage and distribution due to hydrogen's explosivity, its large bulk compared to other fuels, and its tendency to make pipes brittle." I would replace "bulk" with "volume".

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The transport section under energy usage technologies could use some expansion. Some points to mention here:

• Note that rail transportation for freight is more fuel efficient than by truck, and therefore more sustainable
• Developments in making freight transport sustainable, such as battery electric locomotives, electric trucks, and alternative fuels
• The significant greenhouse gas emissions from ships as a consequence of bunker fuel
• Less use of aviation for transportation
• Mention what percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from transport, I believe it is a significant percentage

I added some info but think some of what you mention would be too much detail for this article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I need to take a quick break, and then I will keep going through the article and make further suggestions. Great work on the article, I know I'm making a lot of comments but I am really nitpicking here, and I fully expect you will not adopt some of them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Even more arbitrary break

• In the buildings and cookiPng suggestion, I recommend linking to Geothermal heating. Geothermal energy is mentioned already, but without a wikilink.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance." I would remove the words winter and summer to get to the basic point you are trying to make here: heat pumps can do both heating and air conditioning.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The IEA estimates heat pumps could provide over 90% of space and water heating requirements globally." This is not 100%, so that would imply there are situations they will not work. If so, can a mention of situations where they are not feasible be made here?

Looking at the source I don't think it says they are not feasible in other situations, but implies that there might be a few cases where they are less carbon efficient than gas boilers - even if we knew what those cases might be (very difficult to put larger radiators in a historic palace as have to move each brick in turn perhaps, blocks of flats which already have gas-fired communal heating maybe) I think they should be in the heat pump article and are too much detail to go here. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Cooling of buildings can be made more efficient through passive building design, planning that minimises the urban heat island effect, and district cooling systems that cool multiple buildings with piped cold water." As written, the reader might be led to think that passive building design = planning that minimizes the urban heat island effect, when they are two different things. A rewording is in order here, along with a brief explanation of what passive building design means (I read the article and I'm still confused personally).

Changed the link to go up to the comma and to another article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Air conditioning requires large amounts of electricity and is not always affordable to poorer households." Change "to" to "for".

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Cooking with these fuels is generally unsustainable because they release harmful smoke and because harvesting wood can lead to forest degradation." Add a comma here after unsustainable, and another after smoke.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The universal adoption of clean cooking facilities, which are already ubiquitous in rich countries, would dramatically improve health and have minimal effects on climate." As written, this seems to imply that clean cooking facilities would not help with sustainable energy, which I don't think is the intended message. I would reword to say something like "and have minimal negative effects on climate."

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The more energy-intensive activities in industry have the lowest shares of renewable energy as they face limitations in generating heat at temperatures over 200 °C (390 °F)." For consistency, either change "more" to "most", or change "lowest" to "lower".

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The production of plastic, cement, and fertilisers also requires significant amounts of energy, with limited possibilities available to decarbonise." Check subject-verb agreement here.

  Production ... requires, seems correct. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• In government policies, add a date for the quote in the box.

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Environmental regulations have been used for over fifty years to promote more sustainable use of energy." For the sake of the article standing the test of time, I recommend changing this to instead say something like" Environmental regulation have been used since the 1970s..."

  Done. Femke (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Urban planning to discourage sprawl can reduce energy use in local transport and buildings while enhancing quality of life." Reword this to something like "Urban planning which discourages sprawl" or "Urban planning policies which discourage sprawl"

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Government-sponsored research, procurement, and incentive policies have historically been critical to the development and maturation of clean energy technologies such as solar PV and lithium batteries." I suggest refraining from using the PV acronym here, as it may confuse readers into thinking there are three examples here instead of two.

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Carbon taxes provide a source of revenue that can be used to lower other taxes" I'd add that this revenue would go to governments specifically.

  Not done. Already in definition of tax. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments," Can you name any examples here?

  Done. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies" I would make tariff a wikilink.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Countries may support renewables to create jobs." This sentence could be reworded, something like "Countries may also support renewables as a means of creating jobs."

  Not done. Average sentence length already a bit high. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The International Labour Organization estimates that efforts to limit global warming to 2 °C..." I suggest noting that the ILO is a UN body.

Not sure the extra words are worth it but if you or anyone else think better it could become "The International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency, estimates ...Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It predicts that 24 million new jobs would be created in areas such as renewable electricity generation, improving energy-efficiency in buildings, and the transition to electric vehicles, while 6 million jobs in the fossil fuel industry would be lost." Is there a timescale for this, say "over the next 10 years"? It seems unlikely this would happen immediately.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Underfunding is particularly acute in the least developed countries." It would be worthwhile to mention that this is not necessarily an intentional choice, but may instead be a consequence of low development and low centralization, which means these countries simply are unable to afford sufficient investment in sustainable energy. Also notable is that the least developed countries are some of the most vulnerable, especially low lying island nations in the Pacific.

  The source doesn't really specify, except that it's not attractive to the private sector. I added "which are not attractive to the private sector". Femke (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of additional funds for poorer countries of $100 billion per year for climate change mitigation and adaptation," Reword this along the lines of "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of $100 billion per year from developed nations for poorer countries to support climate change mitigation and adaptation."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, and $5.2 trillion when indirect costs such as air pollution are priced in." This is a bit confusing as written. I suggest rewriting this to something like "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, but equivalent to $5.2 trillion when including the indirect costs of consequences such as air pollution."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ending these could lead to a 28% reduction in global carbon emissions and a 46% reduction in air pollution deaths." Add "global" before "air pollution deaths."

  Not done, already implied

• "Funding for clean energy has been largely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and pandemic-related economic stimulus packages offer possibilities for a green recovery." The two parts of this sentence disagree with each other. Change "and" to "but."

  The word "but" implies to me that funding would have been expected to rise. As the source talks about the opposite (expected to drop with the rest of the economy), I think the word 'and' is correct. Femke (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That concludes my comments. I'm happy to further discuss any of my comments here, I'll keep this page watchlisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

When all of the things I've mentioned have been addressed, I am strongly inclined to support this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings I just picked off the one or 2 remaining things - I am not watching this article but ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not to your liking. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything I've commented about has been addressed one way or the other. As such, consider me in support of this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The definition in the first sentence is very close to being a direct quote - I would suggest making it one

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Nuclear power is a low-carbon source and has a safety record comparable to wind and solar". I see discussion of fatality rates in the body, but "safety record" is a broader claim - is there a source for this?

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about ... accidents" is similarly not directly supported, although the article appears to be rebutting this concern

Added supporting statement in the body. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the global energy system is responsible for 76% of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change" - the body qualifies this statistic as "human-caused" emissions

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "causes an estimated 7 million deaths each year". Where is this estimate from? I see numbers in the body, but they don't add up to this

Added to body. I agree the WHO's indoor and outdoor numbers (4.2 million + 3.8 million) don't equal the WHO's total of 7 million, but we can't solve that problem :( Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Buildings in the Solar Settlement at Schlierberg, Germany, produce more energy than they consume. They incorporate rooftop solar panels and are built for maximum energy efficiency." - source?

Good catch. Now reffed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Utility cycling infrastructure, such as this bike lane in Vancouver, encourages sustainable transport." - source?

Another good catch. I've reffed it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• How did you select which sources to include in the Definitions section? Why OpenLearn?

This was a difficult section to find sources for. At least three of us have indpendently done Google Scholar searches that led to a paper called "Theoretical Aspects of Sustainable Energy", which is a great paper except for the fact that the publisher is predatory. We couldn't cite it because of the predatory publisher, but it led me to the Hammond source which devotes most of a chapter to the issue of how various academics have gone about defining it. So I read that and summarized it. I don't think we really had a selection process - we found so few high-quality sources that we used what we found, if I recall.

I can't remember how we came across the OpenLearn source. It's not university-level, but I don't see any red flags raised in the archives at WP:RSN and the publisher seems legitimate so I don't think it's unreliable. There isn't anything in there that isn't in other sources, but it's the only source on definitions that is free and intended for a general audience so if you don't object I think it's a good one to keep. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's generally unreliable; my question is more, why does it belong in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the Openlearn ref went to an overview page. I've changed the ref to point to the specific page on definitions. Does the inclusion of this page make sense? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN5: the URL provided should be left to the full source rather than the chapter citation

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• WRI is a publisher not a work. Ditto WHO, check throughout.

  Done specifics, but I don't understand the difference between work and publisher well. I know for NYTimes you should only fill out work, and leave out publisher as it's basically the same.. Femke (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, if the two fields are the same/similar we don't need both. "The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited", per our documentation. Another way of approaching it is to look at our article on the entity, when one exists - if it's not italicized there, chances are it shouldn't be italicized here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• If you are going to include domains in the website parameter, be consistent in how these are formatted

Done. Many "website" names were publisher names. I moved them to the publisher parameter. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Don't repeat publisher in the author parameter

  I was wondering about that. We did this because this is consistent with the report's "how to cite". They seem to imply they are both the institutional author and the publisher. Happy to remove it, but wanted to double-check. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's generally fine to adapt "how to cite" guidance to our local practices, especially since formatting of "how to cite" will vary between sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  In the Sources section, if some items don't have an author parameter, how do we sort items alphabetically by author? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pick an alphabetization approach and stick with it. You could choose to alphabetize by title or by publisher, inline with the works with named authors or at the end - it doesn't really matter which as long as it's consistent and clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Femke, any thoughts on what convention we should use? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to investigate how medical FAs with similar sources do this. Not sorting by author is a bit confusing.. It's not unheard of to use institutional author and publisher both even if they're the same, for instance in APA Style. Femke (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I found an example of this in Major depressive disorder (the NiCE citation), but that article is being revamped. I looked at a few other articles, but most seem to have easy human authors.

  If we have to change this, we could sort by author, and if absent, publisher, so that the sorting stays the same. Femke (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: When author and publisher are the same, e.g. for the WHO citations, would it be acceptable to fill in the author parameter and leave publisher empty instead of vice-versa? That way every citation will begin with an author name and sorting will look natural. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, if they can be considered corporate authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use wikilinks in citations on first appearance, every time, or not at all

Do you expect consistency in linking authors, publishers, or both? The first two of these options, if applied to authors and/or publishers, would mean having a lot of redlinks in the References section. Looking at recent TFAs, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji links some author names but not others. Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 links some publisher names but not others. Is there a MOS page that calls for consistency in using wikilinks within citations? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include redlinks. There is some guidance on what to link in the template documentation for the citation templates, but my query is more tuned to the "consistent citation style" requirement of WP:WIAFA. At the moment we have cases where a particular entity is wikilinked sometimes and other times not, with no clear reasoning behind those decisions. (If there is such reasoning that I'm missing, please share!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. I went through the Sources section and delinked IPCC and UNFCCC, which were linked for no apparent reason. I think that was all of them but would appreciate a fresh set of eyes if anyone still has one. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually I missed a bunch. Going through things more systematically now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

All publishers are now linked Femke (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include publication location

Would anyone object if I remove all publication locations? Or do we need to include a location for every citation? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It is an optional parameter, so if you would prefer to exclude that is not a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Great. Quick check with Femkemilene - would you object to me removing all of them? I don't have a preference. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them. I tried to give them if the source gave them, but omitting all seems less prone to errors. Femke (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN31: SDG Tracker appears to be the work name rather than part of the title

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN33: the Science Hub is the work, the Commission is the publisher. Check throughout for more issues of this kind.

  Done specific example. I don't quite understand how this works. For this IEA source, would the work be "SDG7: Data and Projections"? and the title "Access to electricity"? Femke (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Correct. In that particular case, "Access to electricity" is essentially a chapter of SDG7: Data and Projections. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think I've got everything now. Femke (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN36 is missing authors

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when/whether you abbreviate organizations versus spelling them out - for example IEA

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use {{cite report}} for reports, or whether you just cite them as web sources

We generally used {{cite report}} when the report was a PDF file that was long enough to need page numbers in the citation. When there was a web page that summarized the report and the claim was supported by the web page, we used {{cite web}}. In some cases the report is paywalled so there is benefit to the reader when we point them to the free summary. I'm not sure how we could make these consistent except by converting {{cite web}} templates to {{cite report}}, which would in some cases makes things harder for the reader. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I found one place where we linked to the web summary, but cited the report. I've replaced that link now to point directly to the PDF. Femke (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN204 is broken

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN152 is missing retrieval date.

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here and oppose simply due to the volume of cleanup needed around citations; once that's been done I'm happy to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Thank you for your patience and attention to detail. I've learned a lot about citations in this review. I believe all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review v2 - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• How are yoru deciding in what cases to include retrieval date? For example FN7 has it and FN173 does not

  I'll take this one tonight. I use a retrieval rate if either the url or the content is at risk of changing. That means a lot of these papers dont need one as the doi is fixed. Some may still need one if we got a separate file that we link to, unequal to doi. Femke (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed loads of them. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Still some stragglers here, eg FN170. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I did a search for doi= as well as all refs that used a cite report template or cite book template, and removed access dates from them. I need to go to bed but I haven't been able to double-check everything, so I'll check things again tomorrow. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure all refs that have a DOI, are reports that are very unlikely to change, or are books are now access-date free. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN20: don't see "overview" in the title at the source

  @Clayoquot:, could you have a look at the text-source integrity there? The source no longer says 91%. Not sure if we've archived a wrong version there, or if another source was used. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  I can't remember what happened either. I found a number that's probably newer, from 2019, and updated the sentence and source. Thanks for catching that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Still some inconsistencies in author/publisher use - eg in FN28 IEA is both, whereas FN42 only publisher

Yikes. I did a search for last= and author= and found and fixed a few more instances of institutional authors in both parameters. I'll check this again later today before marking this issue as done. Femke FYI our convention seems to have evolved such that IEA is used in the publisher parameter for inline references, and in the author parameter in the Sources section.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Did another search for last= and author= throughout, and publisher= in the Sources section. I believe I got them all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• U.S. Energy Information Administration or US Energy Information Administration?

  Changed to the official 'U.S. Energy Information Administration'. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the work wikilinked in FN107 and not FN105? Check throughout

Done. I checked all work= , website= , and publisher= parameters and found a few more. Fixed all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is work wikilinked in FN85 and not FN7 or FN101? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I went through the journal parameter. I think that's the last alias we've used. Femke (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN174 redirects to the site homepage

  Put a new link in, verified the text again. No archive available yet, but if I understand it correctly, one should automatically become available. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN185: edition statement should be separate from title. (Don't trust Google Books metadata, it's prone to errors)

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN192: don't see that author at source?

  It's hidden under the "authors and contributions" link. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, in that case we've got other citations missing authors - eg FN108. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've double checked all IEA web sources and Carbon Brief (they also have the tendency to hide authors). I think FN108 was the only one missing still. Femke (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN199: source?

  Removed. The source was the IPCC report later cited, but quote was unnecessary. Femke (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN231: ILO News is not an author

  Removed. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Szarka: is that publisher alphabetization per the source?

  I don't understand the question. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Changed "MacMillan" to "Macmillan". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Smil 2017a: we don't need to identify what the publisher is an imprint of, but if you're doing so, should do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed (no idea what an imprint is tbf). Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I think v2 issues have all been addressed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:08, 23 October 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) 13:49, 27 October 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 October 2021 [8].

---

Prison education

Nominator(s): Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about education within the prison system. I first nominated this article back in 2018, and have address the issues raised at that FAC, notably the lack of coverage in the History section towards Africa and South America. However, as I noted at the first FAC, gaps remain in that section, as the history of prison education in countries is rarely written about. For example, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia; in it the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. Coverage in developing nations in particular is often non-existent. What's in that section is a summary of all the sources myself and other editors could find. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

File:Educator Ange Leech at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison March 2019 credit Tom Joyner.jpg is the only fishy photo. The uploader has many photos deleted. This one is small and lacks OTRS or EXIF data, leading me to doubt that he is the creator of it. Also, I am concerned about the heavy use of quoteboxes in the article. Inevitably they end up emphasizing some viewpoints above others by giving them extra space and setting them off. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: He isn't the creator of it. As per both the title and the summary at the file, the photo was taken by journalist Tom Joyner. User:The Little Platoon, who uploaded the file, told me he received written permission from Tom Joyner to upload the photos under a creative commons licence. What do we need to do to have the image accepted?

Also three of the four quoteboxes are given for things that I could not find opposing views for. The first quotebox in the Asian history is the opinion of the Chinese government that crime is often caused by a lack of education; I did not find any material that opposed this view in Asia. The second quote box is from a prisoner emphasizing why it is difficult to study in prison; I did not find a single prisoner stating it is too easy to study in prison. The third quote box is the opinion of the United Nations; I think that is notable and no organisation that large has spoken out against prison education. The only quotebox for which opposing views really exists is the final one, as there are indeed also politicians opposed to prison education. In this case the quote's purpose is to explain in greater detail the referenced quote in the prose regarding media induced fears. Considering due weight with respect to the amount of literature supporting the argument for prison education rather than opposing it, I think this single quote is appropriate. I do note the article does close with a quote from a politician opposing prison education for balance though. I don't understand what you mean by 'setting them off'. Can you explain more about why each of the four quotes is a problem? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Usually if you are uploading images not in the public domain that someone else has created, one of two things are required: 1) OTRS permission or 2) an external website where the images are marked as being available under a free license. See c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team.

I believe that quoteboxes often give rise to an undue weight problem, and frankly I don't see how these quotes add much to the encyclopedia value of the article to begin with. Either they should be covered in the article text (preferably paraphrased to avoid overlong quotations) or they just aren't relevant. I am far from the only editor who believes that the quotebox template should be generally avoided in article space—it says so in the template documentation. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to get OTRS permission. I'm happy for the image to remain removed until it is obtained.

Regarding the quotes I guess we just have a difference of opinion regarding style and what adds value to an article. I can appreciate four quotes might be a bit much though. Having read back over these quotes I think the United Nations one adds the least value to the article. I'm removing it now. Thanks for the image review btw. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

For this part, Sweden is considered to be a pioneer in the field., could you attribute in the prose who considers Sweden to be a pioneer? I think I originally derived that sentence from my summary of the book Nordic Prison Education: A Lifelong Learning Perspective, which is referenced at the end of the following sentence, though doesn't explicitly use that term. I've since found and added an inline citation to an academic article that explicitly calls them a "pioneer" in the field though. Neither the journal nor the author have articles on Wikipedia, so I don't really see much point in naming them in the prose essentially it will just be a name nobody has heard of. Let me know if you think it needs to be better clarified to the reader somehow though. That does make sense to me. Since this sentence has a citation, readers could look at that for further information. I see your point that putting this information into the prose could lead to some awkwardness so I think you are correct here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC) At the risk of sounding incredibly foolish, could you link chaplain in this part, In the United States, prisoners were given religious instruction by chaplains, as I am honestly unfamiliar with this concept? Also, do you think a link for religious instruction would be beneficial? Done. I am slightly confused by this part, farming skills at the countries agricultural prisons. Shouldn't it be the country's agricultural prisons instead? Fixed. This may be silly or unnecessary, but for this part, Other types of vocational training, such as certain forms of woodwork, would it be worthwhile to add a link for woodworking for readers who may want to learn more about this practice? Woodworking is actually mentioned earlier in the history section, so I've now linked it at its first mention there. Thank you for linking this on the first instance. Apologies for missing the first instance. It does remind me of how American schools used to have shop classes, but when I got to high school, it was not a thing anymore due to safety issues (and I am assuming other reasons as well). I think this is why I found the woodworking mentions to be interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC) For this part, introduced a bill entitled the Kids Before Cons Act, should the bill be in italics? I cannot remember the last time I saw a bill title so I am uncertain about how it should be represented. Looking at other articles that mention bills, they don't seem to be italicised. I would remove the italics. From my understanding, the bill title is just presented as Kids Before Cons Act without any other stylizations. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Meant to do this earlier. It's done now though. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I have a question about this sentence: A prison educational program created by Bard College has a recidivism rate of 4% for people who only attended the course and 2.5% for those who completed it. Would it be possible to include a link to the Bard Prison Initiative article? Sure, that's a much better link. Thanks for suggesting it. For this part, A prison education program in Ukraine, I do not think Ukraine should be linked as it is a pretty major country that I would imagine most readers would be familiar with, and I do not think countries are generally linked in the article. Agreed. Removed. Here are my comments so far. I hope they are helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Aoba47. Thanks so much for your comments. I've made replies to everything. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again later in the week. I have my birthday tomorrow so I will be off Wikipedia then, but I will return to this before the end of the week. I do not think I will find anything else (prose-wise as that is the focus of my review), but I want to make sure to thoroughly look through the article to help with your FAC as much as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks so much Aoba47. Hope you have a great birthday tomorrow! Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your patience with my review. The prose looks good to me. I just have a quick question below: Was there any coverage on how COVID-19 affected prison education? COVID has severely impacted education in general (and there is even a separate Wikipedia article about it), so I would imagine there would be discussions on the challenges that prison education programs have and are currently facing because of the pandemic. @Aoba47: You know I never thought to look at that, but mentioning how the pandemic impacted prison education was a great suggestion, so thanks. I've just added a paragraph on the pandemic to the Challenges section. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for adding this to the article. I honestly only thought about this today while I was reading about how COVID is affecting the school system in my area (and just for some context with that, I live in Florida). You have done a very good job with finding citations for this and integrating this information into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Other than that, the article looks good to me. I am not expert in this matter. Once my above question has been answered, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891

• " The first major education program aimed at rehabilitating prisoners was launched in 1876. Zebulon Brockway, the superintendent of Elmira Reformatory in New York, is credited as being the first to implement such a program." saying "the first...the first" in such quick succession feels kind of redundant. Can this be rephrased-- perhaps the sentences combined?

  Reworded.

• "from 70 to four" MOS:NUMNOTES

  Fixed.

• " in South America in comparison to the Western world" I wonder if you could pick a better phrase than "western world" because I don't think it's universally agreed upon most of SA isn't 'western'-- cf. File:Western World Latin America torn countries.png

  Changed to "Europe and North America".

• The Dominican Republic is a North American nation (?)

  I think you meant to point out that I accidentally put it in the South American category. My mistake. I've since decided to create a separate section for the Caribbean.

• Do you have the sourcing to generally add sentences like "other nations on this continent do not widely offer prison education"? I think that might be useful to increasing a feel of comprehensiveness

  Are you referring to the fact that, as per the nomination intro, there are gaps in the literature in the history section? Unfortuantely I didn't find any other sources that explicitly said other countries on a continent didn't offer prison education.

• No mention of india? https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2055-364120210000037005/full/html, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-26360-001

  I've added a paragraph on the country. Thanks for finding the sources! The one that was the most helpful was only written recently, after I wrote this article.

• I'm not convinced that the listing of seemingly random surveys in a few countries is really necessary-- couldn't those citation simply back up the first sentence "People in prison systems worldwide are consistently less educated than the general population. " and have that be enough?

  Yeah that's a good point. It may seem random, but that's the statistics for every country that I could find. The paragraph just grew slowly over time as I found new countries to add. I've decided to relocate this information to the 'Reasons' sub-section as a single sentence.

Working through... The prose is in general in very good shape, I'll probably have mostly minor comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments Eddie891, I really appreciate it. I'll ping you again when I finish with the India sources, though feel free to make more comments in the meantime. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I've read the sources on India and have built a new paragraph accordingly. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

" seven out of ten inmates in the US will have re-offended and half will be back in prison" Can you rephrase this so it doesn't appear to be making predictions as to what prisoners will definitely do in the future (that has already passed)

Done.

I wonder if sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/ has any more up-to-date recidivism rates?

Looking at that table there's only one updated figure for the countries I've already cited, but it's only by one year and they count the rate using a different method so I'd prefer to keep the figure I currently have. It is excellent to get all the latest available figures in one place though. I'm considering replacing the current format where I give the rates from individual countries with a single-sentence summary based on table three at that source, along the lines of 'As of 2020, the latest available data for re-offending across 15 countries after two years was X%, with the highest figure being Denmark at 63% (2013) and the lowest being Norway with 20% (2005)'. What do you think of that?

@Eddie891: I've overhauled the recidivism sub-section. I think it's much better now. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that better, too, thanks Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

while in custody had only a 27.2% chance of re-offending" I'm not sure that this is how you want to use 'chance'-- it's not like re-offending is something that randomly happens to people.

Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

perhaps the costs in 'cost' should be emphasized to be averages? I doubt each prisoner is the same expense, if that makes sense...

Done.

do you have a year for the washington state institute study?

Added.

Is the 2013 forbes article by Glenn C. Altschuler and David J. Skorton? Given they both have links, it might be more powerful to attribute their quote to them, if that's the case

Hey great find! Thanks. I've done this now.

"it is compulsory for inmates in South Africa to complete at least Grade 9 of schooling" to me, this almost sounds like the inmates cannot be released uuntil they have completed that much schooling-- is that the case?

Based on my research I would assume not, though maybe in South Africa things are completely different. The source doesn't explicitly say, though sources I've read on other countries don't delay an inmates release if they happen to fail their compulsory education classes.

I think that's just about it on prose from me... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Eddie891, I've replied to all your points. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, I'm satisfied to support on prose. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Homeostasis07

I was going to review this a week or so ago, but didn't want to step on Eddie's toes, as they seemed to be raising the same issues I would've brought up. Having re-read the article at this point, I see no further issues to raise. The prose is clear and engaging, and the sourcing seems immaculate to me (almost entirely academic sources). Happy to support. Kudos on all the hard work Damien. Hope this works out for you. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Amakuru - Pass

General

• Is there a reason why some book sources are given inline, while others are cited to a bibliography?

  I think I cited books in the bibliography if I used them more than once, so as to be able to use the SFN template to specify the page number, which I thought looked cleaner than pasting the entire source again but with a different page number. Let me know if you want all of them moved to the bibliography section regardless of whether they are only cited once. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some archived websites have retrieval dates, e.g. 24, 163 while others do not, e.g. 19, 21, 22. Make consistent.
• 20: This seems to cite the Social Science Research Network as a publisher, whereas it should I think be cited to the University of Massachusetts Law Review journal, volume 11
• 21: Citing to "Board, The Editorial" is a bit odd, as this is not a human forename and surname. Suggest either "The Editorial Board", or even omit altogether as it's not particularly informative and can be treated like any other article which lacks a specific author.
• 19 & 22: The source has them as "Erica L." and "David J." but the middle initial is not given here; initially I assumed you were omitting them all, but then 35 has an "Alison J."; so some checking is needed for consistency

  I fixed the ones you mentioned. I'll go through later and search for others. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 23: UNESCO is a publisher rather than a work, so probably shouldn't be italicised
• 28: Has author names that can be included: Gabriel Zinny and Diego Gorgal
• 29 & 30: Labelling this as "DiTella" is somewhat confusing, given that the authors in the listed source are "Alzúa, María Laura; Rodriguez, Catherine; Villa, Edgar". I'd prefer to give those authors in the short cite rather than the editor, unless there's a good reason. (Also note that DiTella should have a space in it).
• 30: Is there a reason why the adjacent pages are separated with a , rather than a – ?

  Nope, just an oversight. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 31: dead link
• 39 - it says "Source AAP" at the bottom, so you might want to include an agency = [[Australian Associated Press]] parameter
• 40 - effectively a deadlink; flip to use the archived version
• 42 - link redirects
• 46 - has a JSTOR available [9]
• 57 - the date on the source is 29 September not 27 September
• 62 - "Experiences from Central Asia, South America, North Africa and Europe" is given in italics as if it's a work/website, but in fact it's just a sub-title. Suggest DVV International as the publisher
• 63 - [10] gives page numbers of 525-532
• 72 - needs a publisher of some sort, e.g. Australian Government Productivity Commission
• 74 - seven different pages given, to cover two sentences. Seems a bit too broad, is there a reason for this?

  Yes. The information on different countries is given in different chapters. So pages 36-37 cover education for prisoners on remand in Denmark, while pages 52-53 cover the same topic for Finland, etc. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 75 - what does the "4769608639" at the end refer to?

  Honestly I don't remember. Removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 77 - dead link
• 70 & 79 - same source
• 81 - it looks like ASCILITE is the publisher, while "Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education" or something is the work
• 82 - authors Amy Antonio and Helen Farley
• 84 - "nternational Journal of Asian Social Science" - missing an I
• 86 - dead link

Pausing there for now; will continue with this later, and then add spot checks and other checks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Thanks so much for the amount of effort you've put into this. To be honest I'm a bit embarrassed about the number of flaws. Anyway, I've either addressed everything above, or made a reply. Rather than clogging up the page by replying 'Done' to every item above I'm just replying to the questions and things that might not be resolved yet. Also I removed source [79] to address your concern, so keep in mind that sources you listed above after that are now one number out of the order you gave them. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: no worries, to be honest most of these are extremely nitpicking minor issues anyway... I initially wasn't even expecting to see anything because they all looked quite well done at first glance! Anyway, thanks for the replies and I'll plough on with the rest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(New numbers follow, as of this version).

• 90 - Ministry of Justice probably doesn't need italics
• 95 - has a JSTOR available
• 96 - could give a publisher, which is either Triple J or Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• 98 - as far as I can tell this has a journal (Frontiers in Communication), a volume=6 and a DOI and ISSN number
• 100 - a DOI is available
• 101 - the link provided does not land you at the top of the page, but instead at reference 13 for some reason
• 103 - although the title says 2009, I think the actual publication date is 2010
• 104 - the page number says 2010, but the document only has 33 pages. Assume this is a typo with a year inserted instead of a page number.
• 109 - I'd imagine American Enterprise Institute is a publisher rather than a work, so not italics
• 110 - I'm not a major fan of wide page ranges, even in journal articles, but it seems this is an exception to others in using a single page number rather than the range of the whole article (4–17)

  I don't understand what the problem is. Presumably, all the information cited here is on one page, whereas in others, a topic might be covered in detail over several. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Damien Linnane: I'm alluding to the topic that was discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_51#Do_cites_to_journal_articles_need_specific_page_numbers_for_each_fact?. As you probably know, journal articles typically come with a page range, which denotes the pages of the parent journal on which the article in question resides. Furthermore, this page range often forms an integral part of the citation for that article. The problem then, is that many editors like to use the pages=nn parameter of {{cite journal}} to show that article page range. However, it is also IMHO of even greater importance, on Wikipedia at least, for specific facts to point to specific pages where the exact information conveyed is to be found. So do we use the pages parameter for for the first use, or for the second? Ideally there would be a separate parameter for each. Anyway, what I was alluding to above is that in ref 110 I believe you have pinpointed a specific page, while in other cases you've put the page range of the whole journal article. On reflection I'd say don't change anything, however, because asking for a broader range would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, given that I don't agree with that line! Anyway, I'll be back for the spot checks later this evening hopefully. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• 112 - don't really need to say "-Unesco" in the title, that's not what the top of the document says anyway
• 113 - The Atlantic could be linked, although this is the second occurrence so perhaps you have chosen not to. Make sure you're consistent one way or the other with that, anyway.
• 114 - dead link
• 118 - minor point, but most versions I'm seeing don't have a space before (er)
• 126 - could link to the more specific BBC News, and I also don't think this is an italics one
• 26 - (sorry, jumping back) - ditto BBC News, also this one is marked as dead when it's actually still live
• 132 - Correctional Service of Canada probably shouldn't be italicised
• 133 - ditto
• 135 - author is Lorna Knowles. And is ABC News a publisher?
• 138 & 139 - Washington State Institute for Public Policy italics? (also note that you linked this both times, so see my note at ref 113 above)
• 141 - dead link; and UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research, Department of Policy italics; and we have a page on this institution at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
• 143 - no link to The Nation? Also, wrong year; should be 2015 not 2013
• 145 - check italics again
• 150 - BBC News not italic
• 151 - dead link
• 158 - perhaps Ministry of Justice rather than gov.uk? Not sure actually.
• 160 - issue=1
• 162 - 07/12/2017 most likely means December 7, as this is a European publication. In US format it would be July 12, but either way it can't be December 12!
• 163 & 164 - needs a publisher, as without the link it would be hard to decipher what this is. Productivity Commission or something.
• 166 - this one does say Productivity Commission (in italics which it probably shouldn't be), but now doesn't mention Report on Government Services
• 169 - dead link
• 170 - ditto
• 172 - italics

(from the bibliography)

• Alzua - most book titles are in italics but this one isn't; any reason?

  The book title is in italics. It's the chapter title that isn't. I suppose what looks out of place is that I've external linked the chapter title, not the book title. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bowdon - you seem to have missed out author Russell G. Carpenter
• International Prison Commission - the title page lists Samuel J. Barrows in some sort of role here; perhaps an editor, given that the individual chapters all have authors
• Mariner, James; Cavallaro, Michael - not sure where these names come from, but the link says the authors are Mariner, Joanne and Cavallaro, James
• Norval, Morris - are you sure this shouldn't be "Morris, Norval"? Also, you've missed out David J. Rothman

  Turns out Rothman is the sole author and also one of the two editors (alongside Morris). I've removed editors entirely and just placed Rothman as the author. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nordic Council of Ministers - I don't think "Business & Economic" really belongs here; that's the "subject" that Google Books has assigned to this, rather than a publisher name
• Ramsland and Sampson - all other books here have a Google Books link, but not these two. Any reason?

  Just an oversight I guess. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Phew, that's about it! I'll come back tomorrow hopefully with a few spot checks, and double check that all the sources are reliable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Amakuru. As per last time I've only replied to questions and things that may not be fixed yet. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah shoot, this one had slipped my mind. I'll finish it off tomorrow. Sorry!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks

(now looking at this version)

• 2 - mostly checks out, although the book says that the education was only mandatory for those under 35, a detail not mentioned in the article.
• 3 - checks out.
• 10 - checks out.
• 11 - checks out.
• 28 - checks out.
• 31 - checks out (for all points).
• 48 - checks out.
• 169 - checks out.
• 172 - checks out.

Given all the above, I'm satisfied that the sourcing is accurate, the fixes you've done look good, and I'm not seeing any dubious or unreliable sources. Happy to pass. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review, I really appreciate it. I've updated the article to mention the under 35 issue. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by GMG

• I shouldn't be considered a neutral reviewer, since I was pretty heavily involved in the last FAC, and I've written a fair share of the article. I'd only say that I'm still fairly satisfied that many of the content issues raised previously are an artifact of having a very broad topic, and not of an article being insufficiently comprehensive in the format of an encyclopedia, rather than a book. GMG^talk 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Noswall59

I commend the good work that has gone into this, but I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. The history section is patchy. The subsection on Europe includes relatively detailed discussions of the Nordic countries, the UK and the Soviet Union but nothing on the Germany, Benelux, Austria, Eastern Europe and the Balkans; there is also nothing on the Mediterranean states like Spain, Italy and Greece. The North American, Caribbean and Latin American material seem fine to me either because they cover everywhere (North America) or talk in general terms with some illustrative examples or exceptions. Oceania mentions nothing about the various Pacific island states and Asia focuses on China, Japan and India but nowhere else.

I recognise, of course, that we can't just have histories of every country in this article, but it seems odd to focus in depth on a few in one continent but make no mention of the rest or any general comments, as in the sections on Europe and Asia. There's also very little in this article on illiteracy specifically, but that has often been a major part of prison education programmes and there's a lot of scholarship on it. Again, we don't need to cover everything here; Illiteracy in prison populations could be its own article, as could Education programmes for illiterate prisoners (or something like that). But I think some mention other than just a couple of country-specific statistics is probably called for. I will say that I am very busy offline right now, so I don't think I will carry out a full review of this article; these are just meant to be points on comprehensiveness. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

@Noswall59: Thanks for your comments. The article recently had a lot of country specific information on literacy rates (see the first paragraph of the 'Literacy rates and available programs' section in this version here [11]), though I was actually asked to replace this with a single sentence saying prisoners were less literate in general in order to address the concerns of another reviewer. I agree with that reviewer that the current summary is much better.

I've always had the same overarching problem with the history section. While there is information available on the current state of prison education in many countries (though far from all of them), very few sources exist on the history of prison education. As I mentioned in the lead of this nomination, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia, and the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. If only one source exists on prison education in a developed and wealthy nation like Australia, it's easy to imagine why there won't be sources on the history of prison education on the much smaller developing Pacific island nations near it. Speaking from years of research in the field, smaller developing nations are unlikely to have prison education at all, let alone a history on the subject worth writing about. Of course, I don't think I'd have too much trouble finding more coverage for at least somewhere in Europe. I simply stopped writing that section once it reached a size that was already larger than most of the other continents. I was concerned about issues of due weight and focus on the Western world, conscious of the fact the article is already at such as large size, and it's a difficult subject to to summarise because as you note, I cannot add information on every country. But if I found some more coverage in Europe and Asia, would that address any resistance you had to the article being promoted? Damien Linnane (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Damien Linnane. Thanks for your response. Firstly, on due weight, I completely understand your concerns. My issue was that it seemed odd to have a few countries singled out in Europe especially; if you could find a source which offers a more general picture across Europe or part of Europe, or even just signpost the development in some other major countries, like Spain, Italy, Germany, then that would make a big difference to reducing the patchy feel. I wonder whether former Soviet Bloc countries had similar historical experiences of prison education - if so, that might make it easy to generalise there. It really doesn't need much, a few sentences really. As for illiteracy, you're absolutely right to have reduced the country-specific stats, but I more meant it's implications for pedagogy. In fact, I notice that there isn't a section about pedagogy (as in, theories and research on best-practices, e.g.), perhaps that's worth looking into? —Noswall59 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

@Noswall59: I've expanded on the history of Italy, Spain and Russia. Let me know what you think so far, and if you think it still needs more. I'll try and find the time to look into pedagogy tomorrow. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Noswall59: I've added a paragraph on pedagogy to the beginning of the 'Challenges' section. Let me know if you have any ongoing concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. I actually don't have a working knowledge of the topic, so it's difficult to judge whether there are particular approaches or theories which deserve a mention – there are a number of books on the topic. Nevertheless, it probably needs its own article, where such discussion ought to take place; perhaps a red link would is in order. If you feel confident that you've summarised the general contours of the literature, then that's probably enough. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I do feel like those were good improvements. Turns out pedagogy is mostly the same as outside prison, with the caveat of prison restrictions getting in the way, but that's still interesting to read about. Anyway thanks for your input. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Noswall59, are you content with the changes made? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild yes, with the caveat that I’m no expert. –Noswall59 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC).

Coord query

@FAC coordinators: Image and source reviews pass, three supports, and two additional commentators who appear to not have any outstanding concerns. Are we good to go or do we need another review? Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• References: What system are you using to render the titles of works in title case or not?

@Gog the Mild: Typically I just mirror whatever format the title of the reference itself uses, but to be honest I didn't really think about it much. I've never been asked that on Wikipedia before, even at FAC. Would you like me to pick a format and make everything consistent, regardless of what format the title of the actual source is? 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cites 35 and 80 contain p/pp errors. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Really?! Does no one read criterion 2c "consistently formatted inline citations"? Yes please; if you could adjust them all to a consistent format that would be good. I would suggest putting them all into title case, but it is your call. (Grandma and eggs bit: In edit mode do a cntl-F search for "title=" and run through the 149 results.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done. Incidentally I always thought consistency just meant consistent template and date formatting, but I'll include case from now on as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I dunno what was in the mind of the drafter, but I think you see my point. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Ref 80 was literally the last reference I added to address the last reviewers concern, after the source check was done. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cite 81 is malformed. Possibly you need to decide which single year it was published in. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 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) 15:23, 23 October 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) 9 October 2021 [12].

---

D. H. Turner

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

A curator and scholar, D. H. Turner spent the better part of his life at the British Museum and British Library, where he focused on liturgical studies and illuminated manuscripts; fittingly, the few years of his career spent elsewhere included time at an abbey. His work included several major exhibitions and loans, including sending the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander to Bulgaria, the Moutier-Grandval Bible to Switzerland, and a copy of Magna Carta to the United States.

This article builds on the available sources about Turner's life and publications, and manages to be exhaustive while not overly long. It was given a good-article review by J Milburn in 2018; more recently, I have dug deep for reviews of Turner's publications and works discussing his impact, and added what is there. It is now ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

• "and in succeeding years helped loan several medieval manuscripts for the first time in half a millennium" Instead of "helped loan", perhaps "helped arrange the loan of"? After all, he did not do the loaning himself.

• Done.

• "Through his work the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander returned to Bulgaria for the first time since the 1300s, and the Moutier-Grandval Bible returned to Switzerland, its home throughout the Middle Ages." Given the discussion re returning certain museum or library items to their countries of origin, I'd clarify that these were loans.

• Clarified.

• "From assistant keeper he rose to deputy keeper." Can more be stated about what this means? If this is a considerable advancement, the accomplishment may be lost on the reader.

• I've looked around, but haven't found anything that really lays it out. I understand that assistant keeper is an entry-level position, and keeper is the head of the department, but I'm not sure how high up the ladder "deputy keeper" is.

• "universities of Cambridge and East Anglia." you are not consistent on capitalisation of this phrase the two times you use it.

• Capitalized.

• "He followed up the former work " haven't you just listed three? It's hard to understand what "former" means in that regard.

• Changed "the former work" to "the first book".

• "leading to the loan of Magna Carta to Washington, D.C. for the 1976 United States Bicentennial celebrations" was the document loaned to the City of Washington or to some institution such as the Smithsonian? Similar on Sophia.

• It was at the United States Capitol; added a couple sources and some more information. On the other hand, I haven't been yet able to find where the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander were displayed. I'll keep looking, though, since sources undoubtedly exist. Per Backhouse and Jones 1987, the loan was accompanied by "a blaze of nationalistic publicity."

• "and introduced her to the exhibition and loans of manuscripts." Should loans be loan?

• I'm really not sure. "introduced her to the exhibition" sounds correct, in that "the exhibition" is used as "the practice of exhibiting." But I don't think "the loan" can really mean "the practicing of loaning." Maybe it should be "the exhibition and loaning of manuscripts"?

• " the British Museum and later Library" "came at the museum and library" Are these consistent?

• I think so; my intention, at least, was for the former to be proper nouns and the latter to be common (improper?) nouns. But I could be persuaded otherwise.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

• Following several years spent working at a hospital and living at an Anglican Benedictine abbey – were these years concurrent or sequential? Not clear.

• Probably sequential; according to the source, "Between [his 195 graduation] and his arrival at the British Museum, where he took up his post as Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts on 3 December 1956, he undertook a period of hospital work and tried his vocation in the Anglican Benedictine community at Nashdom Abbey in Buckinghamshire. At Nashdom his incipient interest in liturgical studies was encouraged, not least by daily practice, and he came into contact with Dom Anselm Hughes, doyen of specialists in the history of medieval music." How does "Following several years spent at a hospital and at an Anglican Benedictine abbey" sound instead?

• That's just what is wanted, I'd say. Tim riley talk 07:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• the move occasioned only by the deaccession of the museum's library elements in favour of the new institution – this would be better if written in plain English. I imagine it means that the stuff was moved from the BM to the BL, in which case it would be as well to say so clearly.

• Now "Turner worked at the British Museum from 1956 until 1973, and at the British Library from its 1973 founding until his 1985 death."

• coauthor of the paper – the OED hyphenates "co-author".

• Done.

• the Chair of Palaeography at King's College London – does chair of palaeography need Capital Letters?

• Nope.

• analyzed a set – unexpected –ize ending in a BrE article (though we know the OUP is still to catch up with modern –ise use).

• Changed.

• repurposing as teaching material – rather a posh term for "reusing"?

• There's not a huge difference between the two, but I think "prepurposing" is slightly more precise. It suggests a change in use, not just a second use.

• Interesting. I'll bear that in mind. Tim riley talk 07:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• He also assumed the chairmanship – sounds a touch usurpative put like that – he was appointed, presumably

• Changed to "undertook", which is the word the source uses. Haven't been able to find another record of the positions (e.g., proceedings of the organizations), although I assume you are correct that it was an appointment.

• and him with it – not sure the accusative will do here: him wasn't subsumed: he was.

• Changed.

• responsibility over loans – does one have responsibility over things rather than for them?

• Changed (there was one above, too).

• Turner helped author – what a horrible word! What's wrong with a plain English "write"?

• Changed, although I'd be curious to know what you find so objectionable about "helped author"? The OED, for its part, records usage of "author" as a verb going back to 1597.

• The OED comments "This usage has been objected to by some commentators", and quite right too. Shakespeare, never a man to be shy of turning nouns into verbs, managed without "authoring" or "to author". I haven't got the current edition of Fowler to hand, but in the third edition (1996) Burchfield says that the use of "author" as a verb is found in America, but "does not find any kind of acceptance in the quality newspapers, or in literary works, in Britain". Plain Words points out that nouns such as "contact", "feature", "glimpse" and "sense" have been turned into verbs, but continues, "loan, gift and author were verbs centuries ago and are now trying to come back again after a long holiday, spent by loan in America, by gift in Scotland and by author in oblivion. These have not yet succeeded, presumably because they compete with the established alternatives lend, give and write." Here endeth the Epistle of Timothy. (Well, you did ask.) – Tim riley talk 07:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• interacting with the Foreign Office – wasn't it the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by then?

• Looks like it. And turns out its named has recently changed yet again, to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

• dignitaries including Lord Elwyn-Jones and Queen Elizabeth II – with all due respect to his Lordship, it looks a bit odd to tack the Queen on after him, whatever the chronological order of their viewing the thing.

• I was saving the best for last, but I take your point. Queen Elizabeth II now appears before our man Elwyn.

• he helped loan … he helped lend – I think consistency would be nice here, preferably standardising on the latter.

• Done.

• several months leave – several months' leave?

• Done.

• keeper of manuscripts Daniel Waley – a clunky false title

• Added a "the" at the beginning.

Those are my few comments on the prose. The actual content seems to me top notch. Tim riley talk 20:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the close look, Tim riley. I enjoyed reading your comments (and adjusting accordingly). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – A fine article, which in my view meets all the FA criteria. It appears comprehensive, balanced and proportionate, is well and widely sourced, appropriately illustrated and a pleasure to read. If I may be permitted an afterthought, I think "Bibliography" for the list of books you cite is perhaps not ideal: some people would use the term for the list of the subject's own books, and given the (very minor) scope for confusion I'd be inclined to call the list "Sources" or some such. I do not press the point in the least. – Tim riley talk 07:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harry

• D. H. Turner was born on 15 May 1931 If it was me, I'd give either his full name or just his surname here. The article title is his initials and his full name is given in the lead, so surname only is probably preferable, much as my username would suggest I empathise with the two initials and surname!

• Done. If an article on you someday makes it onto this site, however, we may have to make an exception!

• Maybe specify where Northampton is for readers not familiar with English geography? "Northampton, England" is not very helpful. "in the English Midlands" or "in central England" would be my suggestion.

• Went with "in central England".

• subsumed into the British Library, and him with it suggest "Taylor" instead of "him" just for an abundance of clarity

• I'm not sure that calling him "Taylor" would clear things up. But kidding aside, I think it's fairly clear already, given that nobody else is named or mentioned in that sentence.

• lifelong refusal to cross the Atlantic do we know why?

• The sources don't say why.

• Is it not a little redundant to list the author name in a list of his publications?

• I suppose we could do something like Martin Rundkvist#Selected publications, but I'm not sure it adds much. It looks much cleaner when there aren't co-authors, such as at William Chaney#Publications.

I've tried to avoid duplicating Tim above, but your usual high standard and Tim's attention to detail have left me slim pickings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much, HJ Mitchell. Appreciate the comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support, just to state the obvious! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Iazyges

• Backhouse, Janet is linked twice.

• Not sure if you're talking about in the text (where she also had a duplicate link) or in the bibliography. I removed the duplicate from the text. As to the bibliography, it's generally my practice to have a new link per citation.

• Link "Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes" to Warburg Institute#Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes

• Warburg Institute is already linked as the publisher, so probably no need to have two links within the same citaiton pointing to the same page.

• Is there a reason why "Hartzell, Karl Drew" is given as 1989 instead of December 1989?

• Cambridge lists it as December 1989, but I don't see December listed anywhere in the front matter (available here).

• For "Lynch, Joseph" the JSTOR page gives a date of January 1982, rather than February 1967.

• Whoops. Fixed.

• "Prescott, Andrew" uses the ISBN for the 1997 edition, rather than the 1988 edition; use ISBN 978-0-585-19928-3 instead.

• Fixed.

• @Usernameunique: That is all, no objection to the inclusion of any of the sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the source review, Iazyges! Responses above. One note on ISBNs: WP:ISBN advises that "if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type." As a result, I've gone with the 10-digit versions in this article; the latest work with an ISBN is from 1988, and 13-digit ISBNs were not issued until 2007. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Usernameunique, article passes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Non-expert prose review

• "met the medieval music specialist Dom Anselm Hughes." If Hughes is notable enough to mention in this article, then he's probably notable enough for an article and should be wikilinked. Otherwise, remove this sentence as unnecessary detail.

• I've red linked Dom Anselm Hughes for now. He apparently has a bio in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, which I'll cite when I get access to it.

• "Particularly while an assistant keeper he also focused on scholarship, seeing many articles published and teaching part-time at the Universities of Cambridge and East Anglia." -> "While assistant keeper he also focused on scholarship, published many articles and teaching part-time at the Universities of Cambridge and East Anglia." to tighten up the language.

• Per the below, the sentence has been removed.

• "Including two bequests by Perrins, and eight purchases at a collective and below market £37,250, the museum acquired ten of the collection's 154 manuscripts." -> The museum acquired ten of the collection's 154 manuscripts, including two bequests by Perrins and eight purchases at a collective and below market £37,250." This starts the sentence with a noun, a structure usually preferred in English.

• Done.

• The first paragraph in Career is repeating information that is stated in the next two sections, and reads more like a lede. It should be deleted, in my opinion.

• Fair enough, removed.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when they have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Z1720. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 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) 21:45, 9 October 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) 21 October 2021 [13].

---

Operation Sandwedge

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Taking another run with this one, which was last at FAC back in January 2016. At that time it was only half the length it is now, reflecting the paucity of sources available when I was writing it, but some tremendous help from the late Brianboulton identified several texts which contributed to a much more comprehensive overview of a project which never happened. Sandwedge is a minor footnote in the grand scheme of the Watergate affair, but an interesting one, as it inevitably gives rises to the question of "what if". I hope whether any of you take the time to review this or not you at least find it an interesting entry in political history, a quaint reminder of a time when crime in public office was wrong. A lot of the sourcing used is offline but if anyone needs to conduct a source review on these I should be able to access all the print sources again to accommodate this. Thanks in advance to anyone having a look at it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Iazyges

• Going to have to review this as Nixon is my favorite president, will start as soon as I finish my current GA review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Suggest expanding the lede slightly, perhaps with more information regarding H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Jack Caulfield's positions, as well as G. Gordon Liddy.

Background

• "defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote." suggest "defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote."
• "by a margin of less than 118,000 votes", it may be worth mentioning somewhere that the actual overall vote count doesn't (technically) matter because of the electoral college, but that several states, such as Illinois, were narrowly lost, which ultimately lost him the election.
• It may also be worth mentioning there was some considerable belief of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, in the 1960 election, with several of Nixon's 1972 aides having argued it at the time.
• "Nixon's initial election bid had already involved the planting of rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" suggest "Nixon's initial election bid had already involved planting rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" for simplicity.

Planned activities

• "officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General." may be worth noting that he was a leading candidate for 1968 election before his assassination, perhaps, "officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General, who had been the leading Democratic candidate in the 1968 primaries before his assasination."
• "investigators and officials of Inland Revenue," really? The British one? Is there any known reason for crossing the pond, and not getting people from the IRS?
• "Mitchell had served as Attorney General under Nixon's first term" suggest changing "under" to "during"

Aftermath

• Article definitely needs to mention that Nixon had to resign because of Watergate.
• That is all of my suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look at this. I've implemented the majority of the changes mentioned; the only thing not yet addressed is the information concerned the voting margins and accusations of fraud in the 1960 election—I know that White's Breach of Faith details this and I want to be able to accurately quote the figures he presents, but I'm currently moving home and the book is elsewhere today, so this will be added when I have the source in front of me. Otherwise this should demonstrate the changes made. (Also of note, today is when I first learnt, as a European, that "IRS" does not stand for "Inland Revenue Service". Every day's a school day). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits made look good; I will say that probably most Americans couldn't actually tell you what IRS stands for with certainty. Unfortunately, the pain of my tax accounting course will never leave me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've now added the information about 1960 more specifically, including the particularly fine margins in two states, along with an attributed mention of electoral fraud. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

Very interesting article. This is my first FA review, so fell free to ignore any suggestion which you don't find helpful.

• Do we really need a specific image size in the info-box (270)?

  Apparently not, I've removed it.

• ""The operation was planned to help Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign."" – suggesting to red-link "1972 re-election campaign" to Richard Nixon 1972 presidential campaign, rather than linking it to the election page.

  I would prefer at present to retain the current link just because the target is so well-written; I have no issues with a relevant red link but not over a viable in-depth article. It's an easy switch if the article is ever created to the same standard though.

• ""but rivals within Nixon's own party."" – The lead doesn't tell which party Nixon is in.

  Added

• ""which detailed a plan to break into Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex. Liddy's plan eventually led to the downfall of Nixon's presidency, "" – both "break into Democratic Party offices" and "downfall of Nixon's presidency" ultimately redirect to the same page.

  Good catch; the duplicate link tool wasn't picking this up.

• ""In 1968, Richard Nixon, the United States Republican Party nominee"" – Is "United States" really needed? It should be phrased something like "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party's nominee"

  Trimmed it; this is what happens when you let a euro write about US politics

• ""this position granted"" → "a position which granted"

  Got it

• ""during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidency under Dwight D. Eisenhower"" – I won't say that Nixon was under Eisenhower. They both campaigned as a ticket for re-election in 1956.

  I've rephrased it; I would have thought a vice-president always served under a president but now it's just "as Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice-president" to avoid that.

• ""Nixon's initial election bid"" → "re-election bid"

  Got it

• ""$511,000"" – suggesting to use Template:inflation

  I've added this template with the "equivalent to" output to all the major dollar amounts in the article now

• Attorney General is linked twice in the prose.

  Another one the tool hadn't flagged due to a redirect, pared the second one out

• Link Republican National Convention

  Added to first mention,

• ""congressman for California"" → "congressman from California"

  Although McCloskey was from California, this is to show he was the representative for California (honestly not sure how often a representative tends to stand for a state other than their home but it doesn't feel like they're one and same)

  Well, "congressman from California" would also imply that he represents California. (is mentioning the state important)? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• ""Gemstone was an umbrella term ...... rival political campaigns" – too long sentence

  I've removed the em dash and split this into two sentences.

• Its notable to mention that Nixon was the first and only president to resign.

  Added a mention of it, cited to Nixon's biography on the US Senate website; if this needs something further I could dig out one of the more recent books but obviously the older the cite is the more date it looks for a fact intended to remain present to today.

• Committee for the Re-Election of the President already linked in the prose. No need for it to be in the "See also" section.

  Gone.

• Any book/work for further reading?

  None that haven't been used already; there's no shortage of output on Watergate as a whole but a paucity on the story that didn't happen.

  Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Rest, most seems fine to me. It would be much appreciated if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at this; I've addressed your points above and all changes related to them can be seen here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X – I have made a minor edit. Rest all seems fine to me, and I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• You link Vietnam opposition twice in the lead, and the second mention feels redundant (it comes very shortly after the first and is worded almost identically)
• Not sure the link on "New York police officer" adds much, and is a bit of an Easter egg.
• at this time he was Nixon's domestic affairs assistant at what time?
• Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969 "was the one who" is redundant
• Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969; Ehrlichman intended for Caulfield to conduct private investigations while undercover as a private sector employee, it was Caulfield who insisted on working from the White House bit of a mouthful, with a semicolon and a comma splice in the mix. The easiest solution is to replace the semicolon with a full stop, and the comma with a semicolon.
• however Caulfield intimated privately that it would also "however" implies a contradiction whereas "also" implies an agreement. Suggest replacing "however" with "although" or similar.
• "private investigator" is linked on the third use of the term in the body
• Strachan, Dean and other staff members were frustrated "however" again (see WP:WTA)
• That October, a meeting concerning Sandwedge Which October? This is the start of a new section.
• a meeting concerning Sandwedge was arranged Can we rephrase this to use the active voice?
• Another factor in Caulfield's removal from the helm was the belief of several White House officials, including Dean, that Caulfield's Irish-American, non-college educated background was at odds that's a lot of commas. Suggest dashes for "including Dean". And this use of "non-college-educated" is one compound adjective and needs hyphens between all parts.
• Liddy's initial draft of Operation Gemstone was deemed active voice is preferable again
• Likewise was made by Dean in January 1972
• tried for various crimes, with 48 of these This use of ", with" is ungrammatical as a way of joining clauses. You could replace it with a semicolon or split it into two sentences or restructure the whole sentence.
• "the most monumental of the Nixon Presidency" You need a reference straight after a direct quote.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look at this. I think I've gotten everything here although if you want to cast an eye over the changes to be sure, especially with active voice concerns, just let me know if anything needs further work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Harry, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies for not returning to this sooner. The day job is keeping me occupied! I'm happy with the responses to my comments. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• FN1: this link works, but is it the page that you're meaning to cite?

  It was not, seems like they have rearranged the site a little since it was used. I've updated the link although it's far from vital--the actual percentages are given in the Black source, the Electrical College was just to provide a governmental source for the winner in addition to the more precise breakdown in the book.

• Knight is listed at the publisher site as the editor of that work rather than the author. Do individual entries have authors?

  They don't, although it's structured like an encyclopaedia or dictionary with alphabetical entries, there's only an editor (Knight) and three "associate editors" (Robert Alan Goldberg, Jeffrey L Pasley, and Larry Schweikart) credited for it. Is the best option here to switch the field to credit Knight as editor, then?

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering References? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Alphabetical by author (then by year for Genovese who has two entries) with the House Committee listed after individual authors. Open to changing this if you think the last one should be alphabetised like a name.

  I think if you're treating the committee as an author, it would make sense to alphabetize it with the other authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Responded above, thank you for looking at this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  United States House Committee on the Judiciary alphabetised under "U"; Knight updated to list as editor. I'm noticing now that this displays the editor credit differently for these two entries, in brackets for the Committee and without brackets for Knight. If these should match, I'm not sure how to achieve it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's... odd. Perhaps raise it at Help talk:CS1? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've tried playing around with it to no avail, I've left a message at the help page asking if anyone can figure it out. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Now solved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks – Pass

Version checked — this

• Ref#2 – The book specifies "43.4 percent to 42.7 percent", so OK (link)
• Ref#3 – OK (link)
• Ref#7 – OK (link)
• Ref#13 – OK (link)
• Ref#15 – OK (remaining part supported by Ref#16) (link)
• Ref#16 – OK for remaining claim of that sentence, which isn't supported by Ref#15 (link)
• Ref#21 – OK (link)
• Ref#25 – OK (link)
• Ref#31 – OK (link)

Overall, pass on spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review, modern American politics has always interested me so I can't really go past this one...

• Copyedited so pls let me know any probs, otherwise prose, detail (appropriately succinct given it's really a footnote to Watergate), tone and structure seem fine.
• I'll take Buidhe's and Nikki's image and source reviews as read.
• One thought: In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote -- My understanding is that the Electoral College decides the election, not the popular vote (as witness Trump 2016), so is it really accurate to say the election was won by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote? Perhaps with a margin of seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote would be closer to the mark. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, I'm happy to rephrase this. The popular vote doesn't decide the winner, you're correct, but the margin being so fine is contextually important as the section expands upon. How does "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President. Nixon's margin of victory in the popular vote was seven-tenths of a percent." sound? Splitting it into two sentences should hopefully provide the necessary separation that these are two different facts. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sure that works for me. I agree that even though the Electoral College in both 1960 and 1968 was very clear, the narrow popular margin is what everyone focusses on, so I think it's reasonable for this article to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've made the change. It's an interesting election in that it shows how strange the College is--the "official" result doesn't look close at all but small margins in large states like Texas mean a swing of a relatively small number of voters would have had big differences in that final College tally; less than five thousand votes for Humphrey in Illinois would have been a 52-point swing for example. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair point -- small percentages can make a big difference in the end. Anyway change looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 18 October 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) 13:51, 21 October 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) 29 October 2021 [14].

---

Sound and Vision

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...the David Bowie song "Sound and Vision", a very oddly structured song that is also one of his finest. It came off the divisive Low, and surprised RCA Records by being a surprise hit in the UK (peaking at number three). Since its GA promotion back in May, I've continued expanding it, using other FAs such as New Romantics (song) as a basis. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns you might have. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Images are either hosted on commons with appropriate licensing or have appropriate fair use rationale. Looks good here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I am uncertain about using a quote in the lead as done in this part, Regarded as the closest to a "conventional pop song" on Low, as I am uncertain if a clearer attribution would be needed to clarify who regarded the song this way.

• It's regarded this way by his biographers. Would it be better to attribute this? The genre for this one is a little weird as I haven't been able to find someone classifying it under a definitive genre. People have classified Low as a whole as art rock, but that doesn't really suffice here. In my opinion, the song is 100% art pop, but again, I can't put that for obvious reasons. There are a few attributions for disco in the article currently but as it stands I just have "pop" in the infobox. – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would attribute it as it is unclear who is regarding the song in this way and I had to go down in the article itself to see where this quote was coming from. Genre is always a sticky point for a song articles, but your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Earlier I was also able to find a source describing it as a "traditional rock song" with Krautrock and electronic elements so I added that; Also allows rock to be added to the infobox. Still very general but it helps. – zmbro _(talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• That looks good to me. I want to read through the article one more time tomorrow to make sure I have not over-looked anything, but I will likely support this FAC at that point. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, "Like its parent album, David Bowie and Tony Visconti co-produced "Sound and Vision"", I would include the album name in the prose (i.e. Low) for clarity, and I do not think the album is linked in the body of the article (although I may have missed it).

• Yeah you're right, done.

• I have a question about the placement of File:Mary Hopkin, Bestanddeelnr 923-3712.jpg. Would it be possible to move it a little higher in the section? It cuts into the next section, at least in my browser, and there is a small amount of sandwiching occurring.

• Yeah, the same thing occurred for me – I aligned it with the text where she's introduced. I moved it up slightly; how's it look? – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• It looks good to me. Thank you for fixing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link RCA Records in this part, "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Record", as I believe this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article and the record company is currently not linked in the article.

• Done.

• I have a clarification question about this sentence: "At the time of release, one reviewer felt that none of the tracks were "single material", while another felt "Sound and Vision" was the "obvious" choice." Do we know who either of these reviewers are, and if so, would it be beneficial to include that information in the prose?

• You bet, done.

• In this part, "and the instrumental "A New Career in a New Town" as the B-side", I would link B-side just in case some readers are unfamiliar with this concept.

• Done. I've had a habit of overlinking in the past so I guess I underlinked here, haha.

• I have been there before so I completely understand that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think the quote in this part, "as the "pinnacle" of the album, is necessary", and I think it can be paraphrased without losing any meaning.

• Yeah you're right. Changed.

• This is a very nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. There are two different link, 1978 Isolar II tour and 1978 Isolar II Tour, for the same tour, and I would be consistent with one approach or the other.

• Good catch, fixed.

• I have a clarification question about this sentence: "This performance was included on Rarestonebowie (1995) and was given its first authorised release on Welcome to the Blackout (Live London '78) (2018)." I am guessing from the context of the sentence that the Rarestonebowie release was unauthorised. Is that assumption correct? Would it be possible to clarify this a little more for unfamiliar readers like myself?

• Yes that was a compilation that was issued by Bowie's former music publisher MainMan without Bowie's consultation. I'll look into clarifying this tonight (I'm sure Pegg has answers). – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Well I couldn't find the answer I was looking for so I reworded the sentence to fit the info I do have. Hope that helps. – zmbro _(talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for looking for this. I know how frustrating it can be not to find the answer you were looking for. If you ever do run across this, you can of course feel free to add this information into the article. The rewording makes sense to me and actually makes it pretty clear that Rarestonebowie was more of a publisher thing than a Bowie thing. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this sentence: "Meanwhile, Hopkin's backing vocal was echoed in the American rock band Doves' 2002 single "There Goes the Fear"." I am uncertain about the "Meanwhile" transition, and I think a better word choice can be used.

• How's 'additionally'? – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think that would be a better word choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 18:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• For the citations, I would move the NME link up to Citation 44 as that is the first NME citation.

• Done

• I would link Virgin Books in the Bibliography section.

• Done

Great work with the article. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and should hopefully not take too much time to address. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I hope you are having an enjoyable weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Aoba47 Thanks very much for the comments! Queries are above. – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. I have left responses for everything above. I still think the quote in the lead should have some sort of attribution to make it clear that this quote is coming from David Bowie biographers, ideally in a way that is not too clunky. I just find that having a quote without any attribution or context can cause unnecessary confusion for readers who may just be looking at the lead before going into the actual article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Aoba47 Replies are above. Thanks again! – zmbro _(talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and is showing little sign of a consensus to support gathering. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Realmaxxver

Making some comments soon. Here are some initial comments on the lead. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Going to ping the FAC nominator; @Zmbro:. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Realmaxxver Done. Btw you don't have to ping me every time I'm seeing the messages. – zmbro _(talk) 00:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, continuing at Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November." − ""Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, then at the Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November.""

• Done

• " It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime; Bowie's vocals don't appear for over a minute and a half into the song." − "" It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime, while Bowie's vocals don't appear until over a minute and a half into the song.""

• Done

Writing and recording

• "Used when recording Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]" → ""Used during the recording of Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]""

• "According to biographer Chris O'Leary, the song began as a simple descending-by-fifths G major progression, which Bowie gave to the band, further suggesting melodies, a baseline and drum ideas." switch the position of the two words in "further suggesting"

• Realmaxxver Both done. – zmbro _(talk) 15:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Composition

• "Like the majority of the tracks on Low's first side,[12]" → ""Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12]""

• Done

• "Bowie's biographers consider "Sound and Vision" the closest to a conventional pop song on Low.[15][16]" you can combine these two sources with the {{sfnm}} template.

• I see absolutely no purpose in doing that. These pages are already used throughout and besides, there are quite a few instances of there being two back-to-back in this section alone but what makes combining them here so special? – zmbro _(talk) 20:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Release

• "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, it shocked the label.[26] Originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]" → ""When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, the label was shocked.[26] Low was originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]""

• Changed to "the label were shocked" per Brit English. I also think the next sentence is fine the way it is. – zmbro _(talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, is it necessary to include that Low was his 11th studio album here? Realmaxxver (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, so it doesn't appear as OR in the lead. – zmbro _(talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand. what citations are needed to prove that Low is his 11th studio album? Realmaxxver (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977. It featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]" → ""A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977, which featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]""

• Done

• "and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] where it signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]" → ""and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] which signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]""

• I think it's fine here as we're talking about the US specifically. Also, we don't want two sentences back-to-back using "..., which..." – zmbro _(talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives; it allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43]" → ""The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives, and allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43""

• Done

Critical reception

• "In a review for Low on release, Lott described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album." → ""On release, Lott reviewed Low and described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album.""

• Done

Live version and subsequent releases

• "Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours.[33] It was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]" → ""Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours,[33] and was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]""

• Done

Zmbro, finished my review. I Support this article for promotion. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I currently have a FAC on William Utermohlen, so I would like any potential comments from you, or anyone else. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tkbrett

I did the GA review for this article, so I held off to let other people add comments first. With the threat of it being archived though, I will sit right down, waiting for the gift of another great zmbro article. Tkbrett (✉) 11:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "finished the backing track in a few takes." Can we get any more specific or is "a few" the term O'Leary uses?

• That's what he uses, unfortunately.

• "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when she was asked to contribute." Passive voicing, which can be fixed if we know who asked her to contribute. Do we know if it was Bowie, Visconti or Eno? Her 2011 quotation makes it sound like it was Eno, in which case we could write it as: "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when Eno asked her to contribute."

• Pegg actually doesn't specify, just saying "she was asked", but using her quote for reference we can say it was Eno so I fixed that.

• "Biographer Nicholas Pegg and author Peter Doggett make comparisons to Bowie's 1971 song "Quicksand", with the latter writing" replace "latter" with "Doggett".

• Done

• "Meanwhile, Perone finds that the song is a "hybrid of soul and pop", continuing the "lyrical and musical romanticism" of Young Americans (1975)." The reader may not know that Young Americans is a previous Bowie album unless they click the link, so be sure to introduce it.

• Fixed

• The song also made it to number 15 on the LyricFind U.S. chart (whatever that is) in 2016 (source). That's the only other one I could find.

• I don't even know what that is. I've not seen that mentioned on any song article nor anywhere else on this site. It seems to be more or less a lyric site, and that source shows quite a few Bowie songs "charting" in January 2016 after he died, so should we even include it? I think not. – zmbro _(talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine by me. I haven't been able to find anything regarding it, with no mention at WP:CHARTS. WikiProject Songs uses the word "prominent" to describe charts, and this one ain't prominent.

For other readers, note that this is not a drive-by review, as I was the GA reviewer, so I don't have much to add here. Great work again, zmbro! You've been fine tuning and improving this article a lot even since its GA review. Tkbrett (✉) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words Tkbrett. All queries are fixed but I was had a concern about the last one. – zmbro _(talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Addressed above. Happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 19:58, 13 October 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

• RCA Records later chose it as the first single from the album - this seems kinda confusing to me - we need to explain what RCA is first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed

• Hérouville - add a country. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Same for Berlin. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Both done (in lead and body)

• The song began as a simple G major chord progression, which Bowie gave to the backing musicians, writing and recording his vocals later on. - does "simple" have a specific meaning in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's how the source words it. I'm under the assumption it means basic/not complicated. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Sound and Vision" is oddly structured - according to biographers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, although saying "according to" would be pretty derivative since the sentence starts with "Regarded by biographers..." – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• It nevertheless signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• A little confused on what you mean here. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Who said this, or was this based on sales numbers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pegg states it directly, but it's also based on sales numbers. – zmbro _(talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• What's an overdub? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's a process where you record new tracks and place them over previously recorded tracks. Added a link. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• According to author Hugo Wilcken - why is the author relevent? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• So it can be properly attributed. Do you think it's not needed? – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not that particularly, but why do we care what an author said about it?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Removed.

• favoured this "three-phase" - who said this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Properly attributed it.

• simple descending-by-fifths G major - could we avoid the two links to each other here? - also, "simple"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Moved the "G major" link down. Other thing explained above. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Drummer Dennis Davis thought it sounded "like a Crusaders tune - and the Crusaders are? - also, do we need a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Although the source doesn't specify (that I know of), I believe he was referring to The Crusaders (jazz fusion group), as Davis came from an R&B and jazz background. Should I add a link? – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think you'd need to. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done

• When asked by Bowie about what it did, Visconti replied, "it fucks with the fabric of time." - seems like trivia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I believe it adds context as to why they chose to use it.

• How so? It doesn't do anything to the fabric of time. Couldn't we just comment that Visconti was very positive about using it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded. – zmbro _(talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• "essentially" - do we need a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Changed to "mostly"

• Hopkins quote seems like overkill. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Does it? I think that since she actually said something about it, it's good to have a quote from her. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's a lot of jargon terms in this article that aren't explained or linked. I've mentioned a couple already but "two-note descent", "main guitar line", "chord progression". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Reworded and clarified a few things. – zmbro _(talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• O'Leary finds that throughout its runtime, the song assembles itself - huh? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded to give a better idea. – zmbro _(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• ARP Solina - a what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• A type of keyboard instrument. Clarified.

• There are just so many quotes in this article, can we summarise them instead? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed. How's the paraphrasing look so far? – zmbro _(talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• They offer introspection: Bowie draws the blinds, has the world shut away, and is sitting in an empty room, "waiting for the gift of sound and vision." - this isn't a sentence, and I have no idea what is trying to be said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded it to try an better describe what's actually going on. – zmbro _(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I feel like we are also using Wikipedia's voice to say what the tones and lyrics are like. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• That's as far as the end of composition. I'd really like the quotes to be looked at before I go any further. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 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)} 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• zmbro, if you have addressed Lee Vilenski's comments, I suggest that you ping them to let them know. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Where is the genre designation in the infobox coming from? I see other genres mentioned by reviewers

• I've found his biographers consistently mention "pop" while Perone flat-out says "rock". The only other one I could see adding would be disco as that's sourced by two people, but other genres mentioned qualify as elements and not actual genres, which shouldn't go in the infobox. – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding a footnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• How so? – zmbro _(talk) 13:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Explaining how this designation was arrived at - similar to what you've posted here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria How's that look? – zmbro _(talk) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Great. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later

• Corrected

• Blockquotes shouldn't use quotation marks

• Fixed

• "Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12] "Sound and Vision" is classified by AllMusic's Dave Thompson as a "song fragment"." The attribution is a bit misleading here since the first portion is cited to someone other than Thompson - suggest reframing.

• Would removing the attribution work? Based on how I'm reading it, it seems like it would. – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Either that or reworking in some other way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Removed attribution. – zmbro _(talk) 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN36: website name shouldn't be in title parameter

• That's due to the chart template so I can't do anything about that.

• You can: you can change the template, or you can change whether you use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed

• FN41: source gives a different date and formatting is incorrect

• Fixed

• FN48 is missing authors. Ditto FN46, check for others

• 48 lists 10 different writers; normally they'd list the writer of each blurb but they don't here so what's the solution? Nikkimaria – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• You can include all of them, and if desired used the display parameters to set how many are shown. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria Done. – zmbro _(talk) 19:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you list "Staff" as author or not - compare for example FNs 55 and 47

• Resolved

• FN78-79: "none" is not needed

• Fixed

Also, not a sourcing problem, but I noticed some issues throughout with clarity of phrasing. For example, "It nevertheless signaled Bowie's commercial downturn in the US until 1983, where it peaked at number 69" - I understand from later in the article that you mean this song peaked at 69 in the US, but here that is not clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That better? – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That example yes - suggest re-reading throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Gave it another read through and I think it looks way better. What do you think? – zmbro _(talk) 13:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments Placeholder by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Tks for the ping, Gog...

Oddly enough, this song's never done anything for me, no matter how many times I listened -- as far as Low's vocal tracks go, give me "Breaking Glass" any day...! Still, that's nothing to do with the article quality, which I think is largely sufficient for FA. Following a copyedit I'm fine with prose, comprehensiveness, and tone, but will hold off support until Nikki's source review is complete. On the subject of sourcing, I wish I had ready access to my copy of Carr and Murray's Bowie: The Illustrated Record, wherein I think the authors remarked on the irony of the BBC choosing such a thematically dark song for promo purposes, but that needn't hold up promotion. Good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose Looks like Nikkimaria has no more queries. – zmbro _(talk) 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Could be -- Nikki can I just confirm? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No more queries on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Tks Nikki, GTG then I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Graham Beards

On the whole, this is a well-written and engaging article, well done.

• The song is famous for its use of sixth intervals on the lead guitar part, which run throughout the song (notes B+G, C+A and so on). Do we have a source so we can include this?

• Not that I know of. The only source I have that would say it is O'Leary and he doesn't. I'm also not a guitarist so I wouldn't know. – zmbro _(talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nevermind, but if you are interested it is explained here (beginning in the middle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QwcSR279eE Graham Beards (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Graham Beards I'll definitely give this a watch! As a drummer myself I more typically pay attention to that xP – zmbro _(talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Take a look at WP:PLUSING, which explains the problem of fused participles. I saw three examples and I fixed one. The others are: "It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime" and "with Doggett writing". Is there a more graceful way to caste these phrases? Perhaps, "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added...", and " and Doggett wrote". No dig deal since the meaning, at least to me is clear, but worth considering as an improvement.Graham Beards (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Graham Beards Thanks for the tips! Changed to "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added..." and "Doggett writes:" (new sentence). – zmbro _(talk) 15:17, 22 October 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) 15:35, 29 October 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 October 2021 [15].

---

Daisy (advertisement)

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Although aired just once, "Daisy" ad is referred to as one of the most controversial, yet most popular political advertisement. The ad was broadcast on September 7, 1964, with the intention of highlighting Lyndon B. Johnson's anti-war and anti-nuclear positions. However, the ad in-turn was interpreted as an attack ad on Barry Goldwater (Johnson's opponent in the election) and his positions on nuclear weapon. Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off, but it was frequently replayed and analyzed by network news. Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide victory, defeating Goldwater by a margin of almost 15 million votes. The Daisy ad is considered a significant reason was his victory, and is considered a turning point in political and advertising history. The article is almost re-written by me, it passed its DYK nomination, GA nomination and received its peer review comments from various editors. Thanks to all reviewers in advance. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• But the further reading section not so much. For featured article it is expected that if the source has something significant to add to the article, it should be cited, otherwise if there's nothing to add it probably isn't relevant enough or adding enough information to be worth putting in further reading. In particular the book that's specifically about the ad and not cited seems like a major oversight and something that makes me doubt this short article is fully comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe – In my opinion, the "Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds" book fits better in the Further reading section. Despite its title, the book is focused on Atomic theme and the 1964 election—i.e. the information already included in the Background sections of this article using various other sources. Despite the article's length (13,207 characters), I feel that all main aspects of the ad are covered. I have removed few books from the Further reading section which I feel aren't adding enough information related to the ad. Hope that addressed your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe – Just a note that the book is now added as a source. Do let me know if you have any further concerns. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It's good to see this important article at FAC, but I don't think that the FA criteria are met at present due to the sourcing issue noted above, as well as some other gaps:

• "It remains one of the most popular political advertisements" - popular seems an odd choice of word, and the reference here to a 1964 NYT story obviously doesn't support such a claim (is the ref really needed in the lead?)
  • Removed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The lead should note how Goldwater was perceived before the ad - like all really powerful political ads, this played on how he was seen
  • Added – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The principal work of Johnson's campaign" - this is a bit clunky
  • Rephrased – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Despite his relatively high polling numbers, Johnson felt safe to use rhetorical techniques to ensure his victory" - to be blunt, this doesn't make sense - what's the contradiction?
  • Tried to rephrase. Johnson had high polling numbers, and could have won the election even without this ad. Still, he felt safe to broadcast a controversial ad, when it could have easily backfired his campaign. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The article should discuss the anxieties Americans (quite rightly) were feeling about the risks of nuclear war at this time - it was less than two years after the Cuban missile crisis
  • Added a bit... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• It's also odd to not see Johnson's ruthless political tactics not discussed
  • Honestly, I didn't feel the need to include this. Johnson had very limited role to play in the creation or broadcast of this ad. Moreover, the ad wasn't intended to be an 'attack ad', but that is how it was interpreted. Wouldn't it go a bit off topic to discuss his political tactics, which isn't directly related with the ad? Please suggest... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• "visualize their child in the role of Corzilius" - awkward
  • Tried to rephrase. Is it still awkward? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The scholarly book on this topic noted in the 'further reading' section needs to be consulted - I'm not at all confident that the FA sourcing requirements are met without this. The blurb for the book states that it covers this topic quite broadly, so it may be possible to considerably expand or deepen the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Doing...
    • I have addressed this point by using the book as a source in the article, and adding various things which were not mentioned in the article or other books. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D – Thanks a lot for your review. I have attempted to address all your concerns, and replied above. As for the sourcing, I have added Robert Mann's book. I hope that addressed your concern. Requesting you to take a second look at the article regarding your leaning oppose. Feel free to suggest anything else which you feel would make the article closer to meeting the FA criteria. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – Is there something else I can do to improve the article, as I have already included Robert Mann's book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this, but I'm sceptical about how little you sourced from the academic book on this topic. The article also seems to be dodging around both the nature of Johnson's political tactics (he's famous for how ruthless his politics were) and how extreme Goldwater was. The ad was part and parcel of Johnson's tactics, and worked because Goldwater was seen as being genuinely dangerous. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – I have addressed these comments by making necessary changes in the article. Goldwater's extremism is mentioned by various instances in the article and I have added some more facts about his reaction to the ad. I feel that focusing more on his 'extremism' would make the article less neutral. Rest, I feel that the article covers all major aspects of a 60 second ad which was aired just once. Do let me know if the changes were not satisfactory. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Kavyansh.Singh, I'm not sure if the "Doing..." template is able to be used as, per WP:FAC, "[g]raphics [...] slow down load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." Pamzeis (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – Given that various changes have been made in order to resolve all your comments, and the article is again copy-edited, do you still lean towards opposing this nomination? Of-course, you can suggest more changes, which I'll surely consider. Please take a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Shifted to just 'comments' until I read this more closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

From a further read:

• "Goldwater defended himself by charging Johnson with making the accusation indirectly and contending that the media blew the issue out of proportion" - it's not clear what this means, and the wording is close to the source. What the source is is unclear as well.
  • Removed the part about 'making the accusation indirectly', and just mentioned that media interpreted that Goldwater would use nuclear weapons, which Goldwater defended by saying that they [media] 'blew the issue out of proportion'. Hope that its clear now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• The first and second sentences in the para starting with 'The Johnson campaign portrayed' don't flow well, and the second sentence doesn't seem to fit well with the last sentence of this para. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The second sentence and the last sentence were somewhat contradicting each other, so I rephrased both of them for increasing the flow. Johnson did had high polling numbers, but that wasn't because of his accomplishments as the president, but because of Goldwater and his extreme statements. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – Done both. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that revised wording is generally awkward and partly contradictory, and you haven't responded to my comment about what that source is. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – I have further rephrased that, and now it isn't contradictory. Please excuse if I am mistaken here, but as for the source, it is an essay from Kennesaw State University, Georgia, and should be reliable. However, I'll leave it to the source reviewer to decide the reliability. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Who is the author of the article, and what is their status? It reads like an undergraduate essay, though may be course material aimed at undergraduates. The wording in the article remains short of FA-level prose I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So I looked for any alternative source, but wasn't able to find any reliable newspaper/website/book/journal having the exact quote (with one impulsive act....) So I just removed the two sentences supported by that source, and merged the paragraph for flow. As for the article's prose, it was again copy-edited by a member of WP:GOCE on my request after your initial comments. I'll see what I can do, but I don't quite feel that it needs much work. Let's see what other reviewers think. Any further comments/suggestions to strengthen the prose are always welcome. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nick-D, sorry to press you, but should I be reading your comments as an "oppose", at least at the moment? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: no worries at all - I should have posted a follow up comment. I'm neutral at present: I still don't think that the prose is an example of our best work (the first para of the background section, for instance, doesn't flow particularly well), but it's not greatly problematic. I have have no objection to the nomination being promoted, but can't support it. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nick-D! Just wanted to say that it is completely fine. Your comments were really helpful, and they helped in improving the article. Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Grapple X

Some passing comments for now, hopefully will get a fuller review over the next day or so.

• Initially struck that we have a still from the ad in the infobox and then the full ad embedded later; given that the video's thumbnail is the same image as the screenshot is there any reason we couldn't just use the video in the infobox?
  • I just shifted the video from "Synopsis" section to the infobox. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• He often used various rhetorical techniques including the famous "Johnson Treatment" to gather votes in the senate—I don't think we need to get bogged down in too much detail but a brief gloss as to what the "Johnson Treatment" actually is would be a good idea, alternatively Lyndon B. Johnson#Senate Democratic leader has a meaty quote which explains it and could be linked to here (as "the famous "Johnson Treatment" perhaps) to provide context.
  • Linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• notably mocking his campaign slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the counter-slogan "In Your Guts, You Know He is Nuts"—Why is one of these in sentence case and the other in title case? No strong preference for either but surely they should both be consistent
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• who proclaimed, "We will bury you! Your children will be Communists!"—I'm not a fan of introducing a quote with a comma when one wouldn't be present if the quote wasn't in quote marks; but in any case as a multiple-sentence quote this should more properly be introduced with a colon per WP:MOS#QUOTE
  • Replaced with a colon – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• that "[at] the next level, [they could] really run a savage assault: a billboard, e.g., [could] be devised reading 'Goldwater in 64—Hotwater in 65?' with a mushroom cloud in the background."—There's a bit of legwork being done here to keep this quote flowing; is it better to quote less of it (just the proposed slogan perhaps) and paraphrase the rest?
  • Removed some less important part of the quote, and rephrased the rest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Vote for President Johnson on November 3[rd]" —The date formatting throughout the article doesn't use ordinals like "3rd", it's strange to interpolate one here if it's not necessary.
  • The ordinals are added here just because they were used in the advertisement too. Nothing much to do with date consistency in the article, as they are inside the quotes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The video just displays "November 3", which would be consistent with the rest of the date usage internally too. I think we could drop the "[rd]".
      • Yeah, the video just displays November 3, but the voice-over reads it as "November third". However, this is a minor point, and I can drop the "[rd]" if necessary. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Might be a good idea to attribute the Auden comparisons to who's making them; were they being drawn at the time or is this a retrospective analysis?
• Make no mistake, there's no such thing as a 'conventional nuclear weapon' .... To do so now is a political decision of the highest order. It would lead us down an uncertain path of blows and counter-blows whose outcome none may know.—Seems to be a four-dot ellipsis in there
  • Fixed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Eisenhower replied – "Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot."—fronting a quote with a dash like this is inconsistent with the rest of the article
  • Fixed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• they were trying to use what the voters already knew"—Missing a full stop here, whether you want it in or out of the quote marks.
  • Added – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• A minor point but the quote box in the last heading runs alongside a block quote which looks a little jarring; might be worth looking at moving the quote box template up a paragraph to remove that overlap. It should lose no context as it's clear what its connection is within the heading.
  • Shifted the quote box – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like we're good as far as information and historical context goes and there does seem to be a good breadth of sourcing; I can't comment to Nick-D's reservations on this but as a lay reader I was not struck by any obvious gaps in context. That said I think the prose strength is where we need most focus; I'm not a confident copy-editor at FA standards but I still found a few inconsistencies and errors, which should be easily addressed but likely aren't exhaustive. As this is still a fresh nomination and will likely have more breathing time here, it may be worth asking at WP:GOCE/R if anyone is able to give it a once-over. I'll take another look at it during the week to see if I can't come up with anything else. That said it's an interesting subject and I do enjoy these deep-dives on narrower fields. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Changes look good so far. I'll be able to return to this in more depth tomorrow hopefully. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Grapple X – Thanks for your comments. I had request User:Twofingered Typist to take a look at the article, and he was kind enough to help further copy edit the article. Do let me know of you have any further comments or suggestions. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Taking a second sweep through now.

• Lead mentions that the ad is also sometimes known as "Peace, Little Girl" but this isn't mentioned elsewhere--some of the sources use the name in their titles so it shouldn't be difficult to work this in.
  • Added in the prose that the ad wad initially known as "Peace, Little Girl" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• A few duplicate links; Corzillus' name and the Democratic National Convention both appearing more than once
  • Fixed. The tool now tells "No duplicated links were detected" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Looking at the mention of the 84 Mondale advert--I don't know that the information presented is enough to really justify a link; can we get a direct comparison drawn to this?
  • While researching, I got a perfect citation for this; added a line which further justifies why the ad was similar to "Daisy". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • We still don't mention an explicit comparison between the two; it's not enough to just describe superficial similarity without a source already making an explicit link between them (this is the same issue with the Auden material below). Looking at the Spokane Chronicle source, it does make direct reference to the Daisy advert, stating Mondale [...] seeks, without the subtlety of Lyndon B Johnson's 1964 ad etc. So the source does draw direct parallels here but we don't mention that. You don't need to directly quote the comparison but do use that source to state plainly that comparisons were drawn to the earlier advert when the Mondale one aired.
      • Now mentioned that the ad was compared with Daisy, for having similar nuclear themes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Still would like to see attribution when we're comparing the advert to that Auden poem, I'm not keen on doing that in wikipedia's voice.
  • Did I address this? If not, could you please further clarify this point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that "Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939", which reads: "We must love one another or die."" is stated as a matter of fact, and while yes we can see looking at the lines that they're extremely similar, we really should be attributing the comparison to someone who has made it in a reliable source. The source you've added, Taylor 1992, does this just discuss Auden's poem or does it explicitly describe the similarity between the two?
      • Ah, I see. The comparison of similarity between the ad and Auden's poem is discussed in this source, which says ""Decades earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson drew on another line from the poem [September 1, 1939] in his famous 1964 "Daisy" campaign commercial ..."". I have cited that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Speaking of Auden, in the excerpt quoted, it seems the italic emphasis on the last line is not in the original; since we already highlight it in prose I don't think we need the italics here
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls protesting it [the advertisement]""—I think rather than the aside here, we could go with "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls" protesting the advertisement"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that a miscount might be more appealing to the voters"—I know it's what's used in the source but given that we're talking about voting, I don't know if "miscount" is the best word here; perhaps "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that her mistakes might be more appealing to the voters."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• All for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X – Addressed all. Thanks for taking a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Grapple X – Hi! The previous 2 points raised were probably resolved. Any follow-ups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I still don't see the point regarding Auden has having been addressed but perhaps I wasn't explaining myself correctly. It's not that I would like to see more sources cited as footnotes, but that an actual attribution to the person making the comparison is what I feel we should be using. Instead of saying the two are alike, and then appending a citation, we need to point out that someone has made that comparison for us. You can name the writer specifically ("journalist Maureen Corrigan has noted that Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem...") or make the attribution in a passive voice ("It has been noted that...", although this should really be used if there's a wider sampling of sources than just this one). My point is that it is preferable to ensure that this kind of literary analysis is clearly being attributed to third-party sources and not to Wikipedia's voice (which is essentially the difference between stating a fact and citing it, and stating that someone believes a fact and quoting them). I hope this makes more sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @Grapple X – Yeah, and now done, both for Auden and Mondale ad. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X – Just a courtesy ping that are you in a position of either supporting or opposing this nomination. And of-course, feel free to add any more comments if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think at this point enough work has been done to address my concerns; I am prepared to support at this time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support. Much appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:01, 1 October 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

• only once officially - officially only once. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• DDB isn't used again in the lede, so no need to acronym it here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed the acronym from the lead. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• emphatically, "These - do we need a caps here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • We need. The quotations is a complete sentence.
• The lede should probably mention which party each candidate stood for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I now mentioned that Goldwater was a Republican. Mentioning the Johnson was a Democrat would be reluctant, as it should be self explanatory, given that DNC is listed as a client in the infobox. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• percent - per cent is two words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to '%' all over for consistency. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• According to Press Secretary Moyers, the White House switchboard "lit up with calls" protesting the advertisement; President Johnson called him and asked, "Jesus Christ, what in the world happened?" - this probably needs a bit of expansion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• said, "Make no mistake, - the caps for quotes happens a few times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I re-read the article, and have removed caps where they are unnecessary. Usually, direct quotations which start with a new sentence take caps. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot. - what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Rephrased. Tommyrot is inside quotations, so can't rephrase that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Ice-cream ad". - is this a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No, removed the quotations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• The WP:SEEALSO section is a bit of a mess. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe now its better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• History is currently listed as an unreliable source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace both citations from History with another sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi @Lee Vilenski – Thanks for the review. Any followups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:46, 1 October 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)} 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Lee Vilenski – Just a kind reminder for your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski – Thanks for your comments. I have addressed all of them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Spot check and source review — Pass

Version initially reviewed — this. Current Ref numbers may differ. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Actually, I reviewed this version Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a pretty heavy reliance on newspapers in this article, always a worrisome sign as they tend to be so-so sources (sensationalism, getting basic facts wrong etc.). And here they are even many contemporary ones... Beyond that the sourcing's OK.

I note some inconsistencies, with some sources having archives and others lacking them. Spot-check:

I again ran the IA bot, and it archived 6 sources. Do I need to manually archive the rest? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• 44: OK, but I see that it calls the ad "Daisy Chain"?
  • Honestly, I don't know why, when no other major source calls it "Chain"
    • Fair enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 47: OK.
• 63: OK.
• 8: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Just see the archived link. It has the complete article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "This page is not available on the web because page does not exist"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jo-Jo Eumerus – Well, the archived link does open for me. Do I need to send screenshots? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• 80: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • It's behind a paywall..... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 18: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.
• 13: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Just see the archived link. It has the complete article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 6: OK.
• 60: OK.
• 66: OK but the text is very similar to the source.
  • Nothing much to rephrase, but tried. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 11: Which part of the source supports this claim?
  • Ref#10 supports Goldwater voting against Nuclear Test Ban Treats, and this source supports the treaty passing from the Senate by a vote of 80-14. Quoting the source – ""The U.S. Senate votes to provide its advice and consent for ratification of the LTBT by a vote of 80 to 14."" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 53: OK.
• 25: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Currently, I don't have this book in physical format or PDF format. Neither is this available anywhere online, except the site, where it shows a few part of every chapter of the book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 5: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Just see the archived link. It has the complete article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 29: I don't see Ehrlich mentioned here, is that in the other source?
  • Yeah. In one of the three sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 65: OK.
• 77: OK.
• 82: OK.
• 40: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.
• 16: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.

Imma ping Ealdgyth for a second opinion on the various newspaper sources (WaPo, NYT etc.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Provided copy of all the articles you requested which I could. As for the newspapers part, many FA's that rely on newspaper, and I don't think that it is an issue, provided that the newspaper is a reliable one. I have always considered The New York Times and The Washington Post reliable sources. And I don't think that I have cited any newspaper, which doesn't has a Wikipedia article (i.e. all are notable enough). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Any updates on remaining spot-checks and sourcing? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do let me know if there's anything else I can do for the source review to be passed. Thanks for your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria – Can you please provide a second opinion on some newspaper sources (like The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.) used in this article? Are they unreliable to use? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If I understand Jo-Jo Eumerus correctly, the concern is not simply are these reliable yes/no, but are they overused. Those particular papers are not unreliable in general, and on a quick look I'm not seeing any that raise red flags. But in terms of overreliance, can you speak to your approach to locating sources for this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the way I would go about this is to first start with academic sources and to only use newspapers to illustrate how the topic was covered in contemporary coverage and to cover uncontroversial facts. But upon thinking more, I am not sure anymore that this article is overusing news sources so I'll retract this concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I tried. Most of the newspaper sources are used in the "Political usage and aftermath" section, discussing about the contemporary coverage of the ad. I initially tried to cite this article completely using books/journals. But, to comprehensively discuss about immediate aftermath and later uses, newspapers seems helpful. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Just a kind reminder that the nomination in nearing a month, but the source review and spot-checks are still pending. I have responded to all the previous concerns. Would appreciate if you can take a second look. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this passes the source and spot check reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis — support

Not a politics person... I will try not to screw this up.

• Unlink United States in the infobox per MOS:OL
  • Sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "was a controversial — does the ad not exist anymore? If it still does, I believe "was" should be "is" per MOS:TENSE
  • Here, 'was' is used as the ad has never been broadcast since 1964. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "point in political and advertising history" — firstly, I don't understand why "political" links to politics in the United States. The article suggests it's just political history in general. If not, then, I would suggest adjusting the article to highlight that it is political history in the US. If so, then unlink it because linking politics would be an overlink. Unlink "advertising" as well.
  • Unlinked both. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "advertising agency and [...] created the Daisy advertisement" — not keen on having "advertising" and "advertisement" in the same sentence...
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Immediately after its initial broadcast" — remove "initial" as redundant
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "several times by media, like the" — "like" seems a bit informal here. I'd suggest changing it to "such as"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I would recommend having only one to two paragraphs as this article has, by my count, approximately 13,000 characters
  • Well, the article was copy edited by User:Twofingered Typist, who suggested to break it into 4 paras, as every para deals with a separate subject. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kennedy" — is Kennedy the only predecessor? If so, add a comma after "predecessor"
  • Well, all the presidents who served before Johnson (35 men) were his predecessors, but Kennedy was his immediate predecessor. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not great with active and passive tenses but: "Johnson was seen by many as a ruthless politician effective at getting legislation passed." → Many saw Johnson as a ruthless politician effective at getting legislation passed. (To be more concise and, I think, convert to active tense)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll hopefully leave more comments later. Ping me if I don't reply within a week! Pamzeis (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pamzeis – Thanks a lot for taking a look. I have addressed/replied above. Feel free to add any further comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• Try not to have ad, advertisement, advertising, etc. in the same sentence
  • Tried to address this issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "although the true authorship is unclear" — authorship meaning writer? Creator? Visual effect creator? The last thing mentioned is the ad's visual effects though this sentence seems to suggest creator. I would appreciate something more specific.
  • I guess that the sentence structure quite clearly says that the 'authorship' here means authorship for visual effects. Any suggestion as to how to make it more clear without repeating it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I've reworded this but feel free to revert me if you dislike the wording.
• "with a young girl, three-year-old Monique Corzilius" — I believe "young girl" is redundant: "young" is vague and three-year-old conveys the meaning much better; I believe "Monique Corzilius" will already tell the reader that she is a girl.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "missile launch countdown" — linking countdown seems to be a bit of an overlink
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The blackness is replaced instantly by the bright flash" → A bright flash instantly replaces the blackness
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "scene then cuts to footage" — omit the redundant "then"
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "on November 3[rd]" — I do not believe the "rd" is necessary per MOS:BADDATE
  • Since you and Grapple X both have mentionned this, I have removed the '[rd]'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "September 7, 1964 telecast of" — add a MOS:DATECOMMA after "1964"
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "of David Bathsheba on The NBC Monday Movie. As the David and Bathsheba film" — can this possibly be reworded to avoid repetition of "David and Bathsheba"?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "film was based on a biblical story, it was considered a family film" → film is based on a biblical story, it is considered a family film (MOS:TENSE)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "that about a hundred million people" — "about" sounds a bit informal to me. Perhaps replace it with "approximately" or "roughly"?
  • Replaced with 'approximately'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Fears of nuclear war were related to the audience by a young girl eating ice cream." — I'm confused here. How can a young girl eating ice cream connect to fears of nuclear war? Can we elaborate here?
  • Done (hopefully) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Other notable commercials" — per MOS:OFCOURSE, try to replace or omit "notable"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Other notable uses of the" — same as above
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• The quote box in #Political usage and aftermath serves no clear purpose
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Another child actor, Birgitte Olsen, falsely claimed" — seems a bit sudden. Perhaps start with Corzilius and then talk about Olsen?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also remove the commas around "Birgitte Olsen"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "has maintained that position for years" — does she still? If not, replace "has" with "had"
  • Maybe, she still does. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Corzilius became known publicly as the "Daisy" girl after this" — Huh? After what? Olsen's claim?
  • After the initial broadcast in 1964. Newspapers referred to that girl as the "Daisy" girl. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping me after these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis I have tried to resolve all of your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I've actually never heard of this ad before… But best of luck with this article. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here :). Pamzeis (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support on prose from Extraordinary Writ

As promised, I am here (although inexcusably late). I'll probably focus on prose, although I'll comment on anything that sticks out at me. I'm a bit busy right now, so bear with me if I take a while to get this done.

• "to gather votes in the senate" – capitalize Senate.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "he got the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress" – "got" is an unusual word choice, even if it's not technically wrong. Perhaps something like "he successfully urged Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act" would be more natural?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the ratification of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" – the ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "eventually passed through the senate" – capitalize Senate, and "passed the Senate" might be more natural.
  • Somewhat done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "They emphasized on Goldwater's extremism"– remove "on"
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "shouldn't have strontium-90 or cesium 37" – I'm not a chemist, but I know that cesium-37 is physically impossible. Are you sure the source doesn't say cesium-137?
  • Yeah, its cesium-137. Corrected and linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• In note b, I would link punitive damages and remove the quotation marks.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Moyers later said: "It [Daisy ad] accomplished" – this should be "the Daisy ad", but it might be easier to get rid of the brackets and just write Moyers later said that the ad "accomplished its purpose..."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any rhyme or reason as to whether "Daisy" is in quotation marks or not? We have "created the Daisy advertisement" but "The "Daisy" advertisement has been used". I'm not sure it really matters which one you choose: all that matters is consistency.
  • Now, every instance, where "Daisy" is used to refer to the ad has quotation marks. Exceptions to this are places where Daisy is either inside direct quotations, or it refers to that flower which has very less to do with the ad, but still responsible for ad's title. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "telecast of David and Bathsheba film" – missing a "the". I'd recommend "of the film David and Bathsheba. (As an irrelevant sidenote, I'm baffled by why they'd think the story of David and Bathsheba would make a nice "family film", but that's neither here nor there.)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "...leaving their parents watching the film, and eventually manipulated into visualizing their child in Corzilius's role" – this sentence is a bit unwieldy grammatically. It might be clearer to split it up into two sentences: I'm having trouble thinking of a good way to do that, but I'm sure you can come up with something.
  • Tried ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off the air" – was the ad supposed to have been shown again? You don't really touch on that.
  • No, it was not supposed to be shown again. Johnson's advisors had already planned to pull back the ad after its initial broadcast, believing that it will be pointless to repeat it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I see. When you say "the ad was pulled off the air", that implies (at least to me) that it was supposed to be shown again (or was being shown again) but was cancelled. If all you mean is that it was only shown once, it might be clearer to just say that explicitly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. I just removed that sentence, as it has already been mentioned that the ad was broadcast just once. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Curious as I am about "Johnson's camping strategy", I presume I will only get to learn about his campaign strategy.
  • Oh... fixed! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "we all realized it [Daisy ad] would create" – in context, I think it's clear enough what "it" is referring to: the brackets aren't needed
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "told the Senate on September 16" – linking United States Senate is overlinking, in my view. (If you do really want to link it, you should do so earlier in the article, e.g. at "to gather votes in the Senate".)
  • Removed the link. I assume, most of the reader know what Senate is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• ""actual tommyrot" – might be worth a link to wikt:tommyrot
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks a lot for your comments. Addressed all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "one of the largest margins of the popular vote" – if you have the information, it might be worth giving the popular vote percentage.
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "compared with the "Daisy" due to" – remove the "the", or otherwise add commercial/advertisement after "Daisy".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "as one of their campaign ad" – one of their campaign ads. Also, this sentence uses the word "ad" three times: it's a bit repetitive.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "see the "Daisy" commercial" – these should be single quotes (since it's a quote-within-a-quote), although I notice the original source doesn't use quotation marks at all.
  • That isn't quote-within-a-quote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Although the MOS doesn't say so directly, I understand the usual convention to be that single quotation marks should also be used for a title-within-a-quote; see [16]. This obviously isn't a hill I'm going to die on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "after broadcast of the commercial" – after the broadcast
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the commercial. Though, she did not see the "Daisy" commercial" – perhaps combine these sentences, e.g. "the commercial, although she did not..." (Starting this sort of sentence with "though" strikes me as wrong, although I can't quite place my finger on why.) Also, it might be worth adding "herself" (or "for herself") after "'Daisy' commercial", just to be clear.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Another child actor Birgitte Olsen falsely claimed" – commas around "Birgitte Olsen"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "a "sequel" to the ad" – might be worth stating the message of this ad: arguing that Trump (like Goldwater) was unfit to have access to the nuclear arsenal.
  • Done. Though I didn't Done, although I didn't compared him with Goldwater, as most source don't explicitly compare him that way. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "which argued Trump's ability to handle nuclear weapons." – I think you're missing a word or two.
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "you know he is nuts" – it's a contraction (he's nuts) in the source.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "then-Soviet leader" – the then Soviet leader. (I think you can get rid of the hyphen too: a Google search suggests it isn't used.)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• On footnote 53 ("LBJ's 1964 attack ad..." in the WaPo), you seem to have reversed the author's first and last names.
  • Nice catch. Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we're just about there as far as the prose is concerned; I'll read it through again later and that should be all. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks again! I have addressed all your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• "over Republican Party's candidate Barry Goldwater" – "over the Republican Party's candidate..." or (my preference) simply "over Republican candidate..."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "John P. Roohe" – per the source, I think it's "Roche".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "25,033,262" and similar: per MOS:CURRENCY, inflation conversions should be rounded to two or three significant figures.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "instantly replaces the blackness" – missing punctuation
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "this treaty [Nuclear Test Ban Treaty]." this treaty [the Nuclear...]
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

None of those nitpicks keep me from giving my support on prose: there are things that I might word differently, but I think the overall quality is adequate. Thanks for your hard work on this important article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support and kind word; I have addressed few remaining points. And congrats for Melville Fuller! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

• @FAC coordinators: – With 5 reviews, three of which have declared their support and one review in underway, as well as a passed image and source review

1. May I nominate another article (Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign) for FAC?
2. Is this nomination on the right track? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting with 2, broadly yes, but it has some prose issues, as picked up by Nick-D above. The prose needs to be "of a professional standard" if the article is to be promoted. Re 1, I think that we need to see what Nick's current view is on the prose before we ok a further nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild. I'll surely wait to see what Nick-D thinks of the article, but I think that I have, at-least attempted to resolve their concerns. I'll be more than happy to address any further comments. Thanks! And as an aside note, thanks for promoting Draft Eisenhower movement yesterday, Gog! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, you may nominate another article. I haven't looked at Truman, but can I suggest that you take pains to ensure that "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" - which, of course, it may well be already. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild – I'll nominate it soon. I had opened a peer review page, which was reviewed by Hog Farm and DanCherek, and no major concerns were found. It has been copy-edited, so I think the prose may be fine. But can't predict what a reviewer will bring up; I'll be responsive to reviewer's concerns. Also, we now have 4 supports here ... Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ian Rose – How is this one looking? Been open for a month, with 5 supports, passed image review, passed source review with spot-checks, and one neutral. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I shall copy edit as I go. If you don't like, or don't understand, anything, could you flag it up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Following the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president in November 1963." Link "president and state which country you are referring to.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• What is a "local spot"?
• "network ads" - likewise.
  • For both the above points: Both local spot and network ads are advertisements. Local spots were mostly broadcast then on radios on a smaller level by local advertisers, while Network ads were broadcast during prime-time in network programs, on a larger level. See this. Do you suggest me to add this in the article? I think it would be a bit off topic, but we can summarize it in a footnote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have explained, I like to ask rhetorical questions. I know what they are, but many readers won't. Ideally an FA should be readily comprehensible without a reader needing to consult Wikilinks or footnotes. In the case of technical topics they may be a necessary evil, but I am not sure that we have to break many readers concentration in this case by referring them to a footnote in order for them to understand what they have just read.

Tried to incorporate in the prose itself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "kick off" is WP:INFORMAL.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The parent would eventually be manipulated into visualizing their child in Corzilius's role." This doesn't make sense to me. What in the sorce are you basing it on?
  • Somewhat rephrased. This source supports that.
• "Schwartz suggested the ad "struck a responsive chord among the voters". As Schwartz was one of the ads creators he would say that, wouldn't he? Is there no unbiased opinion which could replace this? If not, better to delete I think.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• What does "pulling the ad" mean? And is it WP:INFORMAL?
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Of the 1,800 replies received". Exactly 1,800?
  • Well, approximately. My bad ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider an in line explanation of "tommyrot".
  • Added "Nonsense" inside squared brackets. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• IMO the extended block quote on the ice-cream ad falls foul of MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Especially given the heavy use of quotations throughout the article.
  • I tried. Can you please check for any issues there. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Other commercials included "Confessions of a Republican" and "Eastern Seaboard". " Either explain each or replace with a more general statement.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be losing worthwhile content. How would you feel about something like 'The Johnson campaign ran further advertisments in a similar vein, including "Confessions of a Republican" and "Eastern Seaboard".'?

Looks fine. Added back. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "As of the 2020 presidential election, Johnson retains the victory with the highest popular vote percentage since the popular vote first became widespread in the 1824 presidential election." This does not make grammatical sense. "Johnson retains the victory"?
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "has maintained that position for years." Does that mean to this day? If so, say so. ('to at least late 2021'.)
  • Not sure. There are very few sources which even discuss this claim, with the most reliable one being cited. Removed the part ("maintained that position for years") – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "which argued Trump's ability to handle the nuclear weapons." I assume that this makes sense in US English. For a more international audience, perhaps 'which argued that Trump was incompetent to be in control of nuclear weapons' or similar?
  • Replaced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Corzilius said, "The fear of nuclear war ..." In Clinton's ad, or seperately?
  • In the ad itself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "when asked whether he approved the "Daisy" commercial". Do you mean that, or 'when asked whether he approved of the "Daisy" commercial'?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• The final block quote, see comments above on MOS:QUOTE.
  • This now remains the only "blockquote" in the article. Can try to incorporate it in the prose if you still insist, but I think its fine there. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• The two notes would seem to me better worked into the main text, especially the first one.
  • Added the first one. The second one is still bit off topic for the prose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild – Did most of them. Just suggestions/clarification needed as few points above. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking good. If I haven't responded to a point, assume I am content. Do shout if you don't like any of my copy editing. A couple of points I have come back on above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild – Thanks! Addressed the remaining 2 points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I am missing something, but @Ian Rose, how is this one going? We have 5 supports, 1 neutral, passed image/source reviews. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry KS, your earlier ping got lost amid a bunch of FACbot notifications to me. Can't see anything obvious needed, will walk through the article with a view to closure in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:21, 22 October 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) 13:47, 22 October 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) 16 October 2021 [17].

---

Battle of Oroscopa

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A short article on a brief conflict from 2,172 years ago. Despite the article's brevity I believe that I have extracted all the information from the sources that there is. An inconsequential conflict in itself, it is much commented on as the event which sparked the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. Enjoy. But in a constructively critical way. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering Sources?

Le Bohec moved.

• Harris: edition statement shouldn't be part of the title paramter

Gah! I've done it again! Fixed.

• Where is Warminster?

Apparently in Wiltshire. Is that a trick question, or did Iazyges get there before me?

The latter, although now I'm not sure that Cambridgeshire is strictly necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that it’s not, and have already removed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You've removed one; there is another. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

*rolly eyes* I need to put more water in it. Terminated. Thank you. 21:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• One UNESCO (publisher) is sufficient, don't need two.

Can't have too much of UNESCO, but if you insist ...

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks once again Nikkimaria, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

• Was the GA reviewer recently, have no further suggestions. I have added state locations to some refs without them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

• Hasdrubal the Boetharch is being linked here; that article states "He may have been the same Hasdrubal who was defeated at the Battle of Oroscopa in 151 BC" (emphasis mine)—granted that article is much less extensively sourced than this but is this uncertainty something we should be marking here perhaps?

Well now. In the sources Goldsworthy states they are different people; Bagnall, Miles and Harris unequivocally state that they are the same person. To my mind this gives a consensus to the "one person" school, and as Miles and Harris are specialists and Goldsworthy a generalist, and the former two academically considerably outrank the latter, I don't consider that we need to mention the single outlier as a minority opinion.

Fair. If not accepting them as one and same is the outlier then the Hasdrubal article is likely giving undue weight to it.

• The images both are freely licensed with clear histories as to their derivation. That said, the caption for File:Map of kingdom of numidia ancient algeria (cropped).png states this is "Numidia at its greatest extent"—is there a time frame for this? Given that the battle in question resulted from territorial gains it seems it may be concurrent with these events but if it is or isn't this would be useful to clarify

Good point. Caption changed.

Time frame is helpful but I would have retained the "greatest extent" part; even adding "in 150 BC" to the prior one would have been perfect.

• Strange to see no links to Numidian cavalry and, to a lesser extent, Carthago delenda est when these subjects come up, the former could easily be included while the latter might warrant a pipe (probably behind "systematically destroyed the city") for context. Just a nitpick, really.

Numidian cavalry. There is reference to the cavalry of the Numidians, and even a description of how they fought. The article on "Numidian cavalry" really relates to those who fought in the Second Punic War, and perhaps earlier. In the intervening 50 years the sources talk of increasing urbanisation, a more organised military structure and the army generally becoming more disciplined. So maybe there were "Numidian cavalry" in the 2PW and Wikipedia article sense and maybe there weren't. As the sources don't commit themselves, it would seem OR for me to.

Fair; the passage describing "cavalry charging and counter-charging while hurling javelins at each other" does seem to indicate a similar battlefield role though, I don't know that it would be OR so much as just an editorial choice not to, which is still fine.

Carthago delenda est. Don't get me started. I went through this repeatedly in the FAC of Third Punic War. Why should we mention an 18th century invention in order to make it clear that there is no record of any contemporary ever saying it in relationship to a war which is not the subject of this article? </rant>

Make sure you open and close any <rant> tags properly.

• Interesting to see another Carthaginian engagement decided by starvation—do any of the historians draw parallels to the Battle of the Saw?

Sadly not. Perhaps because it was so common.

• Other than this I'm satisfied with this article—brief, as you mention, but it does not feel incomplete, and the use of historical context makes it a perfectly self-contained read. Would take little to move to supporting this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grapple X and thanks for looking this over. I have responded above to all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see that anything I've raised has been addressed/responded to. Happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• " Rome ended... Rome's permission. Rome's ally" bit Rome-tastic.

I have tried to vary the language a little. Not sure how successful I have been.

• As with a lot of FAs I've reviewed lately, the first para of the lead appears to be a lead for the lead. You mention the heavy defeat and then go back and start explaining the events in brief. A lead for the lead seems odd to me.

I agree. Blame MOS:BEGIN and MOS:FIRST. "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where"; "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic". A FAC without an introduction to the lead is basically failing FAC criterion 2 "It follows the style guidelines". (Talk about unintended consequences. At least, I hope they are unintended.)

Ok, well that's how it is I suppose. A lead within a lead. How .... curious. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Frequently annoys me. Meeting that requirement while writing to a professional standard. Grr.

• The numbers of men, precisely hundred or precisely 1000, is that for real? Should these numbers be "around"/"approximately" or was there a thing that Carthage worked in base ten exclusively?

I can only report what the sources say. Obviously I don't believe the precision for a moment, but the sources all trot out the round numbers without caveats, so me introducing any would be OR. I have just rechecked them; even a retired field marshall, Bagnall, trots out the nice round numbers.

• In the first para you say "unknown location in northern Tunisia" but then you say "the Carthaginian-held town of Oroscopa" so this is a little odd for me. We know the town name, we just don't (apparently) know its precise geo-location.

Yep. That is exactly the situation. (Classicists spend a lot of time trying to identify the modern location of places named in ancient primary texts. And squabbling with each other about their preferences.)

So why in the lead wouldn't you say it happened in Oroscopa, rather than an "unknown location"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Both are true, but you're correct. Changed to "near the ancient town of Oroscopa in what is now northwestern Tunisia", which should work for most readers. They can find out in the main article that it is no more narrowed down than that.

• "tribal levies " what are they?

Rephrased.

• " was able to starve the Carthaginians into surrender." so a siege then?

Weell, not in my book. To me a siege is something that happens to a fixed location - a fortification or town - not an army. Or we would have the siege of Dunkirk and the siege of Bastogne (Battle of the Bulge) during WW2. If you think it helps reader comprehension I am not overly anti, but that's why I didn't use the term.

• "perhaps most, were killed" of them.

Added.

• "There Hasdrubal was condemned" I would put a comma after There.

Done. (It now reads as gibberish to me, but I have given up on comma wars - there are different schools and the debates can get tedious.)

Sorry, the addition of a comma means that "It now reads as gibberish"? Really? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Carthaginians were" you're using a different pipelink from the one you used in the lead for exactly the same displayed text, confusing.

In the main article I am referring to the foundation of Carthage, so a link to History of Carthage seemed appropriate. I have linked to Ancient Carthage at first mention of Carthage in the previous sentence. I can remove History of Carthage if you wish.

I suggest you don't have Carthage pipelinked twice but to completely different articles. How you cope with that is up to you, might need a little imagination in re-phrasing the prose to make it less easter egg I suppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "stripped them of their overseas territories, and some of their African ones." African ones were overseas as well...

Not from Carthage, which is in Africa. See the map in Aftermath.

• "At the end of the war which war?

Stated.

• "raided into territory" never heard "raided into", just "raided"...

66,000 examples [18]

3.7 mn examples of the present tense, the first from Oxford reference [19]

Amazing. I would imagine "raids into" would be standard, but "raided into" is most odd to my ear. How many hits for "raided territory"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

!,470! [20]. But possibly that's not quite what you meant.

Some support for its academic use - [21]

• "grandfather's old ally do you mean elderly or former?

Ah, yes. Neither. Removed.

• You start and end the battle para with the 151 BC claim, do we need both, or should that last sentence be moved up/merged?

Ah. I really, really take your point. But I can't move up that the battle and surrender, which I have not yet mentioned, to the start. And removing the date at the start is playing silly beggers with the reader. Is it that bad> The reader is told at the start that Numidian raids were happening in 151. At the end they are told that the key events happened in late 151. But I can see why you flag it up. Any thoughts?

So you're using the last sentence as a summary? It just strikes me as odd to do that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah. No, intended more to deliniate when it was all over by. Rephrased to express that a little more clearly. I hope.

• "Carthage paid off its indemnity in 151 BC" so within months?

Clarified.

• Several intrusive reference placements, never been a massive fan of mid-sentence refs when I firmly believe that readers can wait until the end of a clause before getting linked up to the info they might need.

And I get driven potty by cites which are wilfully not placed next to the information they support. Leaving a reader playing a guessing game at the end of a sentence. If cites are not to be tied to the information they support why not group them at the end of the paragraph, or section. Or all at the end of the article. That would certainly minimise reader distraction.

That's a little extreme, but punctuating sentences with multiple references about completely non-controversial matters seems a little absurd to me. If you're citing things which could be argued over, then fine, but most of your mid-sentence cites are nothing special and could easily just go at the end of clauses or sentences. Perhaps I'm used to reading scientific and engineering papers where we tend to assume a minimum level of intelligence in our readers who can think "well it must be in one of those three citations at the end of the sentence" yet prefer that to the horrible interruption of citations literally mid-sentence. There's no "guessing game". And we're looking for professional prose, not punctuated with [43][67] etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you caught me on a sore spot. I shouldn't have gone into rant mode. Plenty of my sources match cites to prose, regardless of whether that coincides with the end of a sentence, and I tend to think of them as professional.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I even said "end of a clause" so not even a sentence. Your extreme example wasn't what I was saying in any sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think that it was what you meant. It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum of removing the close attachment of cites from what they support. I did understand "clause" to mean sentence, so I will have a check to see if there is room for any movement and get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Evening TRM, and many thanks for that. Good, thought-provoking stuff. Responses to your comments above. Some I am afraid at some length. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That was very prompt. Thank you. More from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon TRM, all citations are now immediately after puncuation, which is hopefully satisfactory. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi TRM, do you have more to come on this? If not, do you feel able to either support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I re-read and it's fine by me, so I'm happy to go for support on this one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Gog, I'm a bit rusty but some suggestions follow...

• Hasdrubal wlinks to Hasdrubal the Boeotarch which redirects to Hasdrubal the Boetharch which says "not to be confused with the Greek boeotarch" - do your sources definitely use the extra "o" and missing "h" spelling for him?

My sources don't mention "Boetharch" or any variant thereof. Changed to avoid the redirect.

• In the mid-2nd-century - remove second hyphen?

Done.

• "by the Romans by the" - reword to avoid 2x "by the" (perhaps, "The Romans referred to the Carthaginians by the Latin word Punicus..."?)

Done.

• Many senior Carthaginians wanted to reject it, but - swap "it" to "the treaty" (or it could read as "it" referring to Senate's permission)

Done.

• it is unclear as to whether Masinissa - remove "as to"

Done.

• components of their shields and equipment - other equipment

Done.

• Masinissa's son, Gulassa redlink - is this an alt spelling of Gulussa?

Nope, it's a typo. Fixed.

• Hasdrubal was condemned to death - was he killed?

No. (I deliberately haven't gone into the post-battle story of either commander.)

• massacre probably were probably over by late - probably remove a probably

Oops. Done

• faction within the Roman Senate that had wished - is overlink intentional?

No. Fixed. Thanks.

• the city of Carthage - wlink?

Done.

• 50,000 of them, who were sold into slavery - in lede you have "death or enslavement of its population."

True. And? "... and killed its inhabitants. Only on the last day were prisoners taken ..." in the body would seem to cover this.

• The formerly Carthaginian territories became - former? (would be adverb if say verb 'held' was used?)

Changed.

• The location of Oroscopa, other than that it was in what is now northern Tunisia is not clear. - I think a comma is needed after Tunisia

Done.

• there are 2 years with non-breaking spaces (201 BC and 151 BC) - remove those or add to rest for consistency

Done.

• northwestern v south west of - format

Standardised.

• regardless of the treaty - maybe disregarding? (they basically mean same but disregarding sounds more wilful?)

Erm. You are stating that they mean the same thing, then suggesting a change because they don't. And to me regardless sounds more wilful. Not that I really care, but I thought that you may want to reconsider given your internal contradiction - let me know if you would still prefer the change.

Ha, internal contradiction? My head is full of them!

That'll do for me, JennyOz (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent stuff JennyOz, as usual the article is the better for your dropping by. Is there more to come? Per your edit summary. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

All good thanks Gog, happy to add support. JennyOz (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Support and suggestion from Chidgk1

• Combine the 2 maps and add Rome. Remove siga and cirta

Nice idea, but unfortunately both are pre-printed maps - I can either use them as they are or not at all. Sadly I have not been able to find any maps of this period which are better. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it would be an easy job for the wizards at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop to knock one up. As a European I know where Rome is but I expect a lot of southern hemisphere people do not, so I think it would really help anyone completely new to European history. Also adding Vaga might inspire some keen archaeology student to try and find Oroscopa. Also a good image coming up in Google search might lead someone to click through to the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found this comment useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

@Ian Rose:@FAC coordinators: Permission to nominate another? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 4 October 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) 22:29, 16 October 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) 24 September 2021 [22].

---

SpaceX Starship

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

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

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

Fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Progress by CactiStaccingCrane (talk):

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

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

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

Comments by Epicgenius

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

Thanks! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Lead:

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

Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Done, to is planning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Done, CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently rewriting the lead Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Development history:

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

2005. Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Done, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Added the ladder suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Dracophyllum wades in

Hia, comments to follow.

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

What do you mean? CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Don't worry.

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

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

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

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

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

Added. Forgot to ref lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Done, to "the spacecraft" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Spaced CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Finished! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

Lean oppose from Urve

I believe this is the version I reviewed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed, grammar issue CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

Deleted the superlative and weasel words. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

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

• the collective launch system ambiguously named - this is editorializing

Removed "ambiguously".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding sources. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

Seperated. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Will check later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

Will find the sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

• This variant is specialized - tense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, will finding sources CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

No, deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Spicy

I have some general concerns about WP:FACR #1e, stability. The article was nominated at FAC by a relatively new editor almost immediately after its promotion to GA. That's not a reason to oppose, of course, but it's a reason to be hesitant, considering that even carefully prepared articles by experienced editors often encounter difficulty at FAC. The article has undergone an almost complete rewrite [23][24] since it was nominated. It currently contains ten 'citation needed' tags. Granted, these were added by the nominator as part of the process of improving the article, but if such extensive revisions to the sourcing are needed during a FAC, IMO it is not prepared for FAC and would be better served by a process such as WP:Peer review. The comments from reviewers above point out serious fundamental issues, not minor nitpicks and polishes. I appreciate the nominator's hard work on this article but I don't think it can be considered stable at this time. Spicy (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

FAC cancel request

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

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

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 October 2021 [25].

---

Suzanne Lenglen

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, a French tennis player from the 1920s. She won Wimbledon six times in singles and six times in doubles, and may have won many more major titles if she didn't retire from amateur tennis in 1926 at just 27 years old to turn professional. She never lost a match in Europe after World War I, but did lose the only amateur match she played in the United States. Although Lenglen is no longer as famous as the current top players, many fans of tennis today will recognize her name from Court Suzanne Lenglen at the French Open. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments the infobox photo is fantastic but I can barely see what she looks like in it, which is the purpose of an infobox photo. I suggest moving it further down and using this one instead in the infobox. Skimming through the article it looks well-written and researched, but one thing that seems to be missing is any information about how her death was received? Did France and the tennis world publicly mourn for her? Was her legacy immediately analysed and reassessed?

It's weird that even her death itself is written about so little. When I saw her dates in the opening sentence I went looking for what happened (there's nothing in the lede) and because she died so young I thought there would be a section or sub-section about it, but I had to scroll around for a bit before I found it in Personal life.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi indopug, that's a good point. Besides where she was buried, the book also mentions where her funeral was held and lists some of the famous people from her life who attended. (I could add that?) I think the funeral was open to the public, but it doesn't say how many people were there. My impression from the books is that her death was relatively ignored. Part of the reason for that is because she had not really been in the public eye since she retired. The other reason is that her successor, Helen Wills, was making a comeback at Wimbledon the week she died and the tennis world was more focused on that. The New York Times obituary summarizes her life, but her early death did not change how she was perceived. The French obituaries are similar, I think. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I zoomed in more on the infobox photo. I didn't want to use the other photo of her sitting on a bench because it is not so representative of how she looked as a tennis player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Quick comments Not a lot to say at this point, but some issues:

• Source 4: 61 pages is way too long. Break it down.
  • This section of the book is a list of all of her matches (like a WTA profile that recent and current players have). I shortened the instances when it was being used for specific events in the prose. I don't think it makes sense to shorten it for the career statistics section or the infobox, since the information in those sections spans her whole career (e.g. the timelines of her Grand Slam results). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Similarly, fn 87 and 88 are pushing it. (For an inconclusive discussion about this, see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers)
  • Shortened these. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Reference required for the Major Finals section.
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Consider adding the Olympics to the Major Finals
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• fn 78 should be pp. 118–123; fn 86 should be pp. 619–620 (MOS:PAGERANGE: number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between)
  • Fixed these, and another similar instance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to argue with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Giving another lookover Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Okay - looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. I did tighten the language quite a bit with my first read-through before this FAC. Looking now I can't see any obvious prose-clangers but I am often not adept at picking things up after first read-through. Still i think this is in striking distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

Quite a star worthy of quite a long article. Little to remark, mostly minor points:

• Suzanne Rachel Flore Lenglen[6] -- Keep the lead free from references. If you add birthname = to the infobox you can add the ref there
  • I think it's typical to put this type of citation here. I've been told before not to put full names in the infobox when the only difference is that the person has middle name(s). Alternatively, I could write her full name at the start of the "Early life" section and cite it there? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Both methods would do the job. You can choose or do both at the same time. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Moved to the early life section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• 8 Grand Slam singles titles, 21 in total, and 10 other World Championship titles.[c] -- this is confusing me. This feels like too much detail for the lead. Can't we just say 21 titles in total, of which 8 Grand Slam singles? And just leave all the detail and footnote for the body of the article.
  • Re-worded to: "winning 8 Grand Slam titles in singles and 21 in total. She also had 4 other World Championship titles in singles and 10 in total." The singles count is more important than the total. The World Championship titles are separate ("sort of", it's confusing). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• In doubles, she was undefeated with her usual partner Elizabeth Ryan -- they were defeated the first time they played, so don't think we can say it like this
  • Handicap events don't count and are more like exhibition matches. (Also, "doubles" is a different discipline than "handicap doubles".) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, but then I would recommend you add a note further down where you describe the handicap doubles event in Monte Carlo, explaining that handicap matches don't count. As it stands to the uninformed reader it looks contradictionary. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Added! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• triple crown -- I would explain what that means rather than depend on the link
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• What is missing in the first paragraph is her number of titles in the doubles and mixed doubles, and the number of Grand Slams of each.
  • The 21 in total means 21 between singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. Changed the wording of that sentence to clarify that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Lenglen's father attended tournaments on the Riviera circuit, where the world's best players competed in the first half of the year. -- the word tennis should go in here somewhere
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• was to Suzanne Amblard -- was to Amblard
  • There were two Amblards. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Her volleying ability was instrumental -- according to whom?
  • The book states it as a fact. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• after her partner suffered an ankle injury -- who was that?
  • It wasn't anyone important. In the interest of space, I left out all of her doubles and mixed doubles partners who were only mentioned once, and weren't particularly significant. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The final was the shortest in Wimbledon history -- is it still?
  • Yes, changed "was" to "remains". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• signed a $50,000 contract -- what's this in today's $?
  • The book doesn't convert to a present-day value. I think it would be WP:OR (and subjective) to do it myself. The comparison to Babe Ruth's salary is meant to put it into context. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I have seen a few FACs converting old money into current. There is a standard way of doing it, although I have never used it myself. I will have a look later to try and find it, but perhaps some of the other reviewers or coordinators could enlighten us. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Found it. There is a template for this: Template:Inflation Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Cool! Added, thanks!! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• an offer of 200,000 francs -- give conversion to today's $ so we can compare with later offer
  • I put the conversion in a note. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• a one set match -- a one-set match?
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• 4000 .. 13,000 -- is it a conscious decision to use , in the latter but not in the former? Would be nicer to have a , in all big numbers throughout the article I think
  • Standardized. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• in 1927 and kept that ranking through the end of 1933 and nine of the next twelve years -- next is a bit ambiguous: is it from 1933 onwards?
  • Rephrased to "kept that ranking for the next six years and nine of the next twelve overall until 1938" (It's from 1927 though 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Lenglen completed three Wimbledon triple crowns – winning the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles events at a tournament in the same year -- while I agree the term should be explained, this is way too late. Should be at the first use of the term in the lead and then again the first use in the body
  • Repeated the definition at the first instance in the body. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• including the 1919 Wimbledon final against Dorothea Lambert Chambers -- use last name only if person already introduced
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• nd her first match against Molla Mallory, -- same
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• at a cost of up to 500 francs -- give conversion to today's $
  • Repeated the conversion in a note. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• equivalent to about $44 in the United States -- not sure if this is today's $
  • clarified "then". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• one in 1947 another from 1950 to 1951 -- add a comma?
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Gibson played in a series of warmup matches for the Harlem Globetrotters, an exhibition basketball team in the United States. -- while interesting, I think we're straying off topic here.
  • I think if I only clarify what Betz did, the reader would wonder what Gibson did. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• short-sleeved and calf-length pleated blouse -- I'm the opposite of a fashion expert but I thought blouse is for the top, quite far removed from the calf
  • Good catch! It should be "skirt". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Performance timelines -- I'm not sure what a W means that is not in green. The legend does not explain the colour coding
  • Added an explanation below the key. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Books: a few publishers are missing location of publisher
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The one bigger issue I have is about the overall use of references: It is far easier for anyone doing a source review if you put more specific references throughout the paragraph, instead of just at the end of a dozen sentences. For example, [24][25]: these page ranges are quite wide. Better to make them more specific. But check other paragraphs as well.
  • Split up a bunch of these. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Edwininlondon! I replied to everything above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I Support. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped)_3.jpg needs a US tag
  • Fixed the tags on this one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• File:Match_of_the_Century_-_False_Ending.jpeg: there's some discussion of the significance of this photo in the image description, but the article itself, not so much. Suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag.
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Switched to just the PD-anon-1923 tag. (The authors Herbert Fox and/or Frederic Glover have unknown death dates.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, but there is an author credit to a different partnership? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I realized I meant to tag it as PD-1923 / PD-US-expired (fixed that!). Maull and Fox were succeeded by H. Fox and Glover, but the company name stayed the same. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

It seems like the sources are consistently formatted. Is Collins, Bud the same as Bud Collins? Same for Helen Hull Jacobs and Helen Jacobs? As far as I can tell the sources seem reliable but this isn't my area of expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, did you want them linked? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

iff they are the same person, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Linked those, and a few others. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 2 October 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) 22:03, 17 October 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) 5 October 2021 [26].

---

Dexter's Laboratory

Nominator(s): — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a Cartoon Network original animated television series that aired in the USA from April 27, 1996 (pilot shown in 1995), to November 20, 2003. This article has been previously nominated as a Good Article on August 20, 2008 (by yours truly, albeit a much younger and naive version), and January 16, 2013 (again, by me, but a more refined version of myself), for which the nomination was accepted. During the time between the first GA review and its initial promotion, a peer review was conducted on or around July 27, 2012, that found the article in 'reviewed' status. The article was officially promoted to GA status on or around January 16, 2013, which is shortly before the animated "banned episode" "Dexter's Rude Removal" aired for the first time on public broadcast. In the 8+ years since, I have worked tirelessly to maintain the article and include any reliable sources that verify the claims that were previously unattributed. It is in my sole discretion that the current Dexter's Laboratory article should meet the FA standards and would merit its own nomination into the FA category. In the event that one or more users should protest my nomination on the grounds that the article does not measure up to quality standards as set arbitrarily by the WP community, I will hereby offer my services as an editor to relinquish those claims and restore the article I am nominating to the status of a FA. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder for 100cellsman

I'll review this article soon. 웃OO 06:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment. It appears that there are a number of scholarly works discussing this series that are not used in this article - for example Stockwell 2004 and Cornelio 2015. Could you speak to your approach to searching for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure! I did a lot of online research around early-mid 2011 by browsing The Free Library, the Google Newspaper Archive, Google Books, and reliable sources such as The New York Times to gather press releases, reviews, and interviews. About a year later, I began searching through LexisNexis and EBSCO, which were provided freely from my university, and added as many sources as I could find. The awards and DVD release sections are made up of mostly primary sources, Amazon, and TVShowsOnDVD.com links because that was the most concise and complete means of adding citations I could find. As mentioned in my (admittedly long-winded) nomination above, the series was in the public spotlight shortly after reaching GA in early 2013, and additional sources were added to the point that the banned episode was split into its own article. I continued to search for and include more sources to the page for another year or so until I became burned out on it and didn't think there was any work left to be done. The Scipedia link looks interesting and seems to have the series as a primary topic, but the other one is unfortunately behind a paywall and only mentions the series in passing in the abstract. Thank you for sharing. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This has reached the three week mark and has attracted little attention and no support for promotion. Absent any indication that a consensus to promote may be forming I am afraid that this nomination is going to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 October 2021 [27].

---

I'm Goin' Down

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My first foray into FAC in 2.5 years, I brought this article about the Bruce Springsteen song to GA in 2016 and have expanded it in the last nine months, largely from Newspapers.com as well as some online books, etc. The article was recently peer reviewed. Special thanks to DMT Biscuit, Aoba47, Ojorojo, and Ceoil, who all provided comments there or elsewhere and/or copy-edits. Looking forward to all feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

All images are appropriately licensed (or have appropriate fair use rationales) and are used in accordance with image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Wehwalt! Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• This is a rather nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. The two subsections the Personnel section presents the information slightly differently. The Musicians subsection puts the names first followed by what they played, while the Technical team subsection puts the role first and then their names. I would think it should be consistent one way or the other.

I only have one minor comment. Great work with the article. I had participated in the peer review, where my comments have already been addressed. Let me know when this point has been addressed, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Aoba47. I've made the request you suggested. Is this what you had in mind? Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. That does answer my request. I support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from DMT

• My relevant, now resolved, comments can be found on the peer review. I'm satisfied that this article passes the necessary criteria. Good work. DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, DMT! Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I really like this album, but this song isn't one of its high points. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• The last sentence of the lead's first para reads awkwardly
• "lyrical themes of sexual frustration and loneliness; these topics contrast with a humorous slant that some critics have observed." - awkward, not least as it's not clear why these topics contrast (lots of accounts of sexual frustration are humorous)

• I'm very happy to change the above two but am still thinking of the best way to handle them. If any suggestions happen to jump out at you, I'd be glad to hear them, but otherwise, no worries, I'll figure something out, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I've tentatively trimmed the detail about "Pink Cadillac" from the lead. Does that help reduce that sentence's awkwardness? Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• I've also now reworked the sentence in the lead mentioning sexual frustration and humor. Moisejp (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• " such that "I'm Goin' Down" and other band tracks from May were temporarily shelved" - also awkward

• Changed. Better?

• Do we know why Springsteen picked this song over Pink Cadillac?

• No, we don't. The impression we get from Marsh's account of the recording sessions and the selection process of the track-listing is Springsteen was undecided until the last minute about which song he liked better, and at one point he had tentatively decided on "PC" and then at the very last minute he changed hi mind and went with "IGD". Except for "No Surrender", which was added at the very minute for a different reason, I guess these were the two songs he was the least sure he wanted to include—but that's not stated explicitly anywhere, that's just the impression one gets. Moisejp (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and by other critics, a rockabilly feel" - awkward wording

• Changed, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• There's quite a bit of over-use of semi colons. I've fixed three sentences so far that were over long, and best split into separate sentences. The second sentence of the 'Legacy and cover versions' is a particularly bad offender, but I'd suggest splitting every sentence where you've used this construction as the material will work better as shortish sentences.

• I believe I have removed all semi-colons now. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• What's the story behind this being picked as a single? It seems unusual to release six singles from twelve song album. Presumably the label was looking to get as many sales out of what was a huge hit as possible.

• Well, Born in the U.S.A., Thriller and Hysteria had seven singles each, and Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 had eight. As you say, I think it's normal when an album is selling really well for the record company to just try to keeping the momentum going as long as is sustainable. If I scour my sources, I might be able to find some commentary about that somewhere in relation to Born in the U.S.A.. Let me know if you think this would be worthwhile to pursue. Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I really like the 'Live performances' section, and wish that this approach was more common (it's much better than the usual tedious list of live TV shows the song has been performed at that turn up in articles).

• Thanks very much, I'm glad you like the section! Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Each sentence in the 'Legacy and cover versions' discussion of assessments should cover a single assessment. Lumping multiple assessments together separated by commas or semi colons doesn't work, and makes this heavy going to read.

• I have broken them all up, except tentatively have left the Rolling Stone and June Skinner top-100 rankings together, as these feel strongly related and good to join together for occasional variety of sentence structure. But if you would like to see this broken up as well, just let me know. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The 'Reduced radio airplay following September 2001 attacks' section could be covered in a sentence somewhere - it uses a lot of words to not say much, to be honest.

• Sure. I have no particular attachment to this content and agree it's the most peripheral section. But if I'm going to chop it down, I'd be inclined to remove it altogether instead. I'm worried it would be hard to include enough context to make this part of the story self-sufficient in one sentence. And if the content is not in its own section, I honestly don't know where I'd put it without it being a little out of place. Let me know if you agree removing the entire section is the best solution. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• A sentence could probably be worked into the preceding section, but other than that removing this material wouldn't be much of a loss. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Has Springsteen discussed this song in any depth? It seems that he's not keen on it from how infrequently it's played at concerts (despite his famously long set lists).

• I haven't been able to find any in-depth discussions by him about "I'm Goin' Down". "Not keen on it" may be strong, but the author of this article notes briefly that Springsteen seems "somewhat ambivalent" about it [[28]]. Interestingly in his introduction to Born in the U.S.A. in the lyrics book Songs [[29]], Springsteen talks (in most cases admittedly briefly) about all the songs on the album except two, one of which is "I'm Goin' Down". Marsh [[30]] describes how midway through the two years of recording sessions for the album, it was one song that Springsteen had seemed to forgotten about or at least lost interest in, but manager Jon Landau's insistence that it (and "I'm on Fire" and "Cover Me") were great songs helped to bring these back into the pool of tracks eventually considered for release. These are hints of his ambivalence. If you think such kinds of hints would be useful details to include, I could do so (not the detail about him not talking about it in Songs, but the other two details above, and anything else I might be able to find along this vein). Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• The article's sourcing seems almost entirely limited to news stories and websites. Is there really no coverage of this topic in journal articles and books? Such sources might be useful in fleshing out the material on the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Although the song has its fans, the song itself was not a cultural phenomenon, but the album it came from was. So I think it's normal that the commentary available for the song is widespread (lots of mentions) but mostly short descriptions in each, and these are especially common in newspaper reviews that came out at the time of the album's release, and on websites. Among book authors, Marsh, Himes, Heylin, Guesdon, and Sawyer do give a limited amount commentary about the song, but it's not in-depth discussions. OK, yesterday I looked in JSTOR and found two journal articles that mention the song. "Where Is the 'Promised Land'?: Class and Gender in Bruce Springsteen's Rock Lyrics" has three or four sentences about the song as part of a larger discussion about "the disillusionment wrought from failed relationships contributes to [men's] dashed dreams. 'I'm Goin' Down' illustrates the deterioration of a desirable sexual relationship. The man feels he is being 'set up' by the woman just so she will be able to reject him. In a sexual sense, the man failed; in a class sense, the woman acted as an obstacle in his quest for the liberation of the tedium of a working class existence." I can try to fit in something about that in the Lyrics and themes part, but I'm not sure how well it will add to (or disrupt from) the current flow of ideas. Then there is only one sentence mentioning the song in the journal article, "Rebuilding the "Wall of Sound": Bruce Springsteen and Early 1960s American Popular Music": "'I'm Goin' Down' is four-chord double-entendre with an infectiously catchy chorus, on which Springsteen utilizes the clearer 'pop voice' used to such hit-making effect on 'Hungry Heart.'" I will try to fit something about this as well. Moisejp (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• About "the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it", Springsteen says in the book Songs that "Born in the U.S.A." is one of the best songs in his career and that "there was something about the grab-bag nature of the rest of the album that probably made it one my purest pop records". Also "many of these songs found themselves in concerts with my audience. My heroes, from Hank Williams to Frank Sinatra to Bob Dylan, were popular musicians. They had hits. It was a direct way you affected culture. It lets you know how powerful and durable your music might be." Marsh also gets into lots of details about that, about how Nebraska was a very personal album for Springsteen, and (the "IGD" article vaguely hints at this) Springsteen felt close to that album circa 1983 and was considering going in that direction again for his next album. But it was Plotkin and especially Landau that convinced Springsteen that seeking a wider audience and affecting culture had value, even if the songs were not as directly personal or meaningful to him as the Nebraska songs were. So that's the role of "IGD" (but most of the other songs too) as parts of "the grab-bag" of pop songs, and as potential hits that directly reached and appealed to his audience. But of course it's not just "IGD" that that's true for, and this article is about "IGD". But if you think it's helpful to provide more of this background hinting at the song's role, along with the other songs, I can. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• That looks fine. This obviously isn't one of Springsteen's iconic songs, so the amount of commentary is likely to be accordingly modest. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thanks so much for looking at the article, and for your comments and copy-edits. :-) I'm going to work through responding in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nick-D, I believe I've replied to all of your comments above. Let me know you know if you have any additional thoughts in response to my replies. You asked whether there was no analysis in journal articles. As I say in my reply above, I've found one journal article ("Where Is the 'Promised Land'?: Class and Gender in Bruce Springsteen's Rock Lyrics") that only has three sentences strictly about "I'm Goin' Down" itself, within the context of a larger analysis of themes in Springsteen's work as a whole. I've tentatively added a short paragraph to the end of Lyrics and themes about this. I'm not sure it's not undue weight for one person's views, but I've put it in for now in case you think it benefits the article. I'm also happy to take it back out if it's not beneficial. (The mention of "IGD" in the other journal article I mentioned above—"Wall of Sound": Bruce Springsteen and Early 1960s American Popular Music"—is so short that I haven't added it. The only detail that might be worthwhile there could be the mention of Springsteen's using a "pop voice" for the song.) Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

One more comment:

• "Other critics have described a rockabilly feel." - this is a bit clunky Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thanks for your replies and additional comment.

• I've reworked the "rockabilly" bit. If it happens you don't like this version, I have two more alternate versions at User:Moisejp/sandbox11#Rock,_country,_rockabilly. Or happy to rework it some more if need be.
• I vastly shortened the Clear Communications part and put it in the Legacy section. It's two sentences, not one, but it's still much shorter than before, and I feel the details that are there are all useful for explaining context. If you feel it's still too long I think I really will just remove the section altogether—partly because any shorter would make the context less clear, but also because I'm a bit against one-sentence paragraphs, and I don't think it fits at all in any of the existing paragraphs.
• I think when you wrote "That looks fine" above you meant the amount of commentary I currently have is fine, and no additions needed. But let me know if you meant it sounded like a good idea about my suggestion that I could theoretically add something about the role of "IGD" (and other songs) as being "a grab-bag of pop songs" and potential hits that directed reached out and appealed to his audience—as "a direct way you affected culture. It lets you know how powerful and durable your music might be". Moisejp (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I've read through the changes again, and made some tweaks. While I suspect that there's scope to further polish the prose, I think that the FA criteria are now met. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nick-D, thank you very much for your review, edits, and support. Moisejp (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've checked the sources, they seem to be adequate although I note the wide use of generic news sources. I was wondering about the lack of academic sources but I see that Nick-D already asked and got a convincing answer. Source formatting seems to be consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review, Jo-Jo. I appreciate it. Moisejp (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil

Only just reading through - a third of the way there.

• Lead: maybe "undecided" rather than "in flux", which is very 1980s phrasing

• Let me think about this one. I'm happy to change "in flux", but I think "undecided prior" is a little unclear. There may be another good phrase out there. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Trying out "Although Springsteen had changing ideas about the songs to put on the album, "I'm Goin' Down" was ultimately selected for inclusion." What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• The caption for File:I'mGoinDownMeadowlands052109.JPG is ridiculously long for a very narrow image.

• I've reworked this text and moved it to the main narrative. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Under pressure and to buy time, by May 1982 the band had begun to record other material he had written - out of curiosity, earlier of more recent material?

• From memory, I believe "Darlington County" was originally written in 1978?; "I'm on Fire" was a new song improvised in the studio in May, and "Glory Days" and "I'm Goin' Down" were also new songs. Actually versions of "Working on the Highway" (originally called "Child Bride"), "Born in the U.S.A." and "Downbound Train" were on the January 1982 cassette. (And he recorded a bunch of other songs in May that weren't released on BITUSA.) The impression is that "Working on the Highway" and "Born in the U.S.A." were somewhat substantially reworked; about "Downbound Train" I don't know. But also the impression is that even if they were on the cassette, "Working on the Highway" and "Downbound Train" were not among the core, personal songs that were part of the statement that he was trying to make with Nebraska. Anyway, do you think what I have right now is misleading by possibly suggesting none of what he recorded in May was from the Nebraska pool of songs? Hmm, but I'd argue it doesn't actually say "the Nebraska pool of songs", it says "the Nebraska songs", with three examples on that album ("Atlantic City", "Nebraska", and "Mansion on the Hill"). So I think "other material he had written" is probably safe to mean "other material, which was not on the Nebraska album". Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

8Didnt make it to, not written by? Ceoil (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, Ceoil, not totally sure what you're asking here? Moisejp (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I meant (cough), should "written by" be replaced with "didn't make it to Nebraska". Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a really strong opinion, but I'm concerned that might break the timeline, because the article says a bit later "temporarily shelved "I'm Goin' Down" and other band tracks from May" to clarify that the songs didn't make it onto Nebraska. But, that being said, there may already be examples of mini-breaks in the timeline due to the complicated nature of the events that happened, I'm not sure. I don't know, if you feel strongly that your suggestion would be an improvement, I'll trust your judgment. Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• In his 2012 book detailing the singer's recording history, Clinton Heylin wrote that

• Somebody else suggested this longer description during the PR, for extra context I guess. I don't have a strong opinion. I'll remove it. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Eventually, Springsteen decided to release ten songs from the January cassette directly as the Nebraska album. Tense. Eventually Springsteen released...and drop "directly", unless you mean on an indie label or under DIY ethos

• Changed. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• A rock song,[6][19] would drop this completely, and re tense, has been described by Uncut contributor John Lewis - is described

• Have changed "has been" to "is".
• I added "rock song" because I was worried readers not familiar with the album/song might take away from the next two sentences that it was essentially a country song, or essentially a rockabilly song. But it's a rock song even if it has country/rockabilly influences. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• fine, but would rephrase to move the two! citations away from those three words, as it looks like overkill. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I dropped one of the two refs, does that help. :) I kind of don't want to make it any longer, like "'I'm Goin' Down' is a rock song" or anything, and if I can keep the idea expressed in three words, I'd really like to. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• How about something like "Essentialy a rock song, some critics have noted x & y influences Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Ceoil, it would be easy to add "Essentially" to the start, that's definitely no problem. I'm not sure whether you're also proposing to condense the next two sentences. I'm open to it except, the current two sentences were the result of lots of back-and-forth between me and Nick-D. I'm a little bit hesitant to break the careful balance the two of us reached. But, if you have some awesome specific wording you are quite keen on and would like to throw in there, I wouldn't stop you. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reviewers have commented on the contrast between the song's upbeat music and sad lyrics - can you tie-in "upbeat music" with the tonality of the "A–E–F#m–D" chord progression in the preceding claim. Enough has been written about this; eg check guitar mags etc

• Hi Ceoil, pinging you about this one even though I haven't finished all the other comments, because I'm a bit stuck on this one. Is this [[31]] the kind of information you're talking about? I'm not a musician myself and am really not very confident about music theory. If you have a pretty clear idea in mind of what you want, and it sounds like for you it would be to easy to find, could I possibly ask you to maybe add the info you'd like to see?🙏 Or else baby-walk me through how to get the information and specifically what to say about it? I'm truly not trying to "pass the buck" or avoid doing the work on this nomination, but I'm really not confident about this point. (I usually ask User:Ojorojo for advice when there's anything music-related that's even slightly technical.) Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Will do over w/end, starting from [32]. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, looking forward to seeing what you bring to this. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Added a bit, but it just has a single chord progression and some noodling around it. Fine now as is. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• It was one of a record-tying seven top 10 singles to be released from Born in the U.S.A.[n 3] - "to be released from a single album"? Or what. This whole para is very stats heavy and 36 odd years later can surely be better contextualized...eg wide international hit rather than charted in x, y,z territories.

• Used your "from a single album" idea. And summarized the rest as "It also charted in Canada,[54] and in multiple European countries."

• more later Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review, Ceoil, and your edits. I've responded to some of your comments so far—will get to the rest soon—and am looking forward the continuation of your review. Moisejp (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Live performances": the centered but collapsed 2002–2017 performances of "I'm Goin' Down" template is frankly annoying in the middle of the short text. Would but at the end, or loose.

• Moved it to the bottom of the section. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• ""For his tours between 2002 and 2017, many of the set lists were in the past published" - were in the past is totally confusing...grrr ;)

• Changed to "have been published". I think I was trying to make the point that most of them are no longer available (except in archived form), but "have been" is simpler and doesn't exclude this scenario. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• has received various rankings or ratings in lists and overviews that consider all of Springsteen's songs - or, or (rankings/ratings; lists/overviews). "is highly rated". bty, the phrase "131st best Springsteen track" is seruously dry; lol'd

• Changed to "rankings/ratings in overviews". Wasn't sure if there was anything else there you wanted me to change? If so, I'm happy to. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• To keep explaining short: "In Uncut magazine's 2015 Ultimate Collector's Edition: Springsteen, "I'm Goin' Down" is rated four stars out of five" - in 2015 Uncut ranked.
• .Just after we have "Other praise for "I'm Goin' Down" appears in retrospectives of Born in the U.S.A." Redundant, remove. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done the two above. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just to note, am leaning support here and very much into the realms of nit-picking. Will try and close out before Sunday night, as maybe gone for a while after that. 00:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• After the latest well reasoned responses above, happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, Ceoil, and thank again for your edits and for your fleshing out about the four chords! Moisejp (talk) 01:39, 3 October 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) 14:42, 5 October 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 October 2021 [33].

---

Operation Transom

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Operation Transom was one of the most diverse military operations of World War II. Undertaken in mid-May 1944, it involved a fleet made up of ships from six Allied nations (including a British and an American aircraft carrier) that sailed from Ceylon, refuelled in Australia and attacked a city in the Japanese-occupied Netherlands East Indies. The sources are oddly divergent over whether the raid was a success, but all agree that it provided the British with useful exposure to superior American carrier tactics.

I developed this article to GA standard in August 2020, and it passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review last month. It has since been further expanded and improved, and I am hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest scaling up the map not using fixed px size
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• File:Carrier_strike_on_Surabaya,_Java_in_May_1944.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:HMS_Illustrious_(87)_steams_past_USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)_in_the_Indian_Ocean_on_18_May_1944_(NNAM.1977.031.085.012).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've updated the link for the first image, and replaced the second as the source database is dead. @Nikkimaria: thanks a lot for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

• I reviewed this article at A-class and support its promotion to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp

I've read through twice and made several minor edits. The prose is excellent and (although I don't know much about the subject) it seems very comprehensive. I support the article's promotion. Moisejp (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

As usual, little to nitpick about here. A few suggestions:

• "Land-based American heavy bombers struck Surabaya that night and Australian aircraft laid mines in nearby waters." sort of begs the question of where the Australian aircraft came from.
  • Northern Australia - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• "small British-led Eastern Fleet which was led" could you vary the "led...led"?
  • Whoops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• in this context should British Government→British government?
  • Yep - fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Dutch East Indies→NEI (as previously defined)
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Australian aircraft also laid mines" which squadron and where did they fly from?
  • Nos. 11 and 43 Squadrons and Yampi Sound in Western Australia - added Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• should it be "the official historian of the Royal Navy's role in World War II, Stephen Roskill,..."?
  • Tweaked this Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• ditto "The official historian of the overall British effort in South East Asia, Stanley Woodburn Kirby,..."
  • Also tweaked Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• The coordinates given in the infobox seem very specific. What's the source for those?
  • They point to the docks at Surabaya, which were the main target of the operation. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• ranges should use dashes, even in titles
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Brown: should publisher be Frontline Books? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed - I had the US publisher for some reason, despite my copy being the UK edition (due to over-reliance on the auto-fill tool in the citation template, I suspect). Thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "on the city's port and the naval base there." Delete "there", as I don't think it's necessary, as the sentence already describes that the naval base is in the city.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The Wonokromo oil refinery located in the city" wikilink to Wonokromo?
  • Yep, linked Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The reinforcements which were scheduled to arrive over the next four months would comprise 146 warships." -> "The reinforcements, which were scheduled to arrive over the next four months, would comprise 146 warships." or "The reinforcements scheduled to arrive over the next four months would comprise 146 warships."
  • I've reworked this sentence Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• I checked the infobox to ensure the information is in the article and found no concerns.
  • That's always a good thing to check! Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my comments, a well-written article otherwise. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: thank you for this review. I think that I may have addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • My comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Recusing to review.

• The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by JennyOz

Hi Nick, as a non-milhist'n I found this easy to understand. I have just a few mos-type suggestions...

• and that the Indian Ocean would be a subsidiary theatre - move wlink to first mention (first sentence in para above)
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• a water distilling ship and - is wlink intentional ie not to distilling ship?
  • I didn't know we had an article on that topic! Linked. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• kept them at least 600 miles (970 km) from Japanese airfields - why? is that an out of range thing?
  • Yes, that's right. I've added this. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• times (6:30 am, 7:20 am, 8:30 am, 10:50 am, 3:00 pm) - add nbspaces per mos
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• flying off point - add hyphen?
  • Searching Google Books indicates that British English works don't have a hyphen here. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• reached Bremerton, Washington on 10 June - geocomma after Washington
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• and ... severe destruction -nbsp ellipsis
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• a 1990 work by Edywn Gray - typo Edwyn, plus add wlink and authorlink
  • Linked Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• photo reconnaissance aircraft - hyphen?
  • Not usually Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Illustrious's usual air wing v Illustrious' crew farewelling - consistent possessive
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• from the Allied landing on Wakde island v the Allied landing at Wakde Island off - consistent cap on island
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• categories - none for Ops involving US?
  • Whoops! - added. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• @JennyOz: Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • All good, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 06:30, 10 October 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) 11:35, 10 October 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) 9 October 2021 [34].

---

Power Mac G4 Cube

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

In the late 90s, Apple Computer was on the brink of bankruptcy, until they brought back old cofounder Steve Jobs. Jobs relentlessly pruned Apple's product line and brought the company back to prosperity. But in between the saga of hits like the iMac and the iPod... there was the Power Mac G4 Cube, a commercial failure so sudden that the product was discontinued barely a year later, and remained arguably one of Jobs' greatest missteps in his time back at Apple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have edited Apple-related topics for nearly three years, with my familiarity, can I consult for the position co-nominator to help since I have yet not contribute significantly to this particular article. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, co-nominators are expected to have made significant contributions and to have been invited by the primary nominator. Graham Beards (talk) 21:59, 18 September 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

• small form factor Macintosh personal computer - can we reword avoid three links together like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• at customers in between - I don't think this means anything, clarify. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power - could probably say how much it was marketed at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like some of the stats, dimensions, release date and weight would be useful for the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• gives the impression the computer is floating Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• The technical words (RAM, optical disk, hard drive) need linking Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• A higher-end model was available only through Apple's online store - and what was this model? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure what is normal about these articles, but would specifications not be more suitable under overview? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• . "I wanted the [flat-panel] Cinema Display but I don't need the features of the PowerMac," he told Newsweek. + can we have the source where he says this directly after the citation (the sentence)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• displays and peripherals "[they] create - there's something missing in this sentence, as it doesn't read right Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• product matrix - a what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• specced-up consumer iMac - is specced-up a word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• 500 MHz model and added new memory, hard drive, and graphics options. - I'd like to know what these are earlier in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• having aesthetic flaws turned into a negative public relations story for Apple, as well as turning off potential buyers for whom the aesthetics - you use "aesthetics" a lot - could you maybe use a synonym? You use it twice in this sentence alone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Macworld wrote that consumers treated the Cube as "an underpowered... Did we have an author for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Jobs' ability - as much as I hate it, should be Jobs's per MOS:POSSESSIVE Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Considering the item didn't sell well due to the price, it's surprising we don't have the amount in the article at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 12 September 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)} 23:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey User:Lee Vilenski, I think I've addressed most of the above. In retards to mentioning the price, I'm following WP:NOTSALE, which recommends against pricing unless it's integral to the subject in sources, and in general I didn't find that to be the case in coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Lee ? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments by Sdkb

Hi David! I don't think I'm going to get to more than the lead, but a few comments:

• The way that the Power Mac G4 Cube is referred to in short varies in the first paragraph, with "the Cube", "the product", and "the machine" all making appearances. Being more intentional about terms used and not being afraid to just use "it" might help a bit with making the prose flow. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• On release, the Cube won awards and plaudits for its design. Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects. This might be better as a single sentence with "but" as a conjunction. Also, it confused me a little to hear that it was praised for its design but criticized for cosmetic defects, which I'd think would count as part of the design. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• The product was an immediate commercial failure; made it a rare failure for the company; Despite its lack of success with consumers There's a lot of redundancy here that re-wording might be able to eliminate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• The New York Museum of Modern Art holds a G4 Cube Lots of old computers are held in museums. I'm not seeing why this one being in the Met is noteworthy enough to be due for the lead. Also, the along with its distinctive Harman Kardon transparent speakers feels wedged in there—if it's an important enough design element to warrant covering in the lead, it should be mentioned along with the other design stuff. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope that helps, and best of luck with the nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Hey Sdkb, thanks for the comments. I've made tweaks to all of the above. The only thing I'm iffy on is whether to cut the MoMa reference; it generated news coverage from papers like the NY Times when it happened, which I feel demonstrates that it wasn't a usual thing (certainly back then), and it also ties into the notions of how it was a beautiful product that just didn't have a practical demo for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

    I read the article, and while I certainly see why it's in the body, I'm still not quite sold on it for the lead. Ultimately, though, I'm just here for quick comments following your Discord invite, not to !vote support or oppose, so no worries if you ignore any of my suggestions where you have a different view. If you're looking for reviews to do yourself, I have a pre-FAC peer review open here. Best wishes with this FAC! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wingwatchers

@David Fuchs:

• "sold by Apple Computer Inc" The company was now simply as Apple Inc, for "sold", suggest changing it to "developed and marketed" for more details
• Overuses of "the Cube", consider changing some to "it"
• "Apple's designers developed new technologies and production techniques to create the product", removed that, every company do that everytime for innovation, don't you agree?
• Overuses of "Apple", suggest switching some to "the company"
• Grammatical grasp needed further imporvemnets and maybe copyedit, for example: "born", recommended "drew inspiration"
• No details was available for the release date, to announced a product was different than releasing it to public

Wingwatchers (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty and replied to these comments here [35]. If the nominator disagrees, please ignore me. Graham Beards (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. I would agree that the changes were not a net improvement. As to the above, I'm not sure the comments above demonstrate that WW has a strong enough grasp of the English language to improve the text beyond its current state. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

I made a few edits rather than list nit-picks here. Please feel free to revert them if they are not helpful.-Graham Beards (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "The Power Mac G4 Cube is a small form factor personal computer, sold by Apple Computer, Inc. between July 2000 and 2001." I don't think the comma after personal computer is needed.
• "the Cube was born from Apple CEO" -> the Cube was conceived by Apple CEO, to remove an idiom (Jobs did not literally give birth to this)
• "to give the impression the computer is floating." -> to give the impression that the computer is floating.
• "The machine has no fan to move air, and thus heat, through the case." I had to read this a couple times to figure out what is meant. Perhaps, "The machine does not have a fan to move air and heat through the case."
• "the high price might spell the product's failure." -> the high price might cause the product's failure, to remove another idiom
• "Macworld found the touch-sensitive power button too sensitive and that they accidentally activated sleep mode regularly, and reported that the stock 5400-rpm hard drive and 64 MB of RAM on the base model slowed the system considerably." Recommend splitting this into two sentences, as this contains two separate critiques of the product.
• Is " Kahney, Leander" Leander Kahney?
• "Cook, Tim" should probably be wikified, even though he is mentioned in the article already.
• Is "Levy, Steven" Steven Levy?
• Is "Muschamp, Herbert" Herbert Muschamp?
• The infobox mentions that this is part of the "Power Mac" product family, but I don't see that information in the article.
• Lede says, "The Power Mac G4 Cube is a small form factor" where is this information cited in the article body?
• Lede says, "Apple positioned the Cube in the middle of its product range, between the consumer iMac G3 and the professional Power Mac G4." Where is this information in the article body?
  • It's discussed where Jobs is talking about his desires for the computer and later in how it stacks up against the iMac and Power Macs, but I've made it a bit less oblique of a mention.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Z1720. I believe I've addressed the above, and responded inline where I thought it was relevant. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, I support. Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• fn 11: page number required
• fn 15: PC Magazine Australia (correct title) is missing ISSN (1329-3532)
• fn 16, 26: MacWorld Missing ISSN (0741-8647)
• fn 28 says MacUser but actually MacWorld?
• Sources are high quality and appropriate. fn 31 is a blog, but expert - okay
• Spot checks: 3a, 21, 22, 24, 29, 38 - all okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7 for the look. I believe I've fixed all the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Great job. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:02, 7 October 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) 21:30, 9 October 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) 9 October 2021 [36].

---

Schichau-class torpedo boat

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a class of 22 dinky little Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats that were constructed in the late 19th century and were effectively obsolete by the time World War I broke out. They were used mainly as minesweepers and as part of local defence forces for Adriatic ports during the war, but some saw action. After the war, most were quickly broken up, but a few were handed over to the Yugoslavs (hence my interest), and one was a training vessel for the Yugoslav Naval Academy for more than fifteen years. Captured by the Italians and then the Germans, she wasn't much use for anything by that stage and was lost around the time of the German withdrawal from the Bay of Kotor. The article went through GAN in 2016, Milhist ACR a couple of years ago, and I have expanded it and more closely cited it using new sources in the last month. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be supported in the text - eg the preceded/succeeded by fields

deleted the first (not sure where I got that from), cited the second in the body. Everything else there seems to be cited in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations/publishers for periodicals

Added to the one that didn't have a location. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Location added, but still no publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can you provide any details on the reliability of Despot Infinitus as a publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I now have three books published by them, while they have some weak spots (English grammar copy-editing is not perfect and they lack indexes), they are well fact-checked and corroborated by other sources. Where there are variations it seems likely that Freivogel, being a specialist and able to read relevant languages, has actually accessed better sources than generalist English-only sources. Freivogel himself is reliably published in naval history journals like Warship International. Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll take Freivogel as an expert under SPS, but just a head's up that we'd need more details on fact-checking to cite other authors, if that comes up in future noms. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Only one image. US Navy photograph, taken before 1921 (probably about 1911). Properly licensed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye!

Support Comments from Iazyges

• Claiming my spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede

• Apart from one that was discarded in 1911, all boats suggest Although one was discarded in 1911, the remaining boats...

Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• during the World War II April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, suggest during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia as a part of World War II...

Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Background

• One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École school of thought was the development of the seems somewhat awkward to put (French) school and school back to back; perhaps One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École doctrine was the development of the

Good point, re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Service history

• On 23 August 1914, No. 26 was mined off Pola is it known if she hit one mine or multiple? If singular, suggest On 23 August 1914, No. 26 hit a mine off Pola ; if multiple, are there any guesses to the number of mines she hit from sources?

A single mine, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• When the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia commenced in April 1941 suggest When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941 as a part of World War II

Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• That is all of my suggestions. A neat article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look, Iazyges. See what you think of my edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

A heads up that this could do with more indications that a consensus to promote is forming by the three week mark if it is to avoid being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. I’m away from the computer until Friday, but will crack on with this then and seek further reviews. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy

• The 37 mm guns were the Hotchkiss gun if you want to link it - any idea if they were the revolver cannon or single-barrel guns?

Single-barrel guns AFAIK, haven't seen a source that says they were the revolver version. Linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• It might be worth adding to the background section that the Whitehead torpedo was developed in Austria-Hungary.

Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• It may also be worth detailing the significant budgetary problems the Austro-Hungarian Navy had in securing funding for new capital ships after Tegetthoff died - that was one of the main reasons Pöck and then Sterneck opted to go for torpedo vessels.

Another good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd make the point a bit more clearly, that the Austrian and Hungarian parliaments repeatedly rejected Pöck's request for new ironclads in the early 1880s, so he turned to cheaper torpedo vessels to counter Italy's growing strength (see Sondhaus pp 51-53, for instance). I'd probably also mention Sterneck by name, since he was the Marinekommandant who ordered this class. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, done Parsecboy. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Were any of the boats present during the Cattaro Mutiny in 1918?

While there is general mention of torpedo boats in the bay, and several boats of other classes are named in Freivogel, none of this class are mentioned by number. Given they were in secondary/local defence roles, that isn't terribly surprising, I suppose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Think that's all from me. Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Parsecboy! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings PM - I leave you with a few nitpickers? Pendright (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• The class was one of the first torpedo boat classes built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy, and they were initially powered by steam from a single locomotive boiler, and armed with two 37 mm (1.5 in) guns and two 356 mm (14 in) torpedo tubes.

Drop the comma after boiler or add a subject to the last clause?

• After the war, sixteen were allocated to Italy and four were allocated to the navy of the newly created Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).

Sixteen "what" was allocated?

• After capture during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia of World War II, the remaining boat saw service with the Italians and then the Germans.

Suggest replacing the second "of" wi in World War II

• She was lost in German hands sometime after September 1943.

Suggest adding "while" in German hands?

All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Background:

• During the 1880s, the Austro-Hungarian Navy became aligned with the French Jeune École (Young School) of naval strategy, which [advocated], among other things, advocated the use of [using] small but powerfully-armed ships to defeat the larger capital ships of [an] the enemy.

See what you think?

Design:

• The Schichau-class boats were flush-decked and had a raised bridge, with a short stepped foremast positioned just forward of the bridge.

While ofter referred to as "flush-deckers",I believe they were properly identified as flush-ceck destroyers or of a flush-deck design?

All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Service:

Nos. 21, 24, 32 and 39 formed the 13th Torpedo Boat Group of the 7th Torpedo Division at Pola on the southern tip of the Istrian peninsula in the northern Adriatic, with Nos. 27, 30, 33–34, 37 and 40 forming part of the local minesweeping flotilla.

• Think about changing "in" to "of"

Didn't do this. I think it is usual to describe a port as being "in" rather than "of" the relevant sea. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "local" -> could this be more specfic?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Her captain Linienschiffsleutnant Josef Konic and six crew were rescued, but one officer and ten crew were lost.[15]

Think about adding "of the" between six & crew, and

adding members after the last crew?

Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• None of the torpedo boats suffered any damage.

Should "damage" be plural?

I don't think so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Finished - @Peacemaker67: Pendright (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Pendright. Your eagle eyes always improve my grammar! See what you think of my responses? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: All good, supporting. Regards, and thanks for your kind words. BTW, do you have a favorite Australian dictionary? Pendright (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, the Macquarie is really the Australian standard. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "at 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)." Does kn refer to knots? As a non-boat expert, I am unsure about this. Perhaps introduce this abbreviation the first time knots is introduced earlier in this paragraph?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any information about why they started numbering at 19 when they were redesignated numbers the boats?

It actually isn't very clear in the sources, which focus in boats used in WWI. They started off numbering when the first ever torpedo boat was commissioned by the A-H Navy, and at the time of WWI there was the Cobra class still in commission with Nos. 13 to 16 (but they were actually constructed after these (I know, confusing)), and two stand-alones, No. 17 and No. 18. Presumably the earlier numbers had been decommissioned before WWI? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is information in the sources that can explain this, then add it in. If not, don't worry about it as we can only include what can be verified. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I will have another look, but I haven't seen a source explaining this comprehensively enough for me to be confident in adding anything. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is Italy not included as an operator in the infobox, when five of this class of boats was used as customs vessels by this country?

Good point. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is Seearsenal Pola notable enough to be wikilinked (even if it's red at the moment)?

Probably. Linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. I checked the infobox and the lede as well to ensure their information is sourced in the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at another of my noms, Z1720! See what you think of my responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I specifically reviewed this article because of the numerous FAC reviews you have completed in the past. I hope editors continue reviewing to help reduce this FAC backlog. I responded to a point above, but regardless of how that resolves I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

G'day @FAC coordinators: this now has four supports (one non-Milhist), source and image reviews. Could I have dispensation to get another started please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 8 October 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) 18:37, 9 October 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) 9 October 2021 [37].

---

German destroyer Z39

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer that served in WW2. This article has been to FAC twice so far, failing first due to sourcing issues, and secondly due to lack of reviews. I believe this article is at FAC standards after major improvements made after the first review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:Z39-Zerstoerer1936modA-USN-Photo.jpg: the source gives a courtesy credit for this image - who is that person? Ditto File:Captured_German_destroyer_Z39_underway_off_Boston_on_22_August_1945.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Attribution to Robert F. Sumrall, US Navy, has been added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "she laid numerous barrages of mines" - is there a possible link for barrage? I don't think this meaning is particularly well-known

  Strangely enough, no. The various Wikipedia articles only describe specific barrages, such as Naval mine linking to some. Wiktionary for Barrage doesn't directly refer to naval barrages, only indirectly by mentioning explosives/projectiles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the period after "Transferred to the French Navy" in the infobox

  Done.

• Per MOS:SECTIONHEAD; Destroyer Function should be Destroyer function

  Done.

• " the average size Allied ships" - size of?

  Fixed.

• To me, the structure of the background section feels awkward. It starts off by discussing specific WW2 tactics, then two sections of more general worldwide and German naval background. I'd recommend moving that first section about WW2 destroyer tactics to after the Plan Z section

  Done.

• Link Plan Z somewhere

  Done.

• "22 battleships (two), seven carriers (none), 22 heavy cruisers (four), 61 light cruisers (six), 255 destroyers (34)" - add some ship type links here. In particular, I doubt that most readers will know the difference between a light and heavy cruiser

  All but destroyers and submarines are linked in the first sentence of this paragraph; I've added links to those two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Why isn't ship class mentioned in the design section?

  Fixed.

• Any of the sources say anything about why the Greek coat of arms of all things was on the ship?

  I can see if new sources have come out or if I've missed something; I think a source that didn't pass WP:V stated that it was because the Greek royal family was, indirectly, "German" by way of being related to the Danish royal family who was related to a Holstienian noble family; it seems possible given that the Germans had a simultaneously wide and narrow definition of German (per their roving band of Aryans accomplishing everything good in history). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "fourteen 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns" - single or twin?

  Fixed.

• "Koop & Schmolke 2003, pp. 42–42." - This page range is malformed. And there's been a tag into the article about this page range being malformed since 2020. This should have been addressed before this was taken to FAC

  Fairly embarrassing. I do not personally own the book; unfortunately, my university library does not quite match the beast that is the Houston Public Library, so I've put in an interlibrary loan. Will resolve as soon as it arrives. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I was able to find a copy online; ref fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox specifies that the boilers were water-tube boilers; this isn't specified in the body. As not all boilers are water-tube boilers, this should be directly clarified in the body

  Fixed; good catch. The link on boiler currently points to water-tubed boiler, have removed the pipe so the text itself speaks to water-tube boilers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a ship expert, so I may wrong, but the infobox gives the completion date as the commissioning date. But wouldn't "and Z39 was not fully operational until 7 January 1944" be the completion date?

  You are correct; fixed.

• "After these changes, she began minelaying operations in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat until March when she was transferred to Reval off the Gulf of Finland" - can we have a more specific date for this? This could be read to suggest that this happened right after the Project Barbara work; but surely this wouldn't have happened until after the commissioning. The chronology isn't clear here

  Added.

• Is there a map that can be added to the German service? It's really hard for me as a non-European to have the foggiest idea where these various bays and islands are located

  Haven't been able to find one; I've put a request in with the Wikimap cult Project. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Did the oil shortage affect Z39 in any way? It's mentioned, but no consequences of it are really mentioned, although it seems like running low on oil would mess up your naval fleet movements

  It definitely did, but I didn't find a source to actually say this, several sources mention other ships and units being kept in port due to lack of oil, but I can't really extend that to Z39 without it constituting OR, I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Gerhard Koop, Klaus-Peter Schmolke (p. 114) mentions Z33 and other Swinemünde based ships, I can't get a full view of the page with Google preview, however; must wait for it to arrive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Further reading items should generally be relevant to the specific subject - are O'Brien and Zaloga really relevant to this subject, or just general works on WWII

  Removed.

• For consistency with how you format the other refs, drop the usage of Annapolis, Md. to just Annapolis

  Done.

• Pae 218 here gives the more specific date of November 1947 for the transfer to France

  Added.

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 02:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: implemented all the fixes, the only thing left is to attempt to find more information on oil shortage effects, and see if anyone is willing to create a map for her operations. Will hope and pray for information regarding the usage of the Greek coat of arms, but its unlikely. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support - It would be preferable if material for the oil shortage could be found, but I understand if it just isn't possible. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator

Will take a look and review soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is excellent. Since I'm not very knowledgeable in this area I just have some minor points and questions:

• The fourth and fifth sentences in the lead both start with "She". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

   Fixed

• The ship was part of the French navy for substantially longer than either the German or American ones, but I presume Z39 is still the most common name used (and not the later French designation)?

  Yes; additionally, it seems like an unwritten rule (or perhaps it is written somewhere) that whatever the most important role of the ship is, is the name most sources and articles will use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Following the end of World War One, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, which put strict limits both on the size and displacement of warships that she could possess. are countries typically referred to as "she"? Why not "... warships that the country could possess."? I see that you've continued to gender Germany later as well so maybe I'm just confused about this since I'm not a native English speaker.

  Most countries are actually referred to as she in English, however, Germany could theoretically use gender-neutral (in its own language it is, from what I've heard), or masculine, as it is a Fatherland, unlike most countries. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The more you know! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Erich Raeder, the Grand Admiral of the Kriegsmarine, was assured by Hitler that war would not start until at least 1945. Raeder had wanted the deadline for the completion of Plan Z to be extended to 1948, but Hitler insisted on 1945. World War Two began in 1939, meaning that very few of Germany's heavy ships were finished at that point. Was Raeder assured in 1939 that the war would not start until 1945? Surely Hitler must have been aware that the war would start much sooner at this point given that it started later that year? Would be nice with more insight on this but I understand if it might be out of the scope of this article.

  Yeah, he did actually make this promise in either late 1938 or early 1939. To my understanding, the Germans were fully ready to go to war over the annexation of the Sudetenland, but after the British and French folded on that, they pretty much thought they could do whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't a direct attack on France, Belgium, or England. Hitler did think it would be 1942 before war broke out between them and England/France, which I've now added to the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. So still a d*ck move to tell Raeder that they weren't planning to go to war until 1945. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, but this is also the man who intentionally put 2-3 people into effectively one position, so they'd fight, and he'd see who won and was therefore the greatest Warrior Aryan, or something to that effect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link "prize ship" to Prize (law).
•  Done

Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Believe I have responded to all of your comments/suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Everything looks good to me! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

@Iazyges: Is the article written using British or American English? Pendright (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pendright: It should, in theory, use American English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thank you - back shortly. Pendright (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Pendright, is there more to come from you? No obligation, just checking. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yes! Pendright (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: The article has the {{use British English|date=March 2020}} template, so if it is to be written in American English, should this be changed to {{use American English}}? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That's my bad, this article uses British English because a lot of the sources do; I didn't have it tagged on the talk page and didn't check the article itself so I had assumed it was American English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the article to American English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: I leave you with more than a few comments. You'll note that many of them are of the type that would have been corrected in a routine copyedit. In any event, I look forward to your responses and stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Pendright (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Will say that the article did get a copy edit by our esteemed friend User:Twofingered Typist in 2020, although the article has changed somewhat since.

<>My apology to each of you. Pendright (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• Her anti-aircraft armament was increased extensively during the war.

anti-aircraft -> antiaircraft

Not done, Antiaircraft is a much rarer use, and I think all but maybe Chicago MOS in American English would overwhelmingly use Anti-aircraft.

<>Could you be a bit more specific?

Anti-aircraft is almost overwhelmingly used by sources, people, etc; antiaircraft isn't necessarily wrong so much as odd; the Chicago MOS is notably the most hostile to usage of hyphens in general, but I think even they would use anti-aircraft. The LA Times mentions this example specifically. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

<->To the case in point, when the word antiaircraft is used particularily in connection with guns or armaments the word is unhyphenated in publications authored by Norman Freeman, U.S. Destroyers - 2004 and John C. Reilly, Jr., U.S. Navy Destroyers of World War II - 1983. In the scheme of things the hyphen is insignificant, so I yield to your preference, but without necessarily agreeing with it. Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• She served [the navies] with a total of three different countries: from 1943 to 1945 with the Kriegsmarine as Z39, from 1945 to 1947 with the US Navy as DD-939, and from 1948 to 1964 with the French Navy as Q-128.

• Consider the above suggested changes

Done.

• Throughout her German [service] career, she laid numerous barrages [(concentrated efforts over a wide area)] of mines in the Baltic Sea and bombarded Soviet forces several times.

Consider the above changes

Did change career service, added (explosives concentrated over a wide area), for clarity. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• In the last months of the war, Z39 helped escort steamships, which were evacuating German soldiers and civilians from Eastern Europe to Denmark.

Replace the comma and which with that

Done

• She was damaged twice, once by Soviet planes while in Paldiski, and then by British planes, while in Kiel.

• Drop te comma after Paldiski
• Done.
• Drop the comma after the second planes
• Done.

Interbellum:

• Following the end of World War One, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, which put strict limits both on the size and displacement of warships that she could possess.

• "World War One" -> World War I or the First World War
• Replace the comma and which with the word that
• Done.

• Several negative consequences resulted from this, however, such as making them slower and overweight.

• Consider dropping "however"

Done.

• Were they slower because of being overweight?

Largely, but not entirely. Don't think I could get WP:V source to say this, but German destroyers, in general, were supposed to be fast, partly because British destroyers tended to be slow, and a bunch of destroyers that were significantly faster than a cruiser while bearing similar armaments would truly dominate the seas. Great idea, but the engines didn't really work out great. Part of the slowness comes from the over-engineering of the engine, I believe. Source does say slower, so I'm in favor of keeping it unless one will give me enough to expound upon it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Although German heavy destroyers matched British light cruisers in armament, they were much less seaworthy, and had far worse facilities for control and use of their guns.[3]

Drop the comma after seaworthy

Done.

• As a result of the treaty, Germany felt that her ships could not compete with those of the Allied navies and began to ignore the treaty, at first covertly, and later openly after Hitler publicly denounced it.

If this is the first mention of Hiller, then his name and title should be spelled out, including the date on which he openly denounced the treaty.

Done.

Plan Z:

• Plan Z was a German naval re-armament plan, [that] started in 1939, which [and] involved building ten battleships, four aircraft carriers, twelve battlecruisers, three pocket battleships, five heavy cruisers, forty-four light cruisers, sixty-eight destroyers, and 249 submarines.
• Done.

• re-armament -> rearmament
• Consider the above suggested changes
• Done.

• These ships were to [form] be split into two battle fleets: a "Home Fleet", to tie down the British war fleet in the North Sea, and a "Raiding Fleet", to wage war upon British convoys.[4]

• Consider the above suggested changes
• Done.
• "tie down" is usually hyphenated?

As a noun it is hyphenated, as a verb I don't think so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

<>Tie-down is a noun, period, but tie is a verb. Pendright (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Tie-down is used as its meaning related to literal tying down using ropes, but usage to mean a metaphorical restriction is largely unhyphenated, such as in articles like Operation Mars, and Rolls-Royce 40mm Cannon.

<-> I used the meaning given in the New Oxford Engrlsh Dictionary, but we have kicked this around enough so I yield to your preference.Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Erich Raeder, the Grand Admiral of the Kriegsmarine, was assured by Hitler that war would not start until at least 1945.

This seems to be the first mention of Hilter, so give his full name and title.

Not done, accomplished above.

<>Sorry for this duplication! Pendright (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• World War Two began in 1939, meaning that very few of Germany's heavy ships were finished at that point

• World War two -> World War II or the Second World War
• Done.
• "were finished -> would be finished
• Done.

• Compared to the number [of ships] Germany had upon entry [into the war,] (in parentheses) they had: 22 battleships (two), seven carriers (none), 22 heavy cruisers (four), 61 light cruisers (six), 255 destroyers (34), 135 submarines (57, of which less than half could actually serve in the Atlantic or the North Sea).

Consider the above suggested changes?

Done.

Destroyer function:

• During World War Two, destroyers served three basic functions: to act as screening ships to defend their fleets from those of an enemy; to attack an enemy's screening ships; and to defend their fleet from submarines.[8]

• During World War Two-> same as above
• Done.
• In other lists commas were used, in this one it's semicolons?

 Fixed I will attribute this strangeness to my evolution as a writer.

Since this is about the role of destroyers in general, could it be beefed-up a bit giving a reader a sense of the value of these fast, maunverabe, and long-endurance warships

Done

• Germany relied on a massive fleet of trawlers which had been requisitioned and re-fitted as minelayers instead.

• change which to that
• Done.
• re-fitted -> refitted
• Done.
• requisitioned from ...?

The source doesn't say, but, being Nazi Germany, likely whoever they wanted it from.

• The role of the destroyer began to vary more widely as the war progressed.

Could the role change be briefly described?

Done.

Design and armament:

• Before her Project Barbara modifications to improve the anti-aircraft capabilities of German ships, she was armed with: seven 2 cm (0.8 in) anti-aircraft (AA) guns, two twin 3.7 cm SK C/303.7 cm (1.5 in) anti-aircraft guns,[a] a twin 15-centimetre (5.9 in) L/48 gun on a forward turret,[b] two single 15-centimetre (5.9 in) L/48 guns in a gunhouse aft, two quadruple 53.3 cm (21 in) torpedo tubes, and 60 mines.

• Drop the word her
• Done.
• Anti-aircraft -> misspelled twice
• Not dohne.

<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• She had the Greek coat of arms on either side of her 15-centimetre (6 in) twin turret.[12]

Anything new here?

Not sure what this means? No, it's not a new gun, if that's what you're asking.

<>Is there a reason why a Greek phrase is on a German warship?

No one is really sure why they slapped the Greek coat of arms on it; sources don't even bother to speculate. It may be related to the Greek royal family being vaguely German by way of relation to Danish royal family, but I cant find a source to say that.

• Her propulsion system consisted of six Wagner water-tube boilers [that generated and feed] feeding high-pressure superheated steam (at 70 atm (1,029 psi; 7,093 kPa) and 450 °C (842 °F)) to two sets of Wagner geared steam turbines.[16][17]

Consider the above suggested changes

Done.

• Z39's sensor suite (housing) included a FuMO 21 radar [that] , which, was placed on the ship's bridge, and four FuMB4 Sumatra aerials on the foremast searchlights.[c]

Consider the above suggested changes

Done.

• She also had several other radars and radar detectors, including a FuMB 3 Bali and FuMO 81 Berlin-S on her masthead, and a FuMO 63 Hohentweil K.[20]

Drop the comma after masthead.

Done.

• She also had a degaussing cable which [that] wrapped around the entire ship, but was covered by her spray deflector.

Consider the above suggested change

Done.

Service history:

• Z39 was ordered on 26 June 1939, laid down by Germaniawerft in Yard G629 in Kiel on 15 August 1940, launched on 2 December 1941, and was commissioned on 21 August 1943.

• Change the first in to at
• Done.
• Drop the comma after 1941
• Done.

• At some point between her launching and commissioning, she was modified under Project Barbara, with the addition of three pairs of 3.7 cm (1.5 in) anti-aircraft guns, one pair forward of her bridge, one pair abreast after her funnel, and one pair abreast forward of her funnel.

ant-aircraft -> sp?

<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what this means.

<>? Pendright (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't sure what the "sp" means, was it a suggestion to remove the hyphen as before?

<-> Yes - Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• She had a pair of quadruple 2 cm (0.8 in) guns and a pair of single 2 cm (0.8 in) guns added to an extended deckhouse in her No. 3 gun position.[13]

"at the" No, 3 gun position

Done.

German service:

• After this move, she served in the 6th Destroyer Flotilla, alongside German destroyers Z25, Z28, and Z35.[2

• After the move to Reval,
• Done.
• Add the definite article after alongside

Done.

• Between 12 and 13 February Z39 laid mines in the "Dorothea A" barrage, alongside two other destroyers and three minelayers.[28

Change alonside to along with

Done.

• While [in] at port [at] in Kiel on 24 July, she was hit by a bomb when the British [Royal Air Force] air force bombed Kiel [Harbor] Harbour, causing damage to ]the] her quarterdeck and [was required] leading to her having to be towed back to Swinemünde.

Consider the above suggested changes

Done.

• Z44 [was] had been damaged in an air raid on 29 July while in [at] Bremen and sunk [yet] so that only her superstructure remained above water and Z45 was being built.[34]

• Consider the above changes
• Done.
• "and Z45 was being built" -> How does this relate?

They stole parts off of her to rebuild Z39; it's a status on the two that got eaten to fix Z39.

• Z39 [was] had been repaired enough to be seaworthy on 28 February 1945 and was ordered to sail to Copenhagen for more extensive repairs, however, due to Nazi Germany's [shortage] lack of fuel, she sailed to Sassnitz instead.[29]

  Done.

• During [At] this time, the Kriegsmarine, which had always dealt with shortages in [of] oil, reached critically low levels of oil supply.

Consider the above suggested changes

Done.

• On 25 March, [the] repairs on Z39 [were] finished while she was in Swinemünde; she resumed operations on 1 April.

  Done.

• From 5 April to 7 April, she escorted transports and [some] parts of Task Force Thiele around the Bay of Danzig.[29]

  Done.

• On 10 April she and T33 [(torpedo boat)] escorted the German destroyer Z43, which had sustained damage from both mines and bombs,[36] to Warnemünde and Swinemünde.[37]
• From 1944, German surface ships were called upon to provide support for the Army Group [located] North along the Baltic Sea coast.

Consider the above suggested changes

Torpedo boat added, [located] not added, the actual name of the Army Group was Army Group North.

• This tactical use of cruisers, destroyers, and torpedo boats was difficult in the restrictive waterways of the Baltic, but despite these difficulties, it justified the continued existence of the surface fleet.

"restrictive waterways of the Baltic" -> in what way?

I don't think I could find a related source to mention this, but presumably, because the Baltic isn't very deep, has random unexpected storms, and a host of other problems.

• On 15 April[,] Z39, [with] two other destroyers, and four torpedo boats escorted [the] German steamships Matthias Stinnes, Eberhart Essberger, Pretoria and Askari to Copenhagen, with a total of 20,000 refugees.[36]

Consider the above suggested changes

Done

• On 2 May, she shelled [the] Soviet Army forces from the Oder estuary.

  Not done; Soviet Army forces works better grammatically than "the" Soviet Army forces, because the forces aren't specified nor their location.

• On 3 May, she, alongside [and] the battleship Schlesien, moved to protect the bridge across the Peene river at Wolgast.
• A day later, Z39, three other destroyers, one torpedo boat, one ship's tender, one auxiliary cruiser, one anti-aircraft ship, and five steamer ships, sailed for Copenhagen, taking 35,000 wounded soldiers and refugees with them.

• Consider the above changes

  All done but change to anti-aircraft.

• antiarcraft ship?

A ship whose sole job in life is to attack enemy aircraft; the Atlanta-class cruiser were one such type; although in this case it was probably just a rinky-dink boat with some Flaks mounted on it, hence the lack of name.

This might be an appropriate place in the text to tell readers that the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally on 7 & 9 May 1945.

Done; I used the date of 8th May because that's the technical date of the first surrender, and the 7 and 9 dates aren't entirely important enough to dwell on.

• On 8 May, Z39, six other destroyers, and five torpedo boats set sail with 20,000 soldiers and civilians from Hela to Glücksburg, and [they] arrived on 9 May.[37][41]

  Done.

• Following the German [armed forces] surrender, she was decommissioned [at Kiel] from the Kriegsmarine on 10 May 1945 at Kiel.[37]

Consider the above suggested changes

at Keil done, armed forces not done; technically a good portion of the military held out. The last Germans surrender in September.

This section chroicles the many operations undertaken by Z39 and other ships, but it does not describe, for the most part, the efforts envolved, enemy reactions to them, or the results of these operations.

That's largely because it was a destroyer, and therefore most of what it did was quite routine. "Destroyer did some things, a group of ships responded, destroyer when home" is the general routine they had, and hence its hard to find details because probably even primary sources didn't bother to gather them. Rarely would any reaction or strong result come from just one destroyer or even a group of them, outside of battle. The Von Bismarck paralyzed two days of Allied sea traffic just by sailing west, no one really cares about destroyers until they sink you.

<->Much of the activity mentioned in the section is about minelaying, so one might expect that some of the activity could have been eventful. Showing how things happen is usually better than telling readers - a writing axim of long-standing. Your view on destroyer service during wartime is interesting, but it differs from my experiences serving aboard two U.S. destroyers. Pendright (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

American and French service:

• At some [unknown] point after the war [in Europe] ended, Z39 was sailed [with] by a mixed German and British crew to Wilhelmshaven, and then [to Plymouth, Englad, on 6 July 1945., to Plymouth

  Done.

• She left England on 30 July, and arrived in Boston on 7 August, where, on 14 September, after extensive trials, she was commissioned into the US Navy as DD-939.[37]

• Consider the above-suggested changes

Done.

• Could you elaborate a bit on the extensive trials?

Unfortunately no, "where she was subjected to extensive trials" is the beginning and end of what sources will say.

• She was used by the US Navy to test her equipment, namely her high-pressure steam propulsion plant.[43]

If this is one of the sea trails, then it should be woven in elsewhere?

I don't believe these were one of the trials, or at least sources won't say so and it doesn't really make sense. The trials were largely to ensure she wasn't going to randomly sink from the damage of two bombs being overlooked because of desperate times.

• After arriving in Casablanca in January 1948, she sailed to Toulon, [where Z39 was] redesignated [as] Q-128, and was [later cannibalized] cannibalised for her parts, which were used to repair the French destroyers Kléber (ex-Z6 Theodor Riedel), Hoche (ex-Z25), and Marceau (ex-Z31).[37]

  Partly done,

• She [Q-128] served as a pontoon for minesweepers near Brest until she was broken up in 1964.[45]

  Done

Consider the above suggested changes

Overused words:

The dictionary defines overused simply as "used too much". The case in point here is the word choice of "she" that is habitually used throughout the article. Suggest mixing it up a bit with Z39, the ship, or the destroyer.

Done.

Images:

• The article would benefit from a few more images, I should think that any image that is relevant to the story would be appropriate.

  Unfortunately virtually all copyright-free images are from the US' time with her, so I have about 40 images of her near Boston, and nowhere else. A map of her service is currently in the works.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pendright: Believe I have responded to everything. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pendright: responded to suggestions/comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Iazyges: I'll Ping you whe I have finished! Pendright (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Pendright: Didn't want to edit within your userspace, but in regards to the usage of antiaircraft in Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and other books, I will mention that the main sources used, the three Whitley books, and Koope and Schmolke, make usage of anti-aircraft, rather than antiaircraft; additionally, Oxford and Merriam Webster are both either British or British owned dictionaries. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

<->To the case in point, when the word antiaircraft is used particularily in connection with guns or armaments the word is unhyphenated in publications authored by Norman Freeman, U.S. Destroyers - 2004 and John C. Reilly, Jr., U.S. Navy Destroyers of World War II - 1983. In the scheme of things the hyphen is insignificant, so I yield to your preference, but without necessarily agreeing with it. Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Supporting - Thank you for your prompt and forthright rsponses. Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pendright: Thank you for your review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• fn 9: "Whtiley" is mispelt

  Fixed.

• Author-link K. Jack Bauer, Norman Friedman, Spencer C. Tucker, Michael J. Whitley, David T. Zabecki

  Done.

• The ISBNs were inconsistently formatted, so I had the MilHistBot reformat them.

  Thank you!

• Spot checks: 10, 39, 43, 47 - okay. fn 28: I think this should be pp. 135-136

  Done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 29 September 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, 9 October 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) 16 October 2021 [38].

---

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The British 2nd Division was initially formed in 1809, to serve during the Peninsular War. After the conclusion of fighting, it was stood down. This pattern would follow until the end of the century. New divisions were formed to fight at Waterloo (were it played an important role in the defeat of the final French attack of the day), and again formed to fight in the Crimean War. Several other similarly numbered divisions were formed during the century, but were not acknowledged as being part of the division's lineage by Everard Wyrall who wrote the division's First World War history (passing mention has been made to each of these formations, but there is not detailed campaign history). The final ad hoc division was raised to fight in the Second Boer War, where it fought or was present during most of the major battles in the Relief of Ladysmith. In 1902, it became a permanent formation within the structure of the British Army. It went on to fight in France in the First and the Second World Wars, and also fought in Burma during the latter. During the Cold War, it formed part of the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and became an armoured formation. The final decades of the division's history were based within the United Kingdom as a training formation. The article has had the GoCE give it a pass, and has gone through the GA and A-Class reviews. The article is supplemented by three lists that detail the commanding officers, orders of battle, and Victoria Cross winners. The latter two are featured lists, and the list for the commanding officers is currently going through the featured list review process. This is a large article, not 100 per cent confident that it will pass, but here we go!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Citations: there are several hyphens, rather than en dashes, in page ranges; there are p. and pp, errors, eg cites 163 and 157. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for that. I have gone though the citations, and tried to fix the various ones that were not up to snuff. Hopefully, caught them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cites 202, 203, 204: are there really pages numbered I and III?

The report is broken up into chapters. Each page denotes the chapter and the page number. Each chapter starts the page count afresh. Please see: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-181-c-21.pdf

• Further reading:

• Three works have no publisher location.

• I have entered two, unable to locate the third (per below)

• One has no ISBN/OCLC.

• I have not been able to locate either for this work. Per the IWM, the publication location is not mentioned and it is in a spiral binding. This makes me think that it was an internally generated small print document made for that particular veteran's association, and the IWM has a copy and that's about it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. Chapters should be shown as "|chapter=" in the mark up, now as pages. eg

Koon, Sam (2015) [2011]. "Phalanx and Legion: the "Face" of Punic War Battle". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 77–94. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4.

I would generally do that if it was some sort of anthology, but in this case it is single report published together under the single department head. I note that sfn|Mason|1975|chapter=I|p=22 will not work; its one or the other.

Are you suggesting several entries, such as:

• Mason, Roy (1975a). "Chapter I: The Defence Review". CAB 129/181/21: C (75) 21 Statement on the Defence Estimates 1975. Retrieved 28 October 2019. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
• Mason, Roy (1975b). "Chapter III: Combat Forces, Deployment, Operations and Exercises". CAB 129/181/21: C (75) 21 Statement on the Defence Estimates 1975. Retrieved 28 October 2019. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

I just want to clarify, as I am little confused and want to proceed forward as best as I can.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It is usual to give page ranges for individual chapters. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have updated the article per the above (including the page range).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Having done this much, I may as well recuse and complete the source review.

• The two Roy works need publisher locations.

  AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Cumulative Effect of Cuts ..., on what basis are you listing it under S?

  I think I placed it here, due to the cite using a bit of shorthand with the "Second Report of the Expenditure Committee". I have moved it to its alphabetical place, considering it starts with "The" as a result of the full title". Advisable to rename the inline cite?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Palmer et al: the title should be in title case.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This website includes photographs of the weathered memorial and faded central red star". Suggest → 'This website includes photographs of the [specify which] memorial.'

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Lionel Ellis, who wrote the volume focused on the BEF in France for the History of the Second World War, wrote the division" Is it possible to avoid using "wrote" twice in the sentence?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have spotted at least one p./pp. error. Could you recheck.

  I have gone back over them, and I dont see it. Clearly I am overlooking it, but could you be so kind to point it out?

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I cant thank you enough! After seeing what change you made, I went and looked at the prior version and it still took me a while to manually spot it, even knowing what I was looking for. Don't know why it caused me such grief!

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• EnigmaMcmxc, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the reminder, I have attempted to address the remaining points that you brought-up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

I supported this article at A-class and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment and supportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Just flagging that licensing issues have been addressed but captions are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be honest and say I am complete crap at things like this! I have gone through, and tried to get them? Hopefully, I succeeded!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Check that all captions are appropriately cited - for example McDermond seems to be mentioned only in caption
• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Sir_Frederick_Adam_by_William_Salter.jpg: when and where was this first published?

  I will see if I can dig up some publication info. Prior to that though, doesn't the UK PD+100 in addition to the US-PD via point 3 (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) factor in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  I found several references to the piece of artwork in works dated to the 1800s, but they did not have an actual reproduction of it. The earliest I found, is in a NPG catalogue from 1981. Based off that and the updated tags, I believe it meets points 1, 2, and 3 for US PD in addition to UK PD. Hopefully, that addresses this one?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto File:John_McDermond_Saving_Colonel_Haly_by_Louis_William_Desanges_(c._1900).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Likewise, not sure when it was first published. However, I have found that it was published prior to the 1996. So I believe the US/UK PD tags cover points 1, 2, and 3. Look forward to additional feedback on these two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  For both of these, was there a copyright notice in the publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Unless I have missed something, the NPG collection does not state the copyright status of the works shown. In the acknowledgement section, it provides a thank you to all "public and private" owners. For the Adam's portrait, it does not mention anything specific, and seems to imply that it was in a private collection until 1929, when it was donated to the NPG. As for the McDermond painting, the article does not include any information on the copyright status of the work. The journal states on the backpage that "authors are expected to seek reproduction permission themselves". Other than mentions that the paintings exist, I have not been able to find anything to state they were published prior to these works (although I am not 100 per cent that these are the first time they were both published).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Publication means when it was made available to the public. In the case of an artwork, when it was donated to the NPG counts as publication. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure if it counts, but the National Army Museum states that they acquired the McDermond (link to painting updated, as there was duplicate copies on the commons) was acquired in 1958 when it was gifted to them by Wantage Urban District Council (the council became defunct in the 1970s).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, display does not count as publication for US copyright purposes: see definition. The reason I ask about copyright notice is per point 2 of the URAA tag - "published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Wouldn't the lack of copyright info therefore cover point 2?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yep! Just wanted to make note that the donation did not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

An interesting article, packing a good deal of information into its 8,000 words, but the prose is not, in my view, up to FA standard. Some suggestions for improving it:

• I notice some odd spellings. Why use the Americanism "defense" instead of the British "defence"? You need to spell manoeuvre/manoeuver consistently, the adjectival "war time" instead of "wartime" looks odd, and I assume "Japanase" is merely a typo.

  Typo fixed, use of manoeuvre made consistent, and the defence issue addressed. If you do note any additional Americanisms, please point them out!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• the United Kingdom – you insist on spelling out the name at each mention (28 times), which seems odd – and a little obtrusive – as you use BEF, BAOR etc at second and later mentions of those entities.

  I have went though, and it has not only used a mere two times within the prose. I have either abbreviated the rest, tweaked the prose, or changed for British Empire etc as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "However, only two such formations…" – this is the first of eight "howevers" in the article, most of which add nothing of value to the reader and just clog up the prose.

  I have zapped the majorityEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "…was the brigade. These consisted of…" – crashing of gears changing from singular to plural.

  I have reworded this part. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Historian Clive Ponting…" – rather clunky false title, something you generally avoid elsewhere in the text.

  False titles eliminated. I have moved any descriptive into a clause after introducing them, as naming their profession has been a request during prior reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a similar organisation … as used by the Prussian Army" – not very good English, I think. Perhaps something on the lines of a similar organisation … to that used by the Prussian Army"?

  I have updated the sentence per your comment, and made a further change to the followingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Prior to the fighting", without going as far as Fowler who calls "prior to" "incongruous" when used as it is used here, I still wonder why a plain "before" wouldn't do here and later.

  Fair enough, changes madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Commenced" – a genteelism: a plain "began" or "started" would be stronger.

  The later has been used as a replacementEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "counterattack" (here and later) – the OED, Chambers and Collins all hyphenate "counter-attack".

  All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to retake Deville Wood that had been captured and then lost to a German counterattack" – Here and later there is some failure to distinguish between "restrictive" (i.e. defining) and "non-restrictive" (i.e. descriptive) clauses. It's the difference between "reviews that are pedantic are a pain" – which is possibly true – and "reviews, which are pedantic, are a pain" which means all reviews are pedantic, and is patently untrue. This sentence needs a non-restrictive construction: "to retake Deville Wood, which had been…".

  I think I have fixed this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Battle of Ancre that started on 12 November" – as opposed to the Battle of Ancre that didn't start on 12 November? Another restrictive clause that needs to be non-restrictive: "the Battle of Ancre, which started on 12 November"

  A few changes have been made based off this suggestion. I hope they improved the wording, rather than make more problems!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This included significant fighting – what did it signify, exactly? You mean "heavy" or some such adjective.

  After rechecking the source, I was attempting to highlight that these two events were the division's main actions during the fighting. Does the rewording work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Notably, one battery … with a notable" – a bit much too notability?

  I have reworded the former sentence, and left the latter intact. I hope the change is okay?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Wyrall noted some of the division's old hands had last marched" – not grammatically wrong, but could do with a "that" after noted. See p. 624 here (the link is to the second (1966) edition of Fowler, but the current (2015) edition, which is not accessible online, follows similar precepts).

  I have made the suggested tweak, and thank you for the linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "per the Allied Dyle Plan" – The old advice "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. Replacing the "per" with something in English such as "in accordance with" would make for better reading.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "declared war on Germany in response to their invasion of Poland" – singular noun (Germany) with plural pronoun (they).

  I think I have addressed this one nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Despite achieving tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced the BEF to withdraw…" – a dangling participle. The wording makes "strategic developments" the subject of the sentence, though you intend the subject to be the BEF. Something on the lines of "Although the BEF achieved tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced it to withdraw" would be better.

  Tweaks madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The fighting provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties" – WP:EDITORIAL unless you have a direct quote for "dubious honour".

  Editorial removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Lionel Ellis, who authored the volume" – "authored"? Why not a plain "wrote", or "Lionel Ellis, author of the volume"? Likewise for John Nott, later.

  Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "It had been intended for the division to reinforce the British Eighth Army" – does one "intend for", rather than "intend that"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein" – I think I see what this means – the move was called off as a consequence of the victory at Alamein – but the sentence is ambiguous as it stands.

  I have tweaked this portion of the article, and expanded a little. I hope the changes are more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The 2nd Division spent 1942 through 1944 training" – unexpected and not particularly welcome Americanism in a BrE article. "through" should be "to", surely?

  Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a proposed landing that would take place Rangoon" – a preposition seems to be missing after "place".

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The availability of British infantry within India was scarce" – can availability be scarce? Something might be scarce or its availability restricted but I'm not sure you can roll the two phrases into one.

  Opted for the latter, hope that worksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In order to maintain the division in the field" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get quite exercised about "in order to", insisting it should be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but I mention it for your consideration.

  It does simplify it, so tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "3,500 British soldiers, of which 2,500 were dispatched" – "which" seems an odd word here: one might expect "whom".

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "forces that were not going to be utilised" – Fowler calls "utilise" instead of "use" "an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word".

  Less pretentious edit made :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "were selected to be relieved, due to the increasing shortage of British manpower": In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

  Played it safe with the latter optionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• the increasing shortage of British manpower in Asia that impeded the ability to maintain them at full strength – another "that" restrictive clause where you mean a "which," non-restrictive one. As it stands the sentence means that there was at least one other manpower shortage that did something else.

  I have replaced the "that" with a "which", and have also moved a comma. I think this should flow and read betterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to repatriate soldiers, who had served in Asia for at least three years and eight months, back to the United Kingdom..." – Contrariwise, the commas here turn what is clearly meant to be a restrictive clause into a non-restrictive one. Blitzing the commas will do the trick.

  Commas removed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the defence of Western Europe from the Soviet Union" – does one defend something from something rather than against?

  Sentence tweaked, hopefully I didn't go a little overboard when it could have been a simpler fix?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The historian Marc Donald DeVore argued the politically forced change" – another place where a "that" seems called for.

  Missing "that" addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Territorial Army personnel that would arrive from the United Kingdom" – "that" isn't wrong, but isn't it more usual to use "who" when referring to people?

  Switched to "who"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The reforms envisioned" – do reforms envision things? And is "envision" a fancy way of saying "envisage"? And is "envisage" a fancy way of saying "foresee" or "intend" or some such?

  Defancified x2: intended it isEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "but early training found this to be impractical" – "showed" rather than "found"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a flexible task force that would be formed by the GOC" – you need to tell us what a GOC is, or provide a blue link.

  Full title now included, along with blue linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "allowed the GOC to tailor their force" – singular noun with plural pronoun. No need to be frightened of using "his" here, as everyone concerned was a man.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• This was indicated via two white stars" – a plain "by" instead of "via"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and I really appreciate your comments to help whip the article into shape. I have started working my way through them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have tried to address the remaining comments that you made. I really appreciate the assistance, and look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies! I neglected to put this review on my watch-list and promptly forgot about it. I am impressed with the thorough responses to my long list of quibbles, and am now happy to withdraw my reservations about the prose of the article. I know too little about the substance to comment on that, and leave it to more expert reviewers to make their judgements, but as far as the prose and presentation go, I am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Mainly focusing on prose. I'm not finding a lot to criticise.

• acquired the nickname: the "Observing Division" I don't think the colon is necessary here and I generally dislike colons in prose.

  What colon? Now, removed! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Try to avoid passive voice (eg, A further 516 casualties were suffered)

  This particular example has been rewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The fighting had cost 1,320 casualties and included Stewart I think you mean Stewart was included in the casualties, not (just) in the fighting.

  I changed this sentence up, so it should read correctly as you indicatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oman wrote he was a "splendid fighting man if a careless and tiresome subordinate" Is this really relevant to the division? It seems to me it would be better in Stewart's biography.

  Quite, and removed from this articleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• described him as "the only British commander with even the remotest experience of European war", for his service in the Peninsular War doesn't quite make sense to me. Would "based on" (or similar) work better than "for"?

  Tweaked per your recommendation

• Notably, George V, and the Prince of Wales – the future Edward VIII – , reviewed the division on 3 December. Why is this notable? Royal inspections of division weren't especially uncommon, were they? Also, I'd use parentheses to avoid having the comma after the dash. And you use the adjective "notable" quite a bit through the article, which gets repetitive and is arguable editorialising (we shouldn't be telling the reader what the most important pieces of information are).

  I have notably going through and tried to get rid of quite a notable number of my notables! Your right about royal inspections not being uncommon, although the POW touring the trenches was something new that happened. Although, whenever the king shows up to inspect a unit or formation, it always seems to be a standout moment within the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "fighting divisions with such fine records as that held by the 2nd Division were not allowed long out of the line" You need a ref straight after a direct quote.

  I would, generally, argue that it should be at the end of the sentence when incorporated. But, I have split up what was wrote, and moved the cites etc. to address your point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• You have a lot of short sentences, usually of the form "this caused ...", "this was ..." etc. Try to vary it to keep the reader's attention if they're reading the whole thing. Likewise the ", with" construction to join two parts of a sentence, which is also frowned upon in formal prose.
• However, the city was liberated no need for the "however"; nothing is being contradicted

  I have gone through and made various tweaks. I think my major problem was bogging down in trying to essentially provide a large list of actions that were fought. Hopefully, some of the changes I have made have been for the better!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Mason Review, a Government white paper that outlined a new defence policy, was published during his tenure that's somewhat obvious from it being named after him, but the passive voice makes it sound like something that happened accidentally; you could distil this down and eliminate the passive voice with "he authored the Mason Review in 1975".
• Most of the last two paragraphs from "The post-war and Cold War period" feels off-topic for the division article. I'd suggest distilling these down to the bits most relevant to the 2nd and putting that into one paragraph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have boiled down those two paragraphs, which include a reword on the Mason Review, and incorporated some of that text into the section about the 2nd Armoured Division. In the spirit of the review, text was lost, but it is now more efficient?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and comments. I have made various edits based off your notes, and attempted to address all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell:: A gentle reminder that I have attempted to address your concerns :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Many apologies. I'd forgotten to return to this. I'm satisfied that you've addressed my comments, so (pending TRM confirming that his prose/MoS concerns have been addressed) I support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "al formations bearing the name 2nd Division were formed. Only two such formations..." lots of "form" here reads mildly repetitively to me.

  Some tweaks made hereEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "into Boer territory" could link Boers.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, for non-experts, Guerrilla warfare could be linked.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "division moved to Scotland" you said expressly where in England it was located, where in Scotland?

  Location in Scotland addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• I know the article is about the 2nd Infantry Division but "division" is used 368 times in the article including 29 times in the Peninsular War section alone. I may be speaking out of turn but is there literally any other way of referencing the unit will remaining unambiguous without saying "division"?

  Tried to alternative things in the lead a little, but I am open to suggestions. Off the top of my head, early in the morning and with no a lot of sleep, one can only think of "it" and "formation" as viable alternatives.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the Battle of Vittoria" our article calls is the Battle of Vitoria?

  I have switched this up. I am not sure why, but Oman and a lot of other English sources (though to present day) spell the town with two 't's. I have noted the same with some German related sources. I am not sure if this is a typo that 'stuck', an English "alternative" spelling, or if the town was renamed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "on 1 July.[32] On 7 July" repetitive.

  Tweak madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Everard Wyrall, the" redlinked in the main body but not in the lead?

  Additional link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began. On 4 August" could merge, i.e. "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began, and a week later..."

  Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the Nivelle Offensive" I think there's been a general agreement that "Offensive" is no longer capitalised in this kind of usage.

  Link piped to drop the capitalEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• " of Amiens. So began" two mini-sentences again, I would once again recommend a merge.

  MergedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The strategic situation..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the "python" scheme" why was it called that?

  I have consulted several sources, and I have not seen any particular reason given for the name. As far as I am aware, it is not an abbreviation and is just a meaningless codename.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "strength.[193][192][197] " ref order.

  Ref ordered updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and Territorial Army" link.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the 1981 Defence White Paper. It," this doesn't appear to be italicised in our own article, is it really considered a work or is it more of a pamphlet?

  I have dropped the italicsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "16–18,000 men" I know what you mean, but should this really be 16,000–18,000 men?

  I would of argued the former, but I have tweaked it per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "262ff.." one too many full stops.

  I have removed the full stop from inside the template, so that only one will now displayEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Jan.-Sept" needs spaced en-dash, and not sure why some of the months are given here as abbreviations and other are not?

  En-dash added. The titles follow the layout used in each of the works. No idea why the earlier volumes abbreviate the latter do not.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "1815-1914" en-dash.
• "1854-1856" likewise.
• "1901-1903" ditto.

  All of the above tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "1976-7 " ditto (and sure that's not 77?)

  Tweaked, and yes it should have been "77" after a quick double checkingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "outlining the 2nd Division" and "First World War memorial" ... both need full stops.

  Periods addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and comments. I have a bandaged-up hand, which is slowing my typing so it may be a little longer than usual to address these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  No problem, and take your time. I hope your hand recovers soon! Feel free to ping me once you're done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man:: Thank you. I have gone through the article and tried to address your remaining concerns, or have left comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  No problem, I'm happy with the updates you've made and have no further reason not to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:23, 13 October 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) 13:39, 16 October 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 September 2021 [39].

---

UEFA Euro 2004 Final

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of you may have seen the FAC for UEFA Euro 2008 Final, which is currently active but hopefully close to a successful completion. Well this article is about the tournament prior to that one, the 2004 edition of the European Championship, and it brought one of the greatest shocks in the history of football. Outsiders Greece, who had never won a game at a major tournament before, stormed through the tournament, beating hosts Portugal in the opening game and then seeing off the tournament-holders France in the quarter-final and the Czech Republic in the semi-final. In the final, they met Portugal again and, through a combination of resolute defending and nicking a goal from a corner, they managed to overcome Portugal in their own back yard for a second time to claim the trophy. As ever, all comments and feedback welcome and I look forward to hearing from you.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TRM

• "hosts Portugal and Greece" perhaps a comma after Portugal or something to delineate who the hosts were (i.e. not both countries).

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Greece's manager" could link manager in the lead.

  Deon.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "odds" could be linked to fixed-odds betting?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "organised by UEFA for" link UEFA here.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• " European Championship final prior" do you mean final tournament here?

  No, it means the final itself. Both had appeared in at least one finals in the past. Does it need a reword?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "winners. [20]" lose the space.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "They suffered an early setback" who?

  Resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Some mix of "half-time" and "half time" when being used simply as nouns.

  Changed to "half time". Unless it should be "half-time"? I can't remember.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Karagounis suspended" was.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "temperatures of 28 °C (82 °F)" contradicts the infobox (where the ref is dead in any case...)

  Infobox updated (and the humidity too) to match the extant UEFA source.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "10 minutes.[42] On 13 minutes" repetitive.

  I've reworded a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "was hit over" struck?

  Ok sure.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "crossbar.[45][42] Maniche" ref order.

  Resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• As I'm always asked, what is referencing the exact positions and the formation diagram?
• "pre-tournament odds" could link odds again.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Minister Costas Karamanlis" our article calls him Kostas.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I've looked at all these point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: oh wait, no I haven't, there's still the positions sourcing. Will get back to you shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: actually, that looks like an easy one - the match report source used in the Details section, [40], has the formation laid out in what looks like the same fashion as our image. I suppose it doesn't explicitly give the positions as GK / RB / CM etc, but maybe that's inferrable from the formation diagram per WP:SKYISBLUE?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm okay with that. And thanks for addressing the other issues. I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "playing in only their second European Championship" - which team was?

  I've added "the latter".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• First mention of Deco in the lead isn't linked

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "They had further chances" - which team did?

  Changed to Portugal.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Cristiano Ronaldo, a substitute for Portugal fouled" - comma needed after Portugal

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The tie-breakers at Euro 2004 made use" - I would just say "Euro 2004 made use". The silver goal wasn't really a "tie-breaker" (which implies something used to decide a match which finished level)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Then Portugal had an opportunity with a free kick" - I would lose the redundant first word

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "continued to prevent goal-scoring many opportunities" - wording seems mangled here

  Swapped many with goal-scoring.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "as Barry Glendenning of The Guardian described the game thus far as "dull"" - this implies he said it literally at half time. Presumably he didn't?

  @ChrisTheDude: He actually did say it at half time. The source is a minute-by-minute live blog of the game, in which each piece of information was written by Glendenning and published at the time it happened. Do I need to amend it to make it clearer?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  No, that's fine if that's the case (I have to confess I didn't look at the source) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Five minutes into the second half, Glendenning said" - again, did he literally say it five minutes into the half?

  See above.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• " the first foreigner to coach a team" - suggest a different word(ing) - everyone is a foreigner to someone

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I think I've looked at all your points now.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:POR-GRE_2004-07-04.svg should have a source added to the image description
• File:Greeks_celebrating_Euro_2004_victory_dsc06432.jpg is quite blurry - are there no better-quality images available? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: I've done the first two points, and also added another image I found to the pre-match. Regarding the pic of the celebration, I can't find any very brilliant ones. There are two alternatives of confetti being showered on the Greek players during the trophy presentation, which you can see here and here. If you think either of those two would be better than File:Greeks_celebrating_Euro_2004_victory_dsc06432.jpg, then please let me know and I'll swap it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Personally I like the first of those, but your call. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: OK, swapped for that. I've looked at all your points, I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: are you happy with everything here from an image standpoint? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• "Greece winning 2–1 in what BBC Sport labelled a "shock defeat", maybe it's me but it seems to read little oddly by mentioning a win for Greece as a "defeat". Perhaps add "for the hosts" or something similar to the end?

  Yes, seems legit. I've added "for the hosts" as you suggest, to make it clearer.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "towards the Greek goal, and Greek goalkeeper", opposition instead of the first use of Greek to avoid slight repitition perhaps?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "through Figo and Maniche", first mention of Figo in the lead. Add full name and link.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Could link marking.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• What is ref 33 being used for? It only seems to reference "shortly before half-time" , which is covered by the following ref anyway. Could perhaps remove it or move to the end of the paragraph?

  Oh yes, I think it was because I thought that the time of the goal was not mentioned in the BBC article, but looking again it is there, in that black "Key Moments" box. I've removed the extra ref.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Not much for me to pick out once TRM and Chris have been over it. A few minor points above though. Kosack (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kosack: all the above looked at I believe. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support, great work. Kosack (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Ref 7 - sentence case for EURO please.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 9 - could we make it clear the publisher of this is S.L. Benfica?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 11 - dead.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 20 - appears to be the same as ref 4?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 22 - author name is missing.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 30 - what makes AGONAsport.com a high quality RS?

  I have removed this ref, it isn't really needed anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 40 - same question re: Planet Football?

  Replaced with an ESPN ref.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 45 - minor suggestion, you have the attendance referenced already in the prose using BBC and/or UEFA, suggest you reuse one of those here, or indeed don't even reference attendance here as it's dealt with already.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 46 - where do you get the ref title from?

  Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 50 - contains a quote for added verifiability I guess, but you don't do this sort of thing anywhere else, so why here, specifically?

  Removed. I think it's just a by-product of the little JavaScript tool I use for generating refs from web pages.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the source review, @The Rambling Man:, I think I've looked at all your points.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to pass the source review. I did a bunch of ad-hoc spotchecks and they were all satisfactory, didn't feel the need to list them all out here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "the latter playing in only their second European Championship." Delete only as redundant.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The defeat meant that Greece's fate was no longer in their own hands," In their own hands feels a little like an idiom, and I am not sure why this is because it is not really explained. Maybe change to something like, "The defeat meant that Greece needed Spain to lose their match against Portugal to advance to the next round. Spain was defeated by Portugal, which meant Greece and Spain were level on points; Greece progressed as they had scored more goals than Spain."

  It's actually not quite that simple. If Spain had beaten Portugal, then Greece would have gone through at the expense of Portugal. So in fact, only a draw in the other game would have sent Greece home. I've decided to remove that whole sentence, as it's not really necessary (we already said they needed a draw earlier, so it's obvious that if they didn't make that, then they're reliant on other results).  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Greece faced France, in a game on 25 June at the Estádio José Alvalade." -> Greece faced France on 25 June... this eliminates redundant words.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• "by The Guardian's Kevin McCarra as "undaunted and controlled"." Is this Kevin McCarra? If so, wikilink.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding the humidity details in the infobox into the article body, perhaps with the other weather details.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A well-written article. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: thanks very much for the review, and I think I've addressed all your points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - this FAC now has four supports, a source review and image review. Please can I have permission to nominate another solo FAC? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 27 September 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) 09:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2021 [41].

---

2015 FA Cup Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 edition of the oldest football competition in the world. This one, quite an open affair with the Gooners knocking four past the Villains. I look forward to working on all constructive and actionable reviews, and thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Amakuru

Lead

• "it was the 134th final of the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup)" - this doesn't appear in the body, and is not cited
• "the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition" - ditto, and feels slightly POV too. "Showpiece" and "primary" according to whom?
• For the lead to be complete, there should be some sort of nod towards the "Route to the final" section, for example by mentioning the beaten semi-finalists or whatever.
• "Following a change in UEFA rules, Arsenal had already qualified for the Champions League by finishing third in the Premier League" - needs a bit of logical reordering here; the change in rules didn't affect Arsenal's qualification, as implied here, it only affected whether Villa would qualify or not.

I've done a bit of reorganising, in line with other similar FA Cup Final FAs, and hopefully I've captured all your concerns in the expanded lead and new Background section? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Route to the final

• "FA Cup holders Arsenal" - a bit of context is needed here, since this is the opening spiel of the article, after the lead. What is the FA Cup? And link to FA Cup somewhere, along with the 2014–15 FA Cup article.

Added a Background section, hopefully addressing this? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "third round" then "Fourth Round" then "fifth round" - consistency needed (almost certainly lowercase).

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Theo Walcott opened the scoring after less than two minutes from a Calum Chambers cross before Mesut Özil made it 2–0 midway through the first half" - the uninitiated won't be sure which team this refers to

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "75th minute goal" - 75th-minute?

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "space of three first-half minutes, and after a goalless second half, Arsenal" - I think the comma should maybe be after "and" rather than after "minutes", since "after a goalless second half" looks like a subordinate clause or whatever those things are called.

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Arsenal progressed to the fifth round. There, Arsenal were drawn" - repetition of Arsenal. The term appears seven times in this paragraph, which is understandable since it's about them, but still something to keep an eye on; sometimes "they" will do instead.

Done. It's hard, and if you can improve it further, please go for it....! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "in a match scheduled to be televised on BBC One on a Monday evening" - this sort of implies that it didn't actually go ahead on the Monday; could rephrase to simply say that it did take place on that day

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "they claimed there would be no trains back" - MOS:CLAIM

Suggested? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "made the trip to" - a bit journalese

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a Ángel Di María cross" - should be "an Ángel..."

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Former United player Danny Welbeck" - "Manchester United"

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "round David de Gea" - this use of "round" as a verb may be obscure for people not familiar with football; consider rewording slightly

Done, I think? It wasn't a verb, FWIW, that would have been "rounded"... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "six minutes before half-time before Reading's Garath McCleary equalised with a volley nine minutes after the interval" - before, before, after

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the match ended 2–1 to reach the FA Cup Final" - Arsenal reached the final, not the match

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "scored Aston Villa's second in the 89th minute after it was fumbled" - after what was fumbled?

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "second yellow card, Sinclair doubled Aston Villa's lead" - I think "and" might work better than a comma here

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Liveprool goalkeeper" - typo

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Delph then gave Aston Villa the lead 11 minutes into the second half to give his side" - repetition of "gave" and "give"

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "since 2000". Could include "since" in the link, to avoid EGG issues.

Hmm. I've done it but I don't like it... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

• "a record 19th FA Cup final" - link to List of FA Cup Finals, unless you plan to mention the fact that it's the 134th final first (that fact appears in the lead but not in the body)

Linked in "new" b/g section. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a joint record with United" - Manchester United

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "11th final, of which they had won seven" - MOS:NUM (and we also said that Arsenal had won "11" earlier)

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "based on the one which" - slightly colloquial sounding language

Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

First half

• "In the eighth minute" ... "13th minute" - MOS:NUM

Interesting. This is the "comparable" figures one. The MOS doesn't give guidance (as far as I recall) on the scope of that limit, i.e. is it in a single sentence? A single paragraph? A single section? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "13th minute cross" - hyphenate

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "first player to be booked" - some sort of link would be useful

Linked to gloss. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "6 yards (5.5 m)" - overprecise

Made under-precise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In the 38th minute, Delph was then booked" - probably don't need "then"

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Second half

• "Alexis Sánchez then headed the ball into the Aston Villa goal but it was disallowed by the referee for offside. Cazorla's 57th minute low shot was then saved" - repetition of "then" in quite close succession

Got rid of the second one which is time-tagged anyway. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Aston Villa player was then booked for his protests. Bellerin then tackled..." - ditto

Used a different word. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to make it 4–0 to Arsenal, the final score, to win their 12th FA Cup" - awkward wording. Could split the part about the 12th FA Cup into a separate sentence

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-match

• "Wenger himself said" - not sure if we need "himself" here

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "BT Sport" - link

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru thanks, as ever. I'll get to these today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru I think I've done them pretty much all bar the MOSNUM "comparable" issue which I've remarked upon above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice one, looks good to me. Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Giants2008

Quick comments – In addition to seeing some of the items mentioned by Amakuru, I found these couple of extra points:

• Route to the final: "The second period of extra time was goalless and the match ended 2–1 to reach the FA Cup Final for the second consecutive year." To avoid awkwardness, this should say that Arsenal reached the FA Cup Final, instead of whatever this currently implies.

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Second half: "flicked the ball into the Aston Villa" sorely needs "net" afterwards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Added "goal". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 thanks for your comments. I'll get to them later on today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 I think I've addressed your concerns. Thanks once again for your comments here, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

• "Theo Walcott gave Arsenal the lead in the 40th minute, Nacho Monreal crossed from the left" - comma should be either a semi-colon or a full stop

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• " found Alexis Sánchez whose header back found" - any way to avoid repeating "found"?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "putting him in joint-first place" - don't think the hyphen is needed there

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "As FA Cup-winners, Arsenal" - or there :-)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Arsenal were playing a record 19th FA Cup final.... they had won 11....It was Aston Villa's eleventh final, of which they had won seven" - 19/11/11/7, surely?

  Yes, probably. MOSNUM isn't clear on the scope of how long the consistent words/numerals has to go. But aligned. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Giroud, Özil, Walcott not linked or given forenames in the Background section

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "At their Emirates Stadium," - not technically clear who "they" are here

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delink the players mentioned above in the Route to the final section

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "With the score level at the end of regular time" - isn't in more usually "With the scores level"?

  Why? The score is singular, and it is level? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the match went into extra time where" => "the match went into extra time, during which" (extra time is not a place)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "With ten minutes to go, Claudio Yacob was sent off" - for which team?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Alexis Sánchez was fouled by Westwood" - Westwood has not been mentioned before so should be linked and given a forename

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Same with Vlaar

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• In fact probably best to check all the players named in the match report

  Think it's done? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Delph was booked for repeated fouls" - link foul?

  Well, I'll link it the first time if that's ok? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "strike the ball on the volley into the goal" - and volley?

  Linked already in the "Arsenal" section. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Alexis Sánchez's full name is used repeatedly, unlike any other player

  Fair point that. But there's Carlos in there. So what do you suggest? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  A very good point which I hadn't thought of :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Aston Villa player was then booked" - link booked?

  Was already linked? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "putting him in joint-first place for wins with George Ramsay" - no need for hyphen

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude thanks, let me know if I missed anything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• Link Hull City, Liverpool and Aston Villa in the second paragraph of the background section as the first mention of all three.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Full name and link for Danny Welbeck in the next paragraph.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps link own goal here too?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link Premier League in the first sentence of the Arsenal route to the final section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Hull City link can also be dropped here if the first point above is done.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Welbeck link can be dropped in the second paragraph now too.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• First mention of Wembley Stadium in the second paragraph can be linked.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Liverpool link can be dropped from the Aston Villa section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link kit in the pre-match section perhaps?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Full name and link for Tom Cleverley and Aaron Ramsey in the first paragraph of the match section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Same for Francois Coquelin in the next paragraph.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 6 needs has an authour available at the bottom of the page

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 30 is the only instance of BBC Sport not being linked. Aiming for consistency, might be worth linking.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the lateness, been a bit under the weather this week. Here's what I've got, nothing major. Kosack (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Kosack no apologies needed at all. Thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all I think, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Grapple X - pass

• Passed on sources. 12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• There's an sfn citation (ref 3) pointing to a source that isn't present (O'Leary 2017). Can we get that added?

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not a fault per se but it seems like almost all of the web sources are archived; are the missing ones an oversight or just unlikely to change? Ref 1 for example—retrieved the day it was published—isn't archived but cited a few times.

  I just go for whatever IABot can add in, I've just run it again and it added nothing new. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Consistent mis-spelling of The Grauniad

  Done The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 26 and 35 are the same page; presumably retrieved at two different times as the story was reported but now just pick one and use it twice

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I'm seeing for now; I presume we can dispense with the spot-check here but I'll carry one out if requested. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Grapple X all done I think. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That looks fine. I assume the bot just finds already-archived versions of web links? It's possible to create new archived versions if you want but certainly not obligatory. The missing reference and the redundant cite being culled look good though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, if you wouldn't mind explicitly marking the review as passed, that would make life easier for me and for the co-ords. Cheers again for your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: now this has the customary minimum to allow me to request the chance to nominate one more solo nom, could I be allowed to do that please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi TRM, I can see the players' names and numbers in the Report source but not their positions and nations -- did I miss something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Tks TRM. Incidentally given no other Sanchez is mentioned in the lead I don't see a risk to not using the chap's full name the second time there but we won't split hairs... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• For the route to the final tables, I suggest adding Template:abbr for SF, as it took me a while to understand that it meant semi-final.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the broadcasting paragraph placed in the post-match section? Seems like a weird spot, since it is talking about what happened before and during the match (all-day programming, match ratings, etc.) Perhaps it should have its own section between Pre-match and summary?

  I don't think so. It covers the broadcast that happened of the event as a whole, and would be odd on its own micro-section, and covers things that weren't determined until some time after the conclusion of the event, so post-match seems the most appropriate location for it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The citation for referee in the infobox is not needed, as it is cited in the article body per WP:INFOBOXREF.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The weather is in the infobox, but it is not mentioned in the article body. It should be added somewhere, perhaps under details.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No other comments. It is a well-written article. Z1720 (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 thanks for your comments, I've addressed and/or responded to them above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 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) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [42].

---

Edmund I

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the latest of my FAC submissions about later Anglo-Saxon kings. Edmund I (939 to 946) was the first king to inherit the throne of all England, but he had to fight hard to keep his inheritance against Viking kings from Dublin who crossed the Irish Sea to become kings of York. He was successful in recovering northern England, but he died young trying to rescue a servant from an attack by a violent thief. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

I was able to find a few minor issues to comment on at the peer review, and Dudley has addressed those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Like Mike, I peer reviewed the article and my (very minor) quibbles were completely dealt with then. I am inexpert in Anglo-Saxon history, but to my layman's eye the article is convincingly comprehensive, balanced and well and widely sourced. It is beautifully written and splendidly illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. I'm happy to do a source review if no more expert volunteer comes forward. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review - Pass

• Don't use fixed px size
• Don't repeat captions in alt text
• File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg
• File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_obverse.jpg needs a US tag for the coin, and what's the copyright on the photograph? Coins are not 2D. Conversely, File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_reverse.jpg has a tag for the photo and not the coin (and seems to have a broken template). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki. I think they are all fixed now. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg: tag indicates that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Same message on File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg and on File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, which doesn't seem to have been edited? And then same message on both coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think they are fixed now as all files show a US public domain tag. Thanks Nikki. It is so long since I nominated an FAC that I have forgotten how to deal with images, but hopefully I now know. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, all good. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

All the sources are top-quality, and I see no formatting issues with any of them (I did fix one minor CS1 error and changed a hyphen to an en dash). Some comments and suggestions:

• You might add an orig-date for EHD, and anything else for which you're citing a later edition (I didn't spot anything).
  • Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Just spotted one: Robertson (1925) has an ISBN so that must be a reprint too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I put in orig-date and took it out again. Most readers do not understand wiki templates and may be misled into thinking that (2009) [1925] is a publication revised in 2009, not just that it happens to be the date of a photographic reprint. I have now changed it to (1925) [2009 photographic reprint]. I think this is clear to readers but breaks the rules. Another alternative is to just show 1925 with the issn instead of the isbn of the reprint, but I will show it according to wiki rules if required. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

    I think what you've done is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• No location given for Molyneaux 2015, Stenton 1971, Dunbabin 1999, Keynes 1999
• You give a publisher for three of the journal cites (Hart 1973, Halloran 2013, and Trousdale 2007) but not the others; any reason for the inconsistency?
  • The reason is that I showed the publisher when it was given on copy of the article. I have now deleted all journal publishers but can track them down if the information is required. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

    That's fine; I don't think locations are worth it for journals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I see you give "London, UK" rather than just "London" as a location; no need to change this if you prefer the consistency of your current format but I think there's a list somewhere of locations that need no disambiguation -- cities like Chicago, New York, London, Paris. Up to you.
  • I have not been able to find the list of locations. On a previous FAC I was advised that all UK locations should be shown as UK including London and all US ones with the state. Checking Template:cite book I see that this is wrong as they show UK locations with the county. I am now inclined to change them all to comply with this, but with no county needed for London, Oxford and Cambridge. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

    I'd leave them as they are -- I think the requirement is only that the location be clear, and what you've done is clear. Change it to counties if you prefer, but it's not wrong as you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

That's all I can find to nitpick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Just the four missing locations for books left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• All fixed now - I trust! Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Everything looks good; source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now (in the mood as I just watched Beowulf the other day...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd not who/what Frank Stenton is as a descriptor at first mention. Also Barbara Yorke, Ryan Lavelle and Alaric Trousdale

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• By 945 both Scotland and Strathclyde had kings who had succeeded since Brunanburh - err, presume you mean succeed someone rather than do well. Looks weird here I'd see this meaning as exclusively transitive, so maybe "taken power" or "become rulers/assumed their thrones" or somesuch.

• Hmm. I cannot think of a good way of putting this but went for "assumed the throne". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• The only coin in common use in the tenth century was the penny. - I'd link "penny" here to something appropriate

• Done. Linked to History of the English penny (c. 600 – 1066), which is unreferenced but written by a historian. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Should the law codes be italicised?

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting says no. It implies that they should be in double quotes, but most historians do not do this and I think it looks clumsy. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• The relationship between Anglo-Saxon kings and their leading men was personal: - the colon should be a semicolon....?

• Not sure about that but done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Minor quibbles only - looks okay on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Casliber. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Z1720

Non-expert prose review. A general comment: many of my concerns with the article are about experts whose opinions are given, but their credentials are not explained in the article. Although wikilinks are given for most of the people highlighted below, it is my understanding from previous FACs that a reader should be able to understand the meaning of wikilinked word without clicking on the wikilink. In this case, the "meaning of the wikilink word" is the credentials of the person being quoted, without needing to click into that person's article to understand that person's credentials. In most cases, an addition to the text (for example, changing "In the view of Dorothy Whitelock" to "In the view of historian Dorothy Whitelock") will alleviate my concerns, so that the reader knows why the person whose opinion is reading about is important. Other thoughts are also below:

• "of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia, came under" Remove comma after East Anglia?

• I think it is clearer with the comma.Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• There's a lot of information about Edward's previous marriages. While I acknowledge that articles sometimes need to give family history, I feel like this is a lot of information that does not directly pertain to Edmund, and perhaps can be summarized more effectively.

• Cut it a bit. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• This looks a lot better. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Æthelstan, the son of Edward's first wife, Ecgwynn, was born around 894, but Ecgwynn probably died around the time of Alfred's death, as by 901 Edward was married to Ælfflæd." There's multiple thoughts in this sentence: Edward's son, Ecgwynn and her death, and the second wife. I suggest splitting this up, perhaps, "Edward's first wife was Ecgwynn, and the two had a son named Æthelstan, born around 894. Ecgwynn probably died around the time of Alfred's death, as by 901 Edward was married to Ælfflæd."

• No longer relevant after the cuts. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Edward married Eadgifu, the daughter of Sigehelm, ealdorman of Kent, who had died in 902 at the Battle of the Holme." Why is it important in Edmund I's biography to know that Sigehelm died in 902 at the Battle of the Holme? If it's not important for this article, delete it.

• I think it is worth keeping. Going into details would be excessive, but some historians think it is important that Eadgifu was the daughter of a war hero. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The twelfth-century historian William of Malmesbury gives Edmund a second full sister called Eadgifu like her mother," -> I had to read this a couple times to understand what this was saying. Maybe, "The twelfth-century historian William of Malmesbury describes a second full sister named Eadgifu, who had the same name as her mother,"

• I have tried to make it clearer. What do you think?

• Much clearer. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "William's account is accepted by Ann Williams and Sean Miller, but Sarah Foot argues that she did not exist," Who are these people and why should the reader care about their opinion? Briefly give their credentials in the article.

• Done. NB. I have added "the historian", which is BrEng, not "historian", which is AmerEng. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I have learned something new today. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "that Simon Walker has suggested that the poem was written during Edmund's reign." Who is Simon Walker?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "although Simon Keynes", Thomas Charles-Edwards" Some more people whose credentials should be explained in the article.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "According to the hagiography of a Gaelic monk called Cathróe he travelled through England on his journey from Scotland to the Continent; Edmund summoned him to court and Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, then ceremonially conducted him to his ship at Lympne. Cathróe is unlikely to have been the only Celtic cleric at Edmund's court." I'm not sure why this is in the article or why this is important. I feel like a lot of context is missing here: Why is it important for the reader to know that there were Celtic clerics in Edmund's court?

• Added context. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "but it is known that Otto sent delegations to Edmund's court." How do we know this? Was it recorded somewhere? I think this should be more specific.

• This occurred to me when I wrote it. Unfortunately, the sources just cite nineteenth century editions of works in Latin, and my Latin is not up to checking them. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• My Latin is non-existent, so we'll leave it. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• " Cyril Hart compares the brothers' power" -> "Historian Cyril Hart"

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In the view of Dorothy Whitelock" -> In the view of historian Dorothy Whitelock...

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "However, in contrast to Edmund's concern about the level of violence," Delete however, as "in contrast" shows that this is different from the previous statement and is redundant.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Richard Abels" Another expert that needs credentials.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "described by Patrick Wormald" -> "described by historian Patrick Wormald"

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• The image "File:MS. Hatton 30 Expositio Augustini in Apocalypsin 73v.jpg" is at the end of the legislation section, causing the image to be displayed mostly in the religion section. If it is supposed to be part of Legislation, it should be moved higher in the section. If it's for religion, it should be at the top of the religion section.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "have a change of heart" Feels like an MOS:IDIOM and might need to be changed. Perhaps "change his opinion"

• It is a bit colloquial, but it seems right in the context and "change his opinion" does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Æthelstan had granted two estates to religious women, Edmund made seven such grants and Eadred four." Change the comma to a semi-colon?

• The comma looks right to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "charter's authenticity is disputed." Disputed by whom?

• Added a note on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Her will survives, as do those of her father and of her sister Ælfflæd, wife of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, the hero of the Battle of Maldon in 991." Why is this information important in Edmund I's article? If it is not, delete it.

• Hmm. An interesting point. ODNB on Edmund has the wills, perhaps because historians attach great importance to wills as sources, but I agree and have cut down the details. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Clare Downham and Kevin Halloran" Who are these people? Especially important because they are not wikilinked.

• Not sure about this as their views are contrasted with "other historians", but added anyway. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Many sentences in the second paragraph of Assessment start with "Trousdale". Suggest varying the start of sentences.

• I agree but could not see how to change without reducing clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Some suggestions: "Trousdale also sees Edmund as moving..." -> "He also sees Edmund as moving..." "Trousdale's picture contrasts with that of other historians such as Sarah Foot, who emphasises the achievements of Æthelstan," -> "Other historians contrast with Trousdale's picture: Sarah Foot emphasises the achievements of Æthelstan,"

• Changed the first one. I do not think I can say that historians contrast with a picture and it is not so bad now that the previous Trousdale has been deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "period a poound was a unit of account of 240 pence." Should this be pound?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest putting the Sources section into columns by adding "|28em" After refbegin, to reduce white space and make it easier to read. This is not required for my support though.

• I much prefer a straight list for sources and find it much easier to read. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you respond. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your every thorough review Z1720. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Further reply to Z1720. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• My concens have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 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) 20:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 October 2021 [43].

---

Melville Fuller

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Chief Justice Melville Fuller was, by all accounts, a competent administrator and a kind man, but he also ended up on the wrong side of some of the worst decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever rendered. Leading a conservative court in an era of change, the mustachioed jurist struck down the federal income tax, endorsed racial segregation, and turned laissez-faire into a constitutional mandate. Needless to say, the legal academy hasn't looked too favorably upon his tenure: despite recent attempts to rehabilitate his reputation, Fuller remains inextricably linked with what one scholar called "a far-off and bygone judicial age". Yet that age – one in which an increasingly conservative judiciary faced off against an increasingly progressive society – perhaps bears some similiarities to our own. The story of Melville Weston Fuller remains as relevant today as ever.

I've been working on this article for the better part of a year, and I'm confident it's ready to face the rigors of FAC. Hog Farm reviewed it for GAN in July; since then, it's been extensively expanded (by yours truly), carefully copyedited (by the GOCE), and prudently peer-reviewed (by the incomparable Tim riley). My heartfelt thanks go out to all who have helped improve this article. I eagerly anticipate all comments, and I hope you enjoy reviewing the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Just booking my place. I hope to look in tomorrow to add my considered views after another, post-PR, perusal. ("Incomparable", forsooth! Some might replace the "arable" with "etent" or "rehensible".) – Tim riley talk 20:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My quibbles were dealt with at PR. I have just finished rereading the article in its post-PR state and have seen nothing new to quibble about. The content shows every sign of being balanced, the proportions are sensible, the sources look good, varied and fairly recent on the whole, the illustrations are well chosen and the prose is fine. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is File:CJ_Fuller.tif paged? When and where was this first published?

• I'm not sure how it got paged, nor do I know how to un-page it. Is that a problem? (It doesn't seem to be doing any harm.) I've clarified the licensing: the LoC gives a 1908 copyright date, so all should be well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:Melville_Fuller_Signature.svg: is this copyright ineligible, or copyright expired?

• Per Commons, ordinary signatures like this one are copyright-ineligible under US law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, so can the tagging be changed to reflect that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:Melville_Weston_Fuller,_Chief_Justice,_Supreme_Court,_three-quarter_length_portrait,_seated,_facing_right_LCCN97502838.tif: the author credit indicates that he died in 1952, which was less than 70 years ago

• I've adjusted the licensing tag. Since it was registered with the Copyright Office in 1899, the copyright has long since expired. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Fuller_Court.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• Registered with the Copyright Office in 1899, per this, pg. 492. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:08_Melville_W._Fuller_bust,_US_Supreme_Court.jpg: what's the copyright of the photograph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• The original upload included a pd-self tag, which I've since added back. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• Consider adding the year of the decisions you cite in parentheses.

• I've added years to the lead, which I think was the only place missing them. Let me know if you see any others without them.

• "He helped develop a gerrymandered system for congressional apportionment, and he supported provisions prohibiting African-Americans from voting or settling in the state." Would this benefit from context? Such systems were routine a century before Baker v. Carr and the provisions regarding African-Americans presumably had support that extended well beyond Fuller.

• I've clarified that the provisions about African-Americans were supported by Democrats more broadly. Regarding gerrymandering, my source says only that Fuller was "instrumental in framing a blatantly partisan congressional apportionment scheme", so I presume that it was a bit more extreme than one's workaday gerrymander (and that Fuller in particular was responsible for it).

• "a ban on the printing of paper money." By banks or by the federal government (i.e. the new greenbacks that were being issued to finance the war)? (see also the mention of his views in the 1870s)

• Done.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• " The dissenters felt the decision was foreclosed by the Court's past holdings, and each one decried the majority's perceived infidelity to precedent." You're really saying the same thing twice here. I think you say it better when you focus on precedent, so I would rewrite just to say that the dissenters felt the court was not following its precedent.

• Done.

• "marked only the third time in American history that a Supreme Court decision was reversed via constitutional amendment.[29]: 59  " Less impressive than it sounds when you consider that the Income Tax Amendment was only the sixth since there had been a Supreme Court, and so three of the six amendments (arguably five) were passed to reverse Supreme Court decisions. I would strike the word "only".

• I see what you mean, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, out of thousands of decisions rendered over the preceding 120 years, this was only the third deemed sufficiently egregious to merit reversal via amendment. For what it's worth, my source expressly says that "the decision became only the third of four to be directly overturned by constitutional amendment". I think I'll keep it as is, although I'm glad to change it if you feel strongly about it.

• " Most modern legal scholars believe Pollock was wrongly decided" This is from a 2014 paper relying on papers from 1998 and 1999. Can such broad statement, that may or may not be dated, be stated in this way? It may become dated even if it isn't already.

• I've attributed the statement and given it a date, just to be safe.

• "the Sherman Act, an 1890 federal antitrust law that outlawed monopolies" Not that I'm aware. "Innocent monopolies" were still allowed.

• I've removed "that outlawed monopolies" altogether, since the word "antitrust" says all that needs to be said.

• What is "the legal academy"?

• Legal scholars as an institution: see [44] [45].

• "The Court's expansive Commerce Clause cases during the New Deal period essentially abrogated Knight." I might say "decisions" for "cases"

• Done.

• " In Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890)," It might be worth noting somewhere that Utah remained a territory until 1896. You've just come off a discussion of the Insular Cases without a paragraph break.

• Clarified.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these very helpful comments, Wehwalt: I appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• The only other thing I can think of is can something be said about contemporary reaction at his death?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good idea: I've added a sentence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Probably insincere on the part of both TR and Taft, who wanted Fuller dead years before so Taft could have the job ... but fine.

• Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do one (hopefully tomorrow). Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sources are all reliable
• All of the further reading items are used as sources. Since further reading is generally for items not included as sources, I don't think they need to be listed there

• Removed. MOS:FURTHER seems to permit duplication when (as here) "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list", but since both you and Tim riley have independently raised the point I'm glad to just take it out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing stands out as problematic with the formatting

Spot checks coming soon. Hog Farm _Talk 05:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Wong Kim Ark decision has taken on additional significance as prominent Republican politicians, including Donald Trump, have called for the reversal of birthright citizenship" - checks out
• "During his confirmation, Fuller's mustache produced what law professor Todd Peppers called "a curious national anxiety"" - checks out
• "and legal historian Edward A. Purcell Jr. said that it "helped create a newly powerful and activist federal judiciary that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century and continued to operate into the twenty-first" - checks out
• "A 1993 survey of judges and legal academics found that Fuller's reputation, while still categorized as "average", had risen from the level recorded in a 1970 assessment." - checks out

No issues with source-text integrity or copyright noted. Hog Farm _Talk 23:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Hog Farm – much appreciated! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Kavyansh.Singh

• "However, he opposed the Lincoln Administration's handling of the war" – 'Lincoln Administration' could be linked to Presidency of Abraham Lincoln
  • Done.
• "including William M. Evarts of New York, Nevada's William Morris Stewart, and" – looks a bit odd while reading. Maybe move Nevada after Stewart's name.
  • Done.
• "Cullom demanded an immediate vote, fearing that delay on Fuller's nomination could harm Republicans' prospects of winning Illinois" – Probably worth mentioning that Republicans did win Illinois in the 1888 election.
  • Somewhat surprisingly, none of my sources mention this, so I don't really feel comfortable mentioning it directly (per WP:OR; WP:SYNTH, etc.). Here's a compromise: I've linked 1888 United States presidential election in Illinois, so curious readers can investigate on their own.
    • That works. The more interesting part about this is that Benjamin Harrison (Republican nominee) won Illinois by just 2.9%. The last Democrat to carry Illinois was James Buchanan in 1856. (please bear with me if I talk too much about elections) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Found nothing else which needs to be addressed. Excellent work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Kavyansh.Singh! Much appreciated. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I definitely support this article's promotion as a featured article. @Extraordinary Writ, honestly, I never thought that a biography of a Supreme Court chief justice could be so interesting! As a side note, will you be able to take a look at this FAC? Regardless, thanks a lot for your work on this article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the kind words, Kavyansh.Singh. I'll try to pay Daisy a visit in the next week or so: I've been pretty busy lately but I'll do my best. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Grapple X

I've combed over this one and am happy to support it; well-written, wonderful depth, and it does a great job of balancing biography with legacy. The only thing I could draw attention to, and it's certainly not a hindrance to me supporting this, is that we see the construction "damaged his historical reputation", or "harmful to his historical reputation", etc, a few times, although the section discussing his legacy paints the picture that his image hasn't so much been tarnished as it has just always been poor. Obviously if this is the verbiage of the sources then we should stick to it but if not, it may be worth looking at wordings that would denote that these decisions have shaped a poor reputation rather than harming a good one. Just a thought to consider and a subtle one at that. Good work on this article. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support, Grapple X. Good point regarding the "damaged his reputation" phrasings: I've replaced them with more accurate wordings (e.g. "has contributed significantly to his poor historical reputation"). Again, thanks! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 17 October 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) 16:15, 17 October 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 November 2021 [46].

---

Ghostbusters

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Ghostbusters. It's a great film. Watch it. Wait. Not the 2016 film, also known as Ghostbusters. The good one. The 84 one. Watch that one. Then review here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The original Ghostbusters is a major horror-comedy classic. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by TheJoebro64

resolved

I'll get a review in sooner or later. Probably sooner. JOEBRO64 12:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I feel like the second paragraph reads a bit jumbled together with a high density of facts. I feel like it could be streamlined a bit? Maybe cut down on the initial time/space travel plot and rework "Ghostbusters was the first comedy film to employ expensive special effects. There was concern about the budget it would require..." as a single sentence. I think you should mention Belushi died in 1982 for context Competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time meant part of the budget was used to co-found a new studio under Richard Edlund. I think this sentence could use some restructuring. "Under Richard Edlund" is unclear, and I think it's a bit too verbose and reads odd without mentioning that the studio is Boss Film Studios. Perhaps something like "Due to competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time, Richard Edlund used part of the budget to help form Boss Film Studios, which used a combination of practical effects, miniatures, and puppets to deliver the ghoulish visuals." (I incorporated the last sentence as part of this because I think it flows better and is now active rather than passive voice) I'd add the years Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters came out in parenthesis This is just personal preference, but I don't think you need to explicitly call Ghostbusters II "a sequel" in the lede. I think it should be obvious to the reader that a movie called Ghostbusters II is a sequel to Ghostbusters. From the current sentence, you could easily just strike it ("Ghostbusters was followed in 1989 by a sequel, Ghostbusters II...") I think it should be clearer that Afterlife is a direct sequel to the 1984 movie and Ghostbusters II and not the 2016 one. Up to you how you want to do this but I think it's not exactly clear at the moment. My initial batch. Should have more as I read along. May be a bit slow over the weekend as I'm going on a retreat but I'll still try to comment regularly throughout, but so far this is looking very good. I have been making minor copyedits while I go that I assume are uncontroversial but just revert if you don't agree with them. JOEBRO64 20:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Done, you can see the changes here, thanks JB. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "I was writing a line for John, and [producer and talent agent] Bernie Brillstein called and said they just found him … We loved each other as brothers." I don't think the "we loved each other as brothers" part of this quote is necessary and/or adds anything. You already mention that Belushi and Akyroyd were close friends, which should convey the sentiment enough. Regarding the previous quote, I think it could be paraphrased. Something like "Aykroyd recalled that he was writing one of Belushi's lines when producer and talent agent Bernie Brillstein called and informed him of Belushi's death" "...$25–$30 million; different figures have been cited." Just for clarification: this means that sources provide different estimates, correct? "Given Hollywood's accounting practices, however, the film technically never made a profit for Universal to be owed a payment." This needs further elaboration as I am an accounting Neanderthal who doesn't understand what this means. Will keep going JOEBRO64 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Done all, I added a brief Hollywood accounting explanation, and yes different sources provide different estimates on the budget. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Hey TheJoebro64, Don't You (Forget About Me) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Haven't forgotten! Just working on another FAC right now where I have to add in some literary analysis which is extremely boring and tedious but I'm aiming to finish up by the weekend. I'll give Ghostbusters my full attention after. JOEBRO64 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Well that FAC passed. Now can give this my full undivided attention. JOEBRO64 03:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Good job on that btw, comic articles are a pain in the ass to promote. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your patience! Here comes some more: Is Aykroyd referring to scope creep (also known as kitchen sink syndrome) when he calls himself a "kitchen sink" writer? If so I think a link would be a nice. Do you think this is a good change? I did a test edit to see how it went and I think it reads better but I'm not 100% that it's grammatically correct. "He took the character's first name from a Hungarian refugee he attended school with and the surname of historian Oswald Spengler." sounds like it belongs in writing rather than casting? Same with the details of Hudson's role being cut down from the initial script. And that's the rest of the Production section. Not much but I'll get to Design later today. JOEBRO64 14:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Yes the way I read it is that he basically throws every idea he's got in there, which is how you end up with ghost exterminators traveling through dimensions to battle demons and ghosts, and then someone came in and cleared that all up. I've added the link. Yes I think that edit is fine, it read fine to me before but I think it may have been a bit informal a way of writing it. I've renamed the section "cast and characters". I think it's better having those notes mentioned alongside the cast/characters, particularly things like how Ramis designed the character because that read to me as something done after writing, similar to how Hudson's role was cut down the night before filming. I thought it flowed better from a chronological readability point, but hopefully by adding "characters" it makes the content more appropriate overall. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Looks good. JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC) "The Marshmallow Man was fabricated and portrayed..." I think you should substitute a different word for "fabricated". I think it could be a bit confusing given the other, more common definition of "fabrication" "creating a puppet operated by tens of cables running..." The source says 10 to 20 cables were used, I'd say that instead because "tens of" sounds weird Is the No symbol image in Sets and logo necessary? The logo is already at the top of the article, and the No symbol in the section is facing the wrong way. Beginning to have fewer nitpicks as I go along, which is a good sign. This article is really well put-together, should finish pretty swiftly JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Done the first two. The "No" image is, according to the designer, the correct way the Ghostbusters symbol is meant to be and the way it was designed because it initially had "Ghostbusters" written in the middle, but the text was removed for the poster and the image flipped for AMerican audiences, becoming the common symbol. The image was just to demonstrate how it was designed versus how it ended up. I could replace it with NFC of a set or something that might be more visually informative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I'm gonna finish this review tomorrow. Just been busy these past few days. JOEBRO64 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Any reason Critical response doesn't mention the publications the critics were writing for? I can understand it for notable critics like Ebert, but without a publication why the hell should I care about what Joseph Gelmis said about Ghostbusters? Not a terrible issue but the Critical response section could use a copyedit to avoid the "A said B" problem outlined in WP:RECEPTION "In 1984, the filmmakers were also sued by the makers of Casper the Friendly Ghost for $50 million and the destruction of the film." Not sure what "destruction of the film" means—did Casper's makers want all copies of the film destroyed? The Thematic analysis section is good though I'd add labels for people (cultural critic, author, etc.) to explain why we should care about their interpretations. Just me though. And that's it. This is an excellently-written article, and certainly an important one given this film's importance! I've made tons of miniscule changes while reading I assumed would be uncontroversial so these are my only remaining points. JOEBRO64 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC) TheJoebro64, I've tried to reword the reception section a bit,I've added labels in the themes section and clarified the legal Casper case as they wanted all copies of the film destroying (can you imagine if they'd won?). Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I've done a full rewrite of the reception section :) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Bloody fantastic article. Keep up the good work DWB! JOEBRO64 01:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Excellent article, really thoroughly sourced and informative. The only nitpick I have is the "Thematic analysis" section. Now, I know others practically imposed all these strange citations on you, just for the sake of including scientific journals. But it still sounds confusing to me at times:

• "Inequality and pollution" subsection. The ghosts, which were once human, are not acknowledged as such and are treated as a nuisance that the Ghostbusters transport to less desirable areas, similar to real-world gentrification... So, the interpretation is that ghosts are a symbol for the homeless and ethnic minorities? But when were ethnic minorities deported from New York? It sounds more like Clare means illegal immigrants.

Zoila Clark noted that concept art of an unused Chinatown ghost bore similarities to a stereotypical Chinese immigrant including long, braided hair and a triangular agricultural hat. Maybe to rename this subsection to "Inequality, immigrants and pollution"?

• "Addressing audiences and death" subsection. Vincent Canby said a film's profitability was dependent on addressing children who "can identify with a 40-year-old-man with a mid-life crisis and 40-year-old-men in midlife crises who long to fight pirates with cardboard cutlasses" What does this have to do with anything? "Addressing audiences" is kind of a strange title, is there any way to rename it?

I hope these will be clarified, but I support promoting this article nontheless.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Not "deported" but moved into areas where the better off don't want to be. I'm not American so I couldn't tell you the particular areas where that happens. I think the easiest explanation would be making areas too expensive to live in, so the existing inhabitants are moved to Harlem or Queens, not out of the country entirely. I'm trying to think of a better title for the last section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Resolved comments from Pamzeis (talk)

I will try my best not to screw this up. I have not read above comments so I apologise if I repeat anything; additionally, I have not watched this film so sorry for any obvious mistakes. Check for MOS:LQ issues American supernatural comedy film directed — WP:SEAOFBLUE? start a ghost-catching business in New York City. — does "New York City" need to be wikilinked? Based on his own fascination with spirituality, Aykroyd conceived Ghostbusters as a project for himself and John Belushi, in which they would adventure through time and space battling supernatural threats. — I'm confused what this means. For him and Belushi to star in? For him and Belushi to play a game in? Following Belushi's death in 1982, and with Aykroyd's concept deemed financially impractical, he was — "he" meaning Belushi or Aykroyd? that utters a single word — per WP:PLOTTENSE, I think, this should be in past tense. Ray and Egon research Zuul while Venkman — why two first names and one surname? then rewrote each other. — rewrote each other's scripts? I'll try to leave more in a bit and to not screw them up. Pamzeis (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC) You're not screwing them up, don't worry. I don't know if I can do much about the links to supernatural and comedy film, if I unlink them someone will inevitable re-link them. I've made changes per the rest of your comments, I think Venkman is just more commonly how he is referred to while the others are Ray and Egon, no one really calls them Stantz and Spengler, but I've changed it all to first names. Thanks for your comments. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I was wondering if there was more to come, or if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Sorry! I forgot about this. More comments: Check for MOS:LQ issues. I know I said this last time but I can still see a few (e.g. "would have cost something like $200 million to make.", "reasonable.", etc.) Link "Peter Venkman", "Ray Stantz" and "Egon Spengler" at their first occurrence after the lead per MOS:DUPLINK Also link "Winston Zeddemore" and parapsychology in — unlink "parapsychology" per MOS:DUPLINK John Belushi, before Belushi's — could this possibly be rearranged to avoid repetition of "Belushi"? castmate, Bill Murray, who — I'm unsure of this but should "Bill Murray" be linked? was more serious in tone and was intended to be scary — I believe the second "was" is redundant in Studio City, Los Angeles and — add a MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Los Angeles" effects and a popular — I believe "a" should be removed for about two weeks — this is probably just my personal preference but "about" sounds unencyclopædic to me. Perhaps replace it with "approximately" or "roughly"? (If you agree with this, check for other instances too!) Ghostbusters, Aykroyd's was the heart, and Murray's was the mouth. — The "was"es sound weird to me. Should they be removed? fiction archetypes — I believe "archetype" should be linked the surname of historian — I believe "of" should be "from" Apart from the three main stars, Medjuck was largely responsible for casting the other roles. — I find "other" redundant as you've already said that Medjuck did not cast the main stars. began in New York City on — link "New York City" per MOS:DUPLINK Hopefully, these haven't been screwed up. Please ping me if I don't leave more comments by the 29th. Pamzeis (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, these edits have been done by myself, Aoba47 and Chompy Ace. I didn't link New York or Bill Murray because these already linked in the plot and cast list respectively. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Pinging Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC) As the film used practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York. — per MOS:TENSE, I believe "used" should be uses. However, since this will make the tense change in the middle of the sentence, I would suggest changing it to "Due to the film's use of practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York." One of the deleted scenes involved — this is nitpick-y but can "One of the" simply be "A" to be more concise? Bernstein's son Peter and David Spear — this may suggest David Spear is also Bernstein's son. Perhaps reword to "Peter, Bernstein's son, and David Spear" or "Peter Bernstein, Elmer's son, and David Spear"? Bernstein had previously scored several — which Bernstein? This included "Magic" → This includes "Magic" (MOS:TENSE) I think linking of puppet may be MOS:OVERLINK creature to homage their friend John Belushi — I do not understand why "their friend" is necessary as Belushi is talked about multiple times in the earlier sections, and it's obvious that he is their friend. Also, per MOS:SURNAME, omit "John". Bryan had to use a separate — nitpick-y but can we change "had to use" to used to be more concise? versions were made, a hollow — should the comma be a colon? technology was designed not to be — this is probably just my personal preference but, to me, "to not be" sounds more natural than "not to be". With the "Sets and logo" heading, could the words possibly be switched around (i.e. Logo and sets) as the logo is talked about first? the first hit for the studio — what does "hit" mean here? Right now, with it's vague meaning, it seems like puffery. The Box office section contradicts itself. The first paragraph says Ghostbusters was the second-highest grossing film behind Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom while the second says it was behind Beverly Hills That year saw the release of — 1984 or 1987? and tacky sight gags" Peter Travers — I think a comma is needed before "Peter Travers" described Ghostbusters as "irresistible nonsense" — perhaps add favourably or unfavourably before this as it's unclear whether this is positive or negative "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop fully his patented comic character. — missing a closing quotation mark commentaries by crewmembers — is there a missing space in "crewmembers"? That took a long time. I'll hopefully finish this review by the 2nd. Pamzeis (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I've addressed your concerns in the edit here. Thank you again for taking the time to review this, I know it's a big article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC) ideology, in particular Reagan — I think a comma is needed after "particular" I'm a bit confused why "Death and immaturity" are grouped together as these two things (to my knowledge) have basically nothing to do with each other. So, um, yeah, why are these two grouped together? said that before Ghostbusters television — I think a comma is needed after "Ghostbusters" It’s an honor — per WP:', use a straight apostrophe ('), not a curly apostrophe (’) interviews from crew including — I think a comma is needed after "crew". Florida, that ran from — Really unsure about this one but I think "that" should be "which" the ninth greatest film of — I believe "ninth greatest" should be hyphenated critics (118 female, 135 male) — not sure why the genders are relevant here. unranked by Filmsite — I'm not really sure what this means. Did Filmsite consider ranking the film but not include it? Or was this a non-ranked list? Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes — can this be reworded to avoid repetition of "Rotten Tomatoes"? its release it was considered a box-office bomb — I believe there should be a comma after "release" I finally finished reading the article! You're probably tired of hearing me say "screw(ed) up" but I'm gonna say it again because I really hope I haven't screwed these up. Pamzeis (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I've made the necessary changes here. The gender breakdown on that critic reception section I just thought was interesting and showed it wasn't just a male-centric film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support — a throughly interesting read overall. I just realised I did not watch the film before review as told to do in the nomination statement because I am terrible at following instructions :P. I'll probably watch it sometime in the distant future... Best of luck with this article! Pamzeis (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Pamzeis!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text
• File:Ghostbusters_1984_cast.png: because some of the source files use ShareAlike licenses, this can't be released CC0 since that license is not compatible
• File:Ghostbusters_1984_Elmer_Bernstein_Score_Sample.ogg: suggest elaborating on the purpose of use
• File:1959_Cadillac_Ecto-1_(12227773836).jpg: see commons:COM:VEHICLE
• File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg: see commons:COM:COSTUME
• File:Trump-WomensMarch_2017-1060343_(32298822942).jpg: what's the copyright status of the derivative sign? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Added alt text

I've added each individual licensing under individual headers. Is that sufficient?

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanded it a little bit.

That's better, but some of the details don't appear to be present in the article text - they could either be added there or citations can be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The info is in the article as far as I can see but I've added a reference to the embedded material. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

So if I'm reading that right, the car itself isn't copyrighted but the symbol would be, but because it's an insignificant size it is OK?

De minimis exceptions generally apply if the copyrighted component is incidental - for example, something in the background. That's not the case here - the logo is an essential component. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...I mean if the logo was absent, it wouldn't matter because it's not the point of the image so I don't know if it would be considered essential. It's certainly incidental to what is meant to be shown. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of that section says photos just showing people in cosplay is acceptable.

The situation is a bit more complicated than that - there has been legal input that costumes are potentially problematic in terms of copyright, although Commons has chosen to accept such images. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

So is it OK to use or not? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

On both this and the next point above: to be clear, this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL. That being said, I don't think these are okay given the information available. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how you'd find that out so I've just removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, is this one ok now? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  IMO there are two images of concern, but see comment of 26 September. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

How much concern though? Because based on the discussion above, I believe they are appropriate for their use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, it's a subjective issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, you'll have to decide if it can progress as is then or I need to remove the images. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• We are none of us copyright lawyers ... and the very need to write that is a danger signal. One of my roles as a FAC coordinator is to play safe with regards to ensuring that Wikipedia is not sued. I interpret - I am open to correction by the community on this - "Wikipedia's very best work" as including it being rock solid in terms of copyright - for both images and prose. I may well agree with you re the images PD being good enough, but my opinion is not that relevant; if one of our most experienced image reviewers, Nikkimaria, is saying "this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL" I don't see how I can let the images through. We may all agree that very probably the images will be fine, but I'm afraid that the bar is higher than that. Which is a shame, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from. Given that this is a fundemental issue and on the margin I am pinging in my more experienced colleague Ian Rose in case they wish to add any input or to over rule me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually going to jump back in and say, I don't think this is the way we should be framing this discussion. Even if the article's images were unambiguously non-free, it is highly unlikely we would get sued over it, for pragmatic reasons. But see commons:Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle; our image policies and practices are stricter than what we probably could "get away with". In this particular case, certainly with regards to the cosplay we do have legal advice that costumes are copyrightable. The car is a bit more complicated because of the combination of the logo and other non-utilitarian features with a (presumably) functional vehicle, so definitely an edge case, but again I'd err on the side of being more conservative in interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what Ian Rose says, but I do have to ask, why do we have these pictures if we're not allowed to use any of them? If a self-made protest banner is too much of a copyright issue, it seems like 90% of what is on Wikimedia should just be removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting I got the ping and will take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does not clean up itself. Sometimes things just get missed.

With respect to copyrights, IANAL but with File:1959 Cadillac Ecto-1 (12227773836).jpg, if the logo was the only issue then I'd say it falls under commons:COM:DEMINIMIS. But the rest of the vehicle also looks like it was customized (the huge antenna, the thingies on the car roof) to be a Ghostbusters car, and we are using it to illustrate a Ghostbusters car. I'd be inclined to treat the photo as a derivative work of a copyrighted design and thus not use it. File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg ... well, according to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay the issue is complex enough that I wouldn't definitively pass judgment on it myself. I note though that the costumes look like generic spacesuits with a logo on top, so I wonder if they are derived from an actual spacesuit. And if they are, this would be an argument that they are not copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, what a time sink... Okay, it seems to me that if the current licensing of the images on WP is correct then we shouldn't be having this discussion, so I'm gathering that the concern is that the licensing is inadequate, and that might well be the case. OTOH, using pictures of the car and the costumes (fan-worn) doesn't seem excessive in itself -- there are no other images of the car or costumes in the article -- and both are described in the text, thus the pictures don't seem to be merely decorative. So is there a case to change the licensing to fair use in either or both instances and keep them on that basis? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose, pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have anything else to say. I am not convinced that these images would meet WP:NFCC#8 if used as fair use; they do not significantly increase the understanding of the article's topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just making sure Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria saw this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I did - like JJE I don't have much to add to what's above. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is clearly not a consensus to promote with these images in the article. So they will need to be removed or the nomination withdrawn. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Right fine done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria just checking in that the image review is passed? (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding the sources, Nikkimaria are you satisfied that your concern from the previous FAC about an underuse of academic sources is resolved? I don't know much about the magazines but I think that Getty Images isn't a good source, I think they often get facts wrong. What makes Digital Spy, Gizmodo, /Film and io9 reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly academic sources available that are not cited - I would be interested in more information on how decisions were made about what to include versus not. I would also question the use of a master's thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• DigitalSpy is owned by Hearst and is a major website with an about page and clear team listing. Gizmodo belongs to the same family as things like The AV Club and also has a clear about page with team, it's a major site. Slash Film has been checked and used in multiple of my previous recent FAs. It is another major specialist movie website with a clear and publicized team. Io9 is a subsite of Gizmodo and falls under the same explanation. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• I included the requested academic materials, a lot of them don't actually talk about Ghostbusters, it might bring it up as an example of an 80s film or in relation to other films but does not discuss it in any sort of detail that I could include in the article. I searched through the Wikipedia Library as well for additional materials, most talk about the obvious corporate messages, only the odd one talks about something outthere like ghosts as pollution or immigration. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria / Jo-Jo Eumerus ?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

OK with respect to the sources I questioned, except for Getty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, forgot about Getty. I'll try to find an alternative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the Getty one Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a rationale on the thesis wrt SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Liz W. Faber is the Chair of Arts & Sciences at Labouré College. Her research focuses on American media, science fiction, gender, and computer history." I've argued against including people's essays in the previous FAC and was told it didn't matter, they're professionals. Well, she is a professional in a knowledgeable role. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is that quote from, and when? This source is from 2009. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.lizwfaber.com/
• https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X7bZvIQAAAAJ&hl=en
• https://laboure.academia.edu/LizFaber
• https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-computeras-voice
• https://www.linkedin.com/in/liz-faber-36462a15/

And it came from Google Scholar which is what I was told to use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a search tool; it doesn't guarantee that everything you find will warrant inclusion. It appears that this individual is now a professional, but was not in 2009. Is there any evidence this thesis has had a significant scholarly influence? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It says on her Linkedin she was a graduate research and teaching assistant in 2009. Is that not a professional position? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A post-graduate position does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are supposed to understand these things when sourcing your prose well before FAC submission, not be asking reviewers to justify their MoS-based queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize profusely for not reading every single policy while reading the 2-300 sources necessary to write the article. I just did as instructed by including arbitrary essays from google scholar, I didn't realize there was a difference between one random essay and another. I've removed all mention of Liz Faber and consigned her to the waste bin of history and I've removed all pictures as requested. I think sometimes everyone could do with stepping back and remembering that we're volunteers, and writing an article of this scale, and doing it multiple times across multiple articles, is actually a lot of work and there is a difference between constructive criticism and "You should know all the policies before even nominating your article, you fool, how dare you question us". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've removed the offending article, are we able to progress? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That is fine with respect to that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild are we waiting for anything else? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi again Nikkimaria, is that a pass on the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Gog, I didn't do a full source review here, just queried that particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. Darkwarriorblake, no, it need s a source review. I will list it at requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, do you know how long it normally takes for someone to answer the source review requests? Is what Jo-Jo Eumerus did at the top of this section not a source review? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it varies. (Quite a bit.)

Doesn't look like it to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus, do your comments above constitute a source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "used part ..., which used a " repetitive.
• "its sequel series" I don't think you need to repeat "series" here.
• "in 2014. A 2016" repetitive.
• "for release in 2021" well it is 2021, so perhaps "late-November 2021"? And of course in a month this will need to be updated.
• "Delphi Productions" appears in the infobox but nowhere else.
• Similar comment for "Black Rhino".
• "investigating the paranormal" isn't linked but subsequently you link "a paranormal investigation"...
• "in the paranormal.[6][7] " this is linked here, but you've already used the word a couple of times in the plot section.
• "wrote the script, intending to star in it " not star in the script, star in the movie.
• "1982.[7][6] Aykroyd" ref order.
• "Price in March 1983. Price recounted" quick repeat, could merge this.
• "The film would require a big..." is this someone's opinion (Price?) as it's just a standalone unattributed POV sentence as it stands.
• " to Los Angeles to convince" no need to link this, no-one will think, ooh, I'll click on this.
• "owed a payment.[11][9][13]" ref order.
• " his script. He considered" consider merge.
• "August.[14][8][7] When" ref order.
• "The most difficult part..." according to whom?
• "towering Marshmallow Man appeared. The Marshmallow Man was" repetitive.

That takes me to "Cast and characters", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "until the last minute" colloquial, not encyclopedic.
• "were also considered ... were considered to" repetitive.
• "appearance. It featured a" -> "appearance, featuring a "
• "he attended school with " with whom he attended school.
• "from historian Oswald Spengler" perhaps "from German historian..."?
• "approximately five auditions" this read odd to me so I looked at the source which says “[There must have been] five interviews ..." not "approximately".
• "an Air Force demolitions" no need for capitals as this isn't the formal title of the organisation, unless you add "United States" at the front of it.
• "intended for Eddie Murphy" you repeat Eddie here but then "and VelJohnson were " omit Reginald. Be consistent.
• "and began walking on all fours" there's no context for this, do you mean she did this at her audition, or just in general?
• "enough dogs in the film. They and Candy passed" who is "they", the dogs?
• "passed on the casting" what does that mean?
• "the set dresser. Her character ended up wearing the glasses throughout the film.[26][10]" -> "the set dresser which her character subsequently wore throughout the film.[10][26]" (reword, ref order).
• "The role was ... Dumont's role as"... repetitive.
• "William Atherton (in 2009) portrays Environmental Protection Agency inspector Walter Peck" complete sentence so full stop required.
• "During the first day, Reitman brought Murray to the set" During seems odd here, why not "On"?
• "to be... my" MOS:ELLIPSIS.
• "adapting multiple takes to keep cast inserts" jargon.
• "Central Park West" link this first time, not second.
• Link Fifth Avenue.
• "just after Christmas and before the New Year" -> "between Christmas and the New Year".
• "effects, they needed skilled" who is "they"? wouldn't "skilled ... were needed" be preferred?
• "existent in New York.[32] Despite its New York" repetitive.
• "they could film only" similar to the point above, "filming could only be..."

That takes me to "Post-production". More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and looming June 8, 1984, release date" reads clumsily, do we need the date here?
• "editing the film while shooting it." edited the film while is was being shot.
• "filming an ... film" repetitive.
• "effects-laden film .... effects " ditto.
• "filmed in advance; there was no option to go back and film new scenes..." four uses of "film" in a single sentence...
• "The feeling was ..." whose feeling?
• "son Peter.[42][41] " ref order.
• "filming had begun or all the cast had been signed." this reads oddly to me in the prose. Maybe a footnote to say that (if I'm reading it right) the timing was uncertain.
• "Ghostbusters".[42][41] Bernstein" ref order.
• "like ["Ghostbusters"], " previous quote you had "him [Reitman]" so you didn't replace the word, here it looks like you are replacing a word in a quote. Consistency?
• "Lewis was" as the previous mention was the name of the band, it's appropriate here to name him fully.
• "studios were ... remaining studios were" repetitive.
• "shots were done in one" done is clumsy reading, captured? made?
• "Gross oversaw both..." artist overdose in this sentence, at least three uses...
• "Johnson took at least three grams of cocaine " this is titivating, but is it really useful? And was this three grams in one sitting or three grams over two months of design work? I'm not sure it's relevant.
• " the correct scale. They bought several" merge these short sentences.
• "Zombie Cab Driver puppet.[53] The Zombie was" repetitive.
• "The Library catalog scene" why capital L?
• "blowing air ... to blow " repetitive.
• "were simply hung" no need for "simply".
• "The model was heavy and unwieldy. It took..." merge.
• "30-foot" convert.
• "advent of CGI, any " explain CGI before using the initialism.
• "create a second" one, not "a"
• "red contacts that" do you mean "contact lenses"?
• "deal of pain; she wore a harness" are these clauses linked?

That takes me to "Technology and equipment", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Bernstein thing is meant to mean that he joined the project very early on before most other components were set in stone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh and the Cocaine part, I just find it fascinating tbh and it was obviously important to whatever process he undertook that night. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging The Rambling Man, sorry to rush, I'd just like to get it done before the new film comes out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll aim to get the rest done by the end of today. Sorry for the pause, not been feeling 100%. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to manage it tonight, I'll do my best to get there tomorrow morning. I encountered traffic on my way to High Wycombe where I'm going to watch the Tractor Boys beat the Chair Boys. If that helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I can relate to the traffic part in the UK, my disinterest in football knows no bounds. Have fun. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• " in the six weeks before filming began" any insight as to why this short timescale?
• "on-screen models were" of the proton packs.
• "The neutrino wand had" in quote marks for consistency.
• "The PKE meter" what's that?
• "It also had fantastic features ..." which didn't make it on-screen?
• "a No symbol with" no need capitalise No.
• "consultant Brent Boates. Boates drew" repetitive.
• "consumed enough power the rest " this doesn't parse correctly for me, maybe "consumed so much power that the rest"
• "explodes ... explosion" repetitive.
• "was done on set" very much dislike "done".
• "its wide release" country or world?
• "increased to $23.1 million during its first week, becoming the first major success" what level constitutes a "major success"? $20 million?
• I would consider inflating these 1984 dollars, hard to believe that's already 37 years ago...
• "behind Red Dawn and" you have genres for all the other movies noted, but not Red Dawn?
• "later.[9][83][82]" ref order.
• "The year 1984 saw... " I know we're avoiding starting a sentence with a numeral, but "The year..." is unnecessary, can we reword.
• "grossed over $100 million" in a single calendar year?
• "a Fireman's pole" no need for capital F.
• "far more style and finesse than would be expected" this isn't a quote, it would appear, so avoid making "factual statements" of opinion in Wikipedia's voice.
• "Newsweek's" link.
• "the Marx brothers " Brothers normally capitalised.
• Merge the two short paras in the Accolades section (the first is a single-sentence para).
• "Ray Parker, Jr.'s" no comma, check the image caption too.
• "Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr, for" no need for repetition of Ray here. And for consistency, Jr. has a period.
• "Parker, Jr. later" no comma.

That takes me to "Home media", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Done for the most part, the six week window is just because of the part established in ...development I think where they pitched it in March 1983 and it was due out in July 1984. It was just a truncated production window. The 23.1 million making it a success, I don't know, the source just said its a hit. Back then that would be a lot of money especially when it cost 30 million to make. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Priced at $79.95" how much?! inflate too, this and other such values, it is astonishing.
• "selling the ... and sell" repetitive.
• CLV, CAV, these are highly technical terms, they probably need explanation or a footnote as to what the difference is, I certainly don't know what they are and I'm curious why different formats of LaserDisc were used.
• "in the LaserDisc version" presumably you mean "versions".
• "a USB Flash Drive when" no need for capital F or D.
• "Blu-ray disc editions" link, for consistency, as you've linked VHS, DVD etc.
• "Ecto-mobile" hyphenated here for a reason?
• "Although the typical..." 54-word sentence, bit too much.
• "The EPA explicitly" who?
• "nukebusters") sanitation" needs comma.
• "used Proton Pack selling" previously I think this was just "proton pack" i.e. in quotes and not capitalised.
• "The Hollywood Reporter's" link.
• "Empire's reader" ditto.

That's all I have. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the article, and hope that my comments have been constructive and useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks The Rambling Man, yes your comments have been very helpful Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to support. Last thing, could the ISBNs be made consistently formatted? No big deal. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone knows how to do the IBSN stuff I don't mind but it's one of those things that is beyond my understanding, I don't get how they work. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, please put me out of my misery and tell me this can finally be promoted. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Very well written. Happy to support. – zmbro _(talk) 13:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Laser brain

Taking a look into the academic literature now and will comment soon with any worthy additions. --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I did not really find anything of note in scholarly literature that's specifically about this film. I'm reasonably satisfied that this article is well-researched and comprehensive. The only thing I would note is that we could expand on the brief mention of how the female-lead reboot was received because there are two salient papers that explore how the predominantly male fanbase of this film may have driven the toxic reactions to the reboot:

• Blodgett, Bridgett (March 2018). "Ghostbusters is For Boys: Understanding Geek Masculinity's Role in the Alt-right". Communication Culture & Critique. 11 (1): 133–146. doi:10.1093/ccc/tcx003.
• Proctor, William (December 2017). "'Bitches Ain't Gonna Hunt No Ghosts': Totemic Nostalgia, Toxic Fandom and the Ghostbusters Platonic". Palabra Clave. 20 (4): 1105–1141. doi:10.5294/pacla.2017.20.4.10.

Hope this helps round out the article and conclude this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that information not more relevant to the 2016 film article Laser_brain? I couldn't mention that content in more than passing in the sequel section without it losing focus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd leave that to your judgment, just in case you might have been looking for things to add to that section. I'll be happy to support once TRM's feedback is concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading the documents I think I will leave it out unless asked to change it. If I insert a mention of male toxicity there I feel it is detrimental to not go into greater detail about it. Thank you for checking the existing sources and finding these though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've given this another read-through after TRM's review and am happy to support. --Laser brain (talk) 13:56, 5 November 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) 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes! Sweet merciful lord, it's over, the two year saga is at a close!!! Thank you everyone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:12, 5 November 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) 9 October 2021 [47].

---

Frederick the Great

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...

• King Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great), a monarch whose influence on European history has been substantial. His reign is seen as the exemplification of a rulership when early enlightenment ideology was pervasive. He is seen one of the key figures in the rise of Prussia, which eventually led to the rise of Germany. In addition, he is seen as unique because his individual characteristics are seen as putting a stamp on how Prussia, and to a lesser extent, Germany is seen to this day.
• This page should be featured because it is one of the more visible on Wikipedia, averaging 1,800 page views/day. Thus, it would serve the Wikipedia community to ensure that this oft-viewed article displays the best Wikipedia has to offer.
• Status as a Featured Article would also provide guidance for the article's future evolution. In the past two decades, it has also been a relatively controversial page, with many different interests and perspectives on Frederick being negotiated and renegotiated, with issues previously causing the article to become diffuse with inordinate focus on one aspect of Frederick II's life. In the last few months, it has reached a state of relative stability in terms of content. (You will see many recent edits. But most are mine: the majority of those being focused on finding verifiable references for most of the points made by the various editors, aligning what is stated with the references, formatting, and prose editing attempting narrative unity.) As information about and perceptions of Frederick II continue to change and unfold, Featured Article status provides the suggested standard for future content editors to aim for, ensuring the article serves the greater community.
• Though the process can be grueling, a Featured Article nomination- if appropriate- will help polish the article as well.

Thank you for your consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions from Chidgk1

• If he had no significant achievements before becoming king remove "during his reign".

"during his reign" removed

• Do we need "subjects" in "Catholic subjects"?

"Catholic subjects" changed to "Catholics"

• "Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick's ...." - you mean Frederick or Fredericks?

"Frederick's" changed to "Frederick"

• If the potato guarding story has been debunked or has no evidence maybe say that in a footnote to prevent future editors adding it without a reliable source?

Your comment points out the inadequacy of the NYT article as reference. It is a very short blog presented as a ditty with little context (and it is behind a paywall.) I updated it with a German-language article from Welt that addresses the issue in context of a 2012 Potdam exhibit, which interviews the curator. The new reference addresses the legend and where it may have come from, and more importantly the focus of the citation more closely matches the point being supported in the Frederick article that Frederick promoted the use of the potato in Prussia. (I added a translation of relevant sentences in the citation.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I notice that the article cites several bachelors theses. How do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

These bachelor theses meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP as peer-reviewed, secondary sources. Beyond functioning as citations that support a point made in the Frederick article, each focuses in depth on an issue that is often addressed by one sentence in the article. The theses are reviewed by their academic advisors from established universities, approved by the university who publically maintains them on their website, and each article has elaborate references within them to support their argumentation. Most importantly, functioning as references each is fully accessible to the interested reader, who can read them as further reading to explore the topic the theses address in depth, and allowing readers to evaluate and verify the quality and interpretation of the sources for themselves. Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Supervisor review of Bachelor theses is not technically a peer review. And what does indicate that these have been reviewed in the first place? They surely have been evaluated in their final form by the advisors, but that does not necessarily mean they also have been corrected prior publication. A university is usually required to publish all theses at least in their local libraries, so their published state does not necessarily say much about their quality. One indication for their importance would be their citation count: If they are widely cited, they are certainly considered important contributions to the field. However, at least the "The Invention of Frederick the Great" thesis does not have any citation at all, according to Google Scholar. I would recommend to replace them with better sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they are not on par with peer-review journals, and in a sense, students are not peers, but mentees. So my intention is to imply they have been vetted by professionals in the field. These theses have been approved as meeting requirements in their field. I would agree that they do not have a high citation count, but I would like to suggest that many of these articles make their point using academic standards- particularly adequately documenting their case with academic citation. This can be directly verified by accessing the articles via one or two clicks. (as they can be accessed) with additional citations.

Over the years, this article has collected a wide variety of citations from a wide variety of sources. Many of variable quality, and a goodly number are not academic at all. I would suggest that these theses are strong in their own right and are available to the reader to make her or his own evaluation of the sources and had to meet a minimum academic standard. For example, if these sources were replaced, they may end up being replaced by works by professional biographers, which are often have a weaker standard of verification. Wtfiv (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I will certainly get rid of the Theses if that is the consensus.

• Curry's (2019) and Munn's (2019) detailed analyses of the changing perceptions of Frederick in postwar-Germany can replaced with a citation from Clark (2006), who has a few sentences scattered in his text in his treatment of post-war Brandenburg.
• Weeds' (2015) detailed analysis of the Hohenzollern claims can be replaced by one of the standard biographers such as Asprey, MacDonogh, or Gooch, an older source that they used, such as Carlyle or Kruger. Each has a sentence or two that should serve as a citation for the point made.

From my perspective, I feel it is a loss to lose the opportunity to allow a reader to explore the implications of those single sentences in the article in more detail. (Perhaps a compromise would be to have a standard biographical source with a single line, and allow these sources to stand as a backup reference. That way their materials- particularly their treatment of the details and additional sources- don't get lost.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Me must understand that a Bachelor thesis is an exam. If it was approved by the supervisor, it just means the student did not fail. Bachelor theses can be very good, but are not necessarily so. For us here, this is very difficult to evaluate, that's why we need to rely on external indicators such as publisher credibility. But that is not really possible here.

The question is also: If they are not being cited by the academic community, why are they relevant? A reader would expect to see the key sources cited, the most widely established ones, rather than marginal ones like these.

If they can be replaced, I think that would be the best way to go. Citing them in addition – sounds acceptable from my side, but I can't speak for others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I like the idea of using them as additional sources. I'll move in that direction. However, if the consensus is to delete them totally, I'll do so. Wtfiv (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes made to citations with theses as per discussion above:

• The citations from standard biographies by MacDonogh (2000) and Schieder (1983) are added to sentence on Frederick II's claims to Silesia. Weeds (2015) is still available in citation as resource for details.
• MacDonogh (2000) added to point about downgrading Frederick II's reputation as it is in a one-click paragraph. Munn (2014) is still available in citation as resource for details.
• Clark (2006) used as source about Frederick II's reputation on post-70s reputation rebound. Curry (2019) is still available in citation as resource for details.

Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Just booking my place for now. Back with substantive comments later, but meanwhile two points of spelling caught my eye on a first skim through: Robert Citino spells the word "maneuvring" thus and not "manovering" as you have him say, and "unharmonious" seems odd: the OED gives no instances of the use of the word after 1876, and "inharmonious" is the usual modern form, I think. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

both spellings corrected. Wtfiv (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the article for GA, and it is a pleasure to see it again. It seems to me admirably proportioned, balanced, well written, and splendidly illustrated. A few minor quibbles and suggestions for bringing the article from GA to FA standard:

• Info-box

• Is "Calvinist" quite right for "Religion" in the info-box? Something like "Agnostic Christian" seems more the mark – or possibly omit the "Religion" line altogether? I just mention the point and am not sure about it. Pray ponder.

I agree. I left this as is, trying to respect the editors' choice. I figured it worked as his baptised religion, though his work makes it clear that the greatest degree of religion he has is a kind of deism. His baptism is mentioned in the text and his more cynical attitudes toward religion are too, so I'll delete.

• Lead

• In the third paragraph ""Frederick was… Frederick also… Frederick was… Frederick is…"." – The prose would flow more smoothly with fewer "Frederick"s and more "he"s.

Done. Three "Fredericks" are now "He's".

The rhythm of sentence subject reference now works like a kind of waltz meter: Frederick...He....He...;Frederick...(subordinate clause he)...he; Frederick...He....(subordinate clause he)...He...Frederick. Kept "Frederick" for claim about homosexuality- it fell into the pattern anyway- as ensuring this is clearly stated has been a ongoing issue with this article for years and a recent commentator on the talk page wanted to ensure that this fact was not easily missed by readers.

• Early life

• "Frederick and Wilhelmine formed a close relationship at this time" – do we need the last three words?

deleted

Thanks! "At this time", though emphasizing when the relationship was formed, undermines that fact that it was life long. Her death was one of the few times that the older Frederick (as opposed to the younger Frederick) was caught crying.

• Katte affair

• "Soon after his affair with Keith" – but you've just said we don't know if they had an affair. Safer to say something like "Soon after his relationship with Keith ended…"

done

This is an artifact of editor's concern about Frederick's sexuality. An editor chose "affair", as it too can have neutral connotations, but it does connote too much, given that- as with all things related to Frederick's sexuality, it remains murky. "Relationship" is a clearly more neutral word in this case and distinguishes it from the "Katte affair", in which "affair" has a different definition and set of conotations altogether.

• War of the Austrian Succession

• There Are An Awful Lot of Capital Letters in your caption to the excellent map of Frederick's battles.

Fixed

I'm glad you like it! The map was a recent addition by an editor who added it to many Frederick II related articles. I requested the editor to make minor changes and I made a few. The title capitalization was my doing, however.

• Seven Years' War

• "Frederick forcibly incorporated … brought Frederick … also provided Frederick" – another lot of Fredericks that might advantageously be leavened with a "him" or two.

done

three or for replacements, maintaining the analogical waltz rhythm.

• "a Prussian title from Frederick, which Frederick naturally obliged" – is there a "with" missing before "which"? And there is possibly a hint of WP:EDITORIAL about the "naturally".

Fixed

I think this may have been an artifact of an editor who was focused in ensuring readers knew that Peter II was Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Most of the artifact of this extended focus was removed, but I think you caught the remainder. Thanks!

It might be safest to redraw on the lines of "…a Prussian title; Frederick obliged", which has the incidental advantage of being shorter.

• First Partition of Poland

• "Poland was vulnerable to partition due to poor governance, in part due to the interference of foreign powers" – two "due to"s in a row. And I'm not entirely clear whether the foreign interference was the part cause of the vulnerability or of the poor governance.

replaced the second "due to" with "as well as"

• "an enlightened civilizing mission that emphasized … barbaric and uncivilized" – sudden outbreak of "ize" endings instead of the "ise" form elsewhere in the article. Better to be consistent.

Fixed

Most certainly this was my edit. Probably in response to helping address an editor's concern to ensure that Frederick II's impact on the people of Polish Prussia was acknowledged. (The consensus of the editors in this article to use British English is training me to be more careful, but lapses are my hallmark.)

• Administrative modernisation

• "fixing rates that depreciated coins would be accepted" – seems to need "at which" rather than "that"

fixed

• "However, the functionality and stability" – not sure why "However" here.

"However" deleted

• "Frederick modernised the Prussian bureaucracy and civil service" – don't "bureaucracy" and "civil service" mean the same thing?

"civil service" deleted

• Religion

• "Roman Catholic Church's goods and property" – it's been the ungeographical Catholic Church up to now, and I wonder if we need the "Roman" here.

updated "Roman Catholic" throughout article. Out of 13 occurrences of "Catholic; six are "Roman Catholic".

• "Frederick's religious views were sometimes the subject of criticism" – rather a long-winded way of saying they were sometimes criticised.

Changed to "Frederick's religious views were sometimes criticized."

• "About a decade after his death, Frederick's views" – perhaps just "his views"?

Done

• Environment and agriculture

• "colonizers" – another unexpected z.

Fixed. (Those American-trained editors with their orthographical lapses!)

• "Oderbruch marsh-land" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "marshland".

fixed.

• "He was also close to nature and issued decrees to protect plants." – this doesn't altogether square with your statement, just above, that he considered nature in its wild form "useless".

The art of combining two editorial views (Frederick enlightenment exploiter vs. Frederick enlightened animal-lover). As the Blackbourn (2006) citation refers to land, I made the following change: "taming and "conquering" of nature...which, in its wild form, was considered "useless"" to ""taming" and "conquering" of nature...considering uncultivated land "useless"". I believe this captures the sense of Blackbourn's (2006) point, which is focused on draining swamps, not the flora. Then, it no longer contradicts the point you mentioned, which is supported by Das Gupta (2013). Das Gupta is focused on tamed animals, and mentions legislation in passing, though the focus is on "cultivated" plants like cherries and melons. Does that work? If not, I'll keep at it.

• Works well for me. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Arts and education

• unharmonious and awkward – as above, I think the usual modern spelling is "inharmonious": we still have "unharmonious" at the moment.

My apologies. I'm certain I typed the changes, but may not have saved due to having multiple windows open (or saving an open old save over the new save). I just made a specific edit to address this, as well as the misspelling (i.e., manouvering) in the Citino quote you mentioned above. (They had both been addressed in the same edit, so if one wasn't saved the other wasn't.) I'll spot check the changes here to make sure that indeed, these are saved and addressed.

• "believing that German it had been hindered" – this doesn't make sense. Some words seem to be missing.

deleted "German", hopefully it is clear that the referent of "it" is "German culture of his time".

• Science and the Berlin Academy

• "However the Academy" – if you must have yet another "however" here (it is the tenth of fourteen Howevers) you need a comma after it.

comma added here. "However" was kept in this instance.

However, (please excuse the attempt at humor), as per optional, implicit suggestion, "howevers" were reduced. There are now five of them, two of which are embedded in quotations. Changes include:

• "his relationship with Keith may have been homoerotic. However, although the extent..."
• "Frederick set out on campaign...However, h He was surprised by.." to "Frederick set out on campaign. He was surprised by..."
• "Frederick's troops immediately continued marching...However," But,Saxony "had" now joined the war against Prussia. to "Frederick's troops immediately continued marching... , but Saxony now joined the war against Prussia."
• "...which forced him to abandon his invasion of Bohemia. However, wWhen the French and the Austrians pursued..."
• "He allowed the association to be titled "royal" and have its seat at the Königsberg Castle However, but he does not seem..."
• "he was nicknamed Der Alte Fritz (The Old Fritz) ... However,Frederick evinced little pleasure from his popularity ..."
• "Frederick's reputation was downgraded... However, sSince the 1970s, Frederick's reputation"
• "However, h}}{{xt|He remained critical of Christianity..."

• Bravo! A distinct improvement, in my view. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "director 1746–59" – the MoS (don't ask me why!) insists on the full years in a date range like this, so "1746–1759".

done

• Military theory

• "Clausewitz' On War" – strange form of possessive: one would expect an s after the apostrophe.

's added.

• "Frederick the Great's most notable" – do we need "the Great" here? We already know which Frederick we're talking about.

"the Great" deleted. My guess is that it is a residuum of the military puffery that was part of this article's legacy.

• "Austrian co-ruler Emperor Joseph II" – that's piling a lot on one title: better to distinguish between the false title and the real one by calling him "The Austrian co-ruler, Emperor Joseph II".
• "Historian Dennis Showalter" – another false title, easily remedied with a definite article before it.

done

• Later years and death

• "due to his enlightened reforms and military glory" – another "due to" that would be better as "because of"

done

• "However, Frederick evinced little pleasure" – there really have been an awful lot of Howevers in this article, and this is surely one we could do without. Removing it will not damage the meaning of the sentence. I'm not sure about "evinced little pleasure from" – the verb seems oddly chosen, and something like "derived" might be clearer. If "evinced" is essential, I think you want a different preposition with it – probably "in".

"However" removed as per previous suggestion to reconsider "Howevers."

"Evinced" replaced with "derived"

• "Frederick's casket" – curiously American term in a BrE article: "coffin" would the BrE form.

Replaced. It seems to be an older artifact of this article. It's interesting though: I would've guessed that "casket" with its ties to French-Norman roots would be closer to BrE than "coffin".

"Casket" is certainly a long-established word in BrE – see the casket scenes in The Merchant of Venice – but they didn't and don't tend to have corpses in them. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Historiography and legacy

• "Historian Leopold von Ranke" – another false title calling out for a "the" in front of it.

fixed. I agree. The false title always risk an authority that is not present.

• "the role of Prussia in German history was minimized" – another unexpected z.

Fixed (Those Americanisms! I think I just added this while trying to address another FA concern.)

• "However, since the 1970s, Frederick's reputation in Germany has rebounded" – this really doesn't benefit from the "However", which would, I think, be better removed.

Done as per previous "However" purge.

• "Historians continue to debate the issue of Frederick's achievements, discussing how much of the king's achievement was based…" – repetitious: perhaps something like " … discussing how much they were based…"? (and deleting "of it" later in the sentence)

Done...

• Finally, you need to prune all the duplicate blue-links, of which there are quite a few. There are three links to German language in the lead, and in the main text Frederick William and the Battle of Hohenfriedberg each have two duplicate links, and Age of Enlightenment, Battle of Leuthen, Battle of Rossbach, Berlin State Opera, Bohemia, Charles VII, d'Argens, East Prussia, Eugene of Savoy, Farther Pomerania, Generalfeldmarschall, Holy Roman Empire, Jesuit, King in Prussia, Saxony, and St. Hedwig's Cathedral all have one duplicate link each.

Those are my few points. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 11:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed all the changes suggested. In my opinion they all strengthen the article. A few gave pause for some more thought on the issues in the article, which I appreciate more. Based on your comment regarding the enduring legacy of the inharmonious "unharmonius", I may need to go through the last round of edits again to spot check to ensure they've been properly saved.

I haven't addressed the duplicate blue links yet, as I'll research a tool to find them, which I'm sure exists. Previously I attempted to take care of them manually, but that degree of fine-combing is not my forte. Once I take care of them, I'll return here and mentioned that I've addressed it.

Thank you so much for your in-depth comments. The careful, positive critical reading of this article is very much appreciated! Wtfiv (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Duplicates removed. (Found User:Evad37/duplinks-alt script.) The three duplicates in the first paragraph of the lead, which were artifacts of the lang-de template, have been addressed as well. Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It all looks pretty good to me now. One last read-through tomorrow and I confidently expect to add my support here. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Last two gleanings on the text and one on the citations from final read-through:

• Early life

• Is Benjamin Ursinus von Bär particularly notable? Does the name of the cleric doing the baptism matter?

In my opinion, it is not particularly. An editor who felt it was important added this within the last month, and seems to have stayed. I'd prefer to just leave it, though I too don't see the significance. (It did get me to read about von Bär) I modified it within an interlanguage link to his article in German wikipedia, though it adds another ugly red link to the article. If you think it would still be better to remove it, let me know.

Not for me to pontificate. If you're content (even reluctantly) to leave it there, I'm not going to object. Tim riley talk 19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. My preference is to leave the small details in, if someone feels strongly, as long as it doesn't add unduly to the length of the article or take it off on a tangent. Wtfiv (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "alliance with England … England would no longer subsidise Russia" – Britain, not just England, by this stage of the 18th century. (Two of your sources fail to make the distinction in their titles. Rose can perhaps be forgiven, as in the early 20th century "England" and "Britain" were all too often used interchangeably – Asquith's tombstone records that he was "Prime Minister of England", and see also Nancy Mitford's Noblesse Oblige – but what can Schweizer have been thinking of in 1989?)

I'll fix the reference to England. And, I'm glad you shared the issue so that I know its not just Americans who continue to confuse England and Britain. At least there's a venerable tradition behind the confusion and not merely an American inability to distinguish all things Brittannic.

• Citations

• You refer to Blanning variously as "Tim" and "Timothy". As his name appears on his books as T. C. W. Blanning, it might be best to refer to him thus.

Fixed. He is now consistently T. C. W.

I leave those three small points with you, and am pleased to add my support for the promotion of the article to FA. Some of the sources are fairly vintage, but there are plenty of modern sources as well, and the facts of Frederick's life and reign are well documented. The references have a few ISBNs and OCLCs missing: arguably this falls foul of FA criterion 2c, and though equally arguably it doesn't, it would be as well to add them. They are not hard to find: WorldCat will oblige. The text of the article seems to me balanced, comprehensive (without excessive detail), well written and admirably illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing this article and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course.

I'm less a fan of OCLCs and ISBNs, particularly with editions. But if it helps, We'll get them added. It may take me a bit of time, but I'll come back here and note when I've covered the one's I caught. Wtfiv (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ISBNs and OCLC completed for all cited book references. Wtfiv (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested to see my excellent colleague Aza24's comments below, on the music. I agree that brevity would be the key here. Music was only a sideline, after all, and the Oxford Dictionary of Music polishes Frederick off in 83 words; in a general encylopaedia article like this one, that can probably be reduced a bit. The ODM's entry (ref: "Frederick the Great", The Oxford Dictionary of Music. Eds. Kennedy, Joyce, Michael Kennedy, and Tim Rutherford-Johnson, Oxford University Press, 2012. (subscription required)) reads: "German sovereign (reigned 1740–86) who was also composer, flautist, and patron of music. Pupil of Hayne and Quantz. Est. court orch Berlin 1740, and opera house 1742. Employed C. P. E. Bach as harpsichordist from 1740, and J. S. Bach visited the court at Potsdam, 1747, the Musical Offering being the result (based on theme supplied by Frederick). Other notable musicians in Frederick's service incl. the Graun brothers and Quantz. Comp. syms., opera, marches, arias, etc. Wrote libs. for K. H. Graun." – Tim riley talk 08:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley Thank you for the summary. I appreciate it so much, as I'm on the other side of a paywall, and my in my effort to get this to featured article status, rather not expend the quantitative resources to breach the wall. Your summary gives me guidance for addressing Aza24's concerns.

Now that both my brain cells seem to be working simultaneously, I have remembered that you can see the print version of the ODM at the indispensable Internet Library: here. Tim riley talk 15:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ODM added as reference for statement stating that Frederick was a patron of music. It's good to know it is there! Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Aza24

I don't know that I'll do a full review, but given his strong connection to the music of the time, I thought I'd point out a few things. Relevant information on the points below can be found in these articles: Grove 1,Grove 2, and potentially here, though I've not looked closely at the latter. McCulloch (1995). "A lesson on the King of Prussia: a New Look at the Compositions of Frederick the Great" German Life and Letters 48, seems a rather relevant article, though I cannot find access to it.

Aza24, the Grove citations are behind a paywall, so I (and many of the interested readers) don't have access to the resources. McCulloch (1995) has the same issue, and it seems that even when we want to find it, it is inaccessible. One of my goals has been as much as possible to make sure that all sources can be accessed without a paywall by a single click. However, in this case, if you feel it is most accurate to present Grove as the authority, I will do so. I am grateful for Tim riley's summary as it guides my responses to your following concerns. Hopefully, they address the concerns you raised below. If not, please let me know.

• As far as I can tell, there is currently no information on his operatic contributions. In Montezuma, Frederick wrote the libretto, and it seems he had further (seemingly lesser) contributions to other Graun opera librettos.

Fortunately, we have an available source through JSTOR (registration, but not pay) that covers the ground. The wonderful article by Forment (2012) covers Frederick's contribution in a single accessible table, which I cite (and is linked). Here's the prose, based on Forment (2012) as it stands: "Frederick also wrote sketches, outlines and libretti for opera that were included as part of the repertoire for the Berlin Opera House. These works, which were often completed in collaboration with Graun, included the operas, Coriolano (1749), Silla (1753), Montezuma (1755), and Il tempio d'Amore (1756)." I don't attribute authorship to Frederick directly, because as a king, Frederick could ensure his work was of top quality through careful editing by his assistants, in this case Graun, and most likely the librettists, who include Leopoldo de Villati (who has no entry even in Italian Wikipedia, though he gets honorable but unlinked mention in some opera pages mentioning his libretto), Pietro Metastasio, and Giampetro Tagliazucchi (apparently, another "unsung"- in the posthumous sense- librettist). But then, how many English speakers know the brilliance of the more contemporary librettists like Hugo von Hofmannsthal? (As to Frederick vetting his work through editors, you most likely know the snarky comment that Voltaire was alleged to complained about this role as Frederick II's editor, stating to the effect: "Will he never tire of sending me his dirty linen to wash?")

• Graun seems to have included some arias by Frederick in his operas (Grove 2)

Is this adequately covered in the citation above?

• A brief line should be included on the style of Frederick's music; though a political leader first and foremost, he wrote quite a bit of music. It seems that his operatic style was remarkably similar to Carl Heinrich Graun, and he did not venture far from the classical approach over a solo voice over a simple accompaniment (Grove 1/2). His works for flute seem influenced primarily by Quantz, who was also (a detail that might be added) his teacher (Grove 1).

Quantz is given credit for collaborating with Frederick: "His flute sonatas were often composed in collaboration with Quantz," Citation goes to Reilly's Preface to Quantz's "On Playing the Flute", which readers can read via archive.org. Mention of Frederick's baroque style in flute compositions is given with citation from Oleskiewicz (2012).

More added on Quantz. He is mentioned as his music tutor in clause. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sentence added detailing Frederick's compositional style for the flute sonatas. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The two editions of his musical works in Grove 1 should likely be added to the "Works by Frederick the Great" section

I do not have access to the resources behind the paywall. The list of his musical works should not be copyrighted, so could you post them here, and I will copy. If you could link them for readers, that'd be great. If not, I'll see what I can do as primary FA editor. By the way, at the end of the article, IMSLP has a nice, though abbreviated collections of a number of his scores.(updated) The music section of "works" now focuses just on written works. The music section has currently been deleted. but it can be put back if that is best. Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure on the benefits on including the Recording of compositions by Frederick the Great section, particularly if only a single recording is listed

Though I cannot take credit for adding the Oleskiewicz recordings, I thought this was an editors' gift for the casual reader, who is most likely not a music aficionado of 18th century music. I think these are great insofar as the casual listener can at least hear an interpretation of Frederick's compositional style (as edited by Quantz) done using a replica of his flute and with the aura of being recorded in Sanscouci. My role was primarily to ensure the link was accessible, valid and followed format. I agree, it is only one interpretation, so if we have others to share, I think editors could add. I appreciate that readers can get a sense of the "ear" of his composition, rather than the intellectual description of it. Oleskiewicz also published the score of her edit of four (out of seven) compositions. I deleted the reference, as it was a purchase-based source, and two of the four scores are available for free on IMSLP for people who want to follow along comparing Oleskiewicz's performance to the score and determining for themselves the success of her interpretation. However, if you feel that one sample is worse than no sample, we can delete this. (updated) The link was a licensed YouTube recording it. now has been moved to external links. As per our discussion and your help, the opera Montezuma has been moved to external links.Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Though touched on earlier in the article, it might be added that Frederick's art patronage was a rather extreme contrast from his father. Though I haven't looked at the article thoroughly enough to see if this is already included.

You are right that there is not an explicit focus in the Arts and Education section, but Frederick's cultural interests and the clash with Frederick Wilhelm first has been laid out in the Early life section. If the contrast bears repeating in the music section, it will be done.

Regarding patronage: I some additional lines along with an additional source, emphasizing that Frederick used opera to make philosophical points, and that he tried to make the opera more accessible.

• Just to clarify, I do recognize this is a rather large article already—I imagine the above points can easily be addressed by no more than single sentence each, which I hope is acceptable. This is just a brief run through, I'll attempt to look closer later, but probably mostly at music related matters. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Much of the beginning of the Arts and Education section of the article should address your concerns. Please take a look. If more is needed let me know, but I think we are close to the quality of description that Tim riley quoted from the Oxford Dictionary of Music. The major caveat is that I hope I was nuanced in authorship, focusing on the fact his works were collaborative. (The same for Anti-Machiavel, which was edited; or his architectural work, which was done in collaboration with Knobelsdorff.) I'd also like to keep the sources freely accessible and verifiable by people lacking access to subscriptions, but that concern is secondary to ensuring adequate coverage. Wtfiv (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Added footnote of quote from Pulver (1912) illustrating importance of Graun to Frederick. Wtfiv (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Aza24, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog, since my feedback and focus was rather narrow—subject wise—I feel any support from me would be somewhat improper, but I can certainly see no issues with this article as it stands. Wtfiv, I can see you've made honest efforts to address my concerns, and the updated Arts section looks wonderful. I've just gone ahead and added the two editions of Frederick's music that Grove lists myself—by the way, you likely do have access to Grove through the Wikipedia libary; your account should automatically qualify for the default setting. As an unrelated aside in this hodgepodge of a comment, I found this page on the German WP, should you find any use in it or reason to link to it. Interesting article here as well, but presumably nothing that needs including. Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 Thank you for adding the two editions of Frederick's music, as well as your comments on the Arts section. I particularly appreciated learning about how he used the flute within the operatic genre. I didn't add the note on finding copies of Frederick's work in the article, as I'm not sure how to work it in. I did enjoy seeing it though. In exploring what is known on Frederick's musical manuscripts, one of the things I was pleasantly surprised to learn is that although his music was corrected, some of the works are less heavily edited by his musicians than I would've thought. Wtfiv (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• the young Frederick developed a preference for music, literature, French culture – "and" missing?

Fixed. (That was a recent artifact)

• such as "securing Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg", and after 1728, only Berg, – I'm a bit at a loss here. I think this either needs background for context, or could be removed for easier reading (seems to be just a detail), at least the part "and after 1728, only Berg", which is especially mysterious to me. A footnote is an option as well.

deleted final clause. I agree, that is a bit esoteric for the typical reader. (And for me!)

• The pair slandered the British and Prussian courts in the eyes of the two kings. Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being so honoured by Britain, – I found this a bit hard to follow. The second sentence only implies the content of the slandering mentioned in the first. Ideally both could be in the same sentence. Not sure how it could be formulated better though.

This was not only difficult to follow, but not quite correctly described. Is this clearer: "The pair undermined the relationship between the British and Prussian courts using bribery and slander. Eventually Frederick William became angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being married to an English wife and under the influence of the British court. Instead, he signed a treaty with Austria, which vaguely promised to acknowledge Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg, which lead to the collapse of the marriage proposal."? Each of the sentences are now better supported and an error in one of the references has been corrected.

• Robert Keith, Peter Keith's brother, had an attack of conscience – Don't understand, was Robert Keith one of the army officers plotting? That should be made clear.

Changed to this: "Robert Keith, who was Peter Keith's brother and also one of Frederick's companions, had an attack of conscience...". Ended phrase with period instead of semi-colon.

• where she played an active social role. – What does that mean? I don't see how it is surprising that somebody has an active social role (most people have?).

Elisabeth Christine was sidelined from Frederick's life once he became king. What's interesting, is that while Frederick Wilhelm I was alive, she was part of his social scene. Does this change reflect this: "where at this time she played an active role in his social life"?

• Frederick studied under Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Imperial Army under the command of the Archduchy of Austria – Sentence is complicated and difficult to read. The Prince, the Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall, and the Archduchy are the same person? If so, it would be easier to just use one title.

Is this clearer: "Frederick studied under Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Austrian Imperial Army under Eugene's command"? Eugene of Savoy was linked earlier, so an interested reader can catch the details there.

• candidacy of his ally Charles of Bavaria to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. Charles was crowned on 2 February 1742 – this somehow sounds as if he was crowed as Holy Roman Emperor, but apparently he was only crowned as King of Bavaria?

A badly written version of very twisted politics. He was crowned as King of Bohemia and then elected as Holy Roman Emperor. I changed the description to elected, with the change of date to the time of his election, instead of saying "crowned" and giving the date of his coronation. Does this work? "In late November, the Franco-Bavarian forces took Prague and Charles was crowned King of Bohemia. Subsequently, he was elected as the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII in 24 January 1742."?

• Throughout the article, there are spaces missing in many locations:
  • against this coalition,[91]on 29 August 1756
  • Poland,and

got these. The pattern search I used found two more, which were fixed. (Not to say others can't be missed.)

• Also, you sometimes have a space in front of citations where non should be:
  • army preemptively invaded Saxony. [92]

These were easier to check using pattern search. Corrected this and six others. (Not to say others can't be missed.)

• and the Holy Roman Empire. and he – This doesn't seem to be a complete sentence.

addressed: "and the Holy Roman Empire, supported only by"

• He suffered some severe defeats and his kingdom suffered repeated invasions, but he always managed to recover. – This seems a bit unbalanced. The victories (and especially the praise associated with them) are discussed in great detail but the defeats are covered by merely one sentence

This may be one of the harder ones to address. The original editors of this section focused on the first couple of years of the Seven Years War, in which Frederick was still able to offensively maneuver. Then, the final years of see-saw attrition wound up in summary in a sentence or two. My guess is because at this point, the war was less driven by Frederick's initiative, as he was mainly reacting. Any suggestions without increasing the length too much?

• in Frederick received – "which"?

changed to "which gave Frederick an annual..."

• Although dissenters still had substantial rights. – Not a proper complete sentence?

"Although dissenters still had substantial rights, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth..."

• his brother Prince Henry – Shouldn't all siblings be mentioned under "Early life"? This mention seems to come out of nothing.

The siblings who play a notable role in Frederick's life are Wilhelmina, Henry who served as his ambassador and general, and perhaps (though unmentioned in the article) Augustus William, who was father to Frederick II's successor, Frederick Wilhelm II. There are ten altogether, I think, who lived and became nobles in their own right My own preference is to not list them, but if you feel it improves the article, I will.

• Iroquois – link?

Now linked- missed from a fairly recent series of back and forth edits to ensure that Frederick's view of the Polish Prussia was properly describe.

• In the process of checking Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two very important players, the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes. – Not sure, but this and the following seems a bit overly detailed and wordy in proportion to the rest of the article.

How does this sound: "To stop Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two the help of the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes"?

• Frederick followed his recommendations in the field of toll levies – It took me a while to understand to whom "his" refers. Maybe repeating the name would allow for easier reading.

"his" replaced with "Gotzkowsky's"

• The Works of a Sans-Souci Philosopher Frederick – Misses dot and has excessive space.

fixed

• and awkward, He once – dot?

fixed

• of the Thirty Years' War He – dot?

fixed

• close friends- a – what is the - doing there?

changed to comma

• He suggested that it could eventually equal or even surpass its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language with the help of official academies, the emergence of talented classical German authors and extensive patronage of the arts from Germanic rulers, a project of a century or more. – To me personally, this sounds like excessive detail and overly wordy, but this is only my opinion.

Split into two sentences, the first shortened: "He suggested that it could eventually equal its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language, the emergence of talented German authors and extensive patronage of the arts by Germanic rulers. This was a project he believed would take a century or more."

• in his work Des Mœurs, des Coutumes, de L'industrie, des progrès de l'esprit humain dans les arts et dans les sciences (Of Manners, Customs, Industry, and the Progress of the Human Understanding in the Arts and Sciences) – again, quite much detail for a general article, maybe move the title to a footnote?

Deleted. It's in works

• and the renovation Rheinsburg – "of the" missing?

of added

• the director 1746–1759 – "in" missing?

expanded to: "director of the Berlin Academy from 1746 to 1759"

• Frederick and Napoleon are perhaps the most admiringly quoted military leaders in Clausewitz On War. – The book needs a date of publication, otherwise it is without context (one could assume it is a scholary work published in 2020).

Larger edit here. Deleted entire sentence, as paragraph is about Napoleon, not Clausewitz. Moved cited Clausewitz sentence to the end of the first paragraph, as it addresses Frederick II's speed of maneuver.

• Frederick the Great. and he kept – not a complete sentence.

Changed to comma.

• I got the impression that the article praises Frederick subject quite a bit, while his defeats are very poorly covered.

I definitely see your point. Through time, much of the lionizing of Frederick II as great warrior has been substantially reduced. But arguably, it still their. I think much of this now is due to the narrative focusing on the years when Frederick held the initiative, the First and Second Silesian Wars, and the first two years of the Third (or Seven Years wars). The significant early defeats in this time are mentioned. (And Mollwitz was a "victory" that shamed Frederick.) The major defeats were more in the last years, as his army deteriorated and he found himself reacting to Russian and Austrian moves.

In addition, as the article evolved, the section on military theory has moved toward the back of the article. It used to be in first place after the section now called called "Reign" (which had been called "Wars" for years).

• Very solid and well-written article, most of the above are only minor nitpicks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking your time. The last year or so has been a collaborative effort by a number of editors to get it in decent shape. Let me know if the changes made address the issues you've pointed out.. Please let me know if you have any suggestions regarding the additional concerns you raised. Wtfiv (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

further comments

• Thanks for addressing the above. I will list some further comments below, including explaining some of my earlier points that I think still need work.

For many of these, I will need to tread carefully between the concerns you raise and the perspective of various editors, but hey that's what a Featured Article Review is for!

• I would indeed mention the fact that he had 10 siblings, and briefly mention the most important ones (those mentioned later in the article) early-on. This seems to be standard information.

Done. Please see the first paragraph in Early life. I named only the three siblings who play a role in the article's narrative. Interestingly, rare is the source mentioning that he was one of ten siblings. His early life is depicted as if only Wilhelmine was in the picture. The brothers usually don't show up until Frederick is king, and the remaining sisters, with the possible exception of Anna Amalia generally get no mention at all. Wtfiv (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The historian Leopold von Ranke was unstinting in his praise of Frederick's "heroic life, – This needs a date I think to make clear from the start that this is an historical work.

Deleted second paragraph of final section, except for last sentence, which is now the last sentence of the first paragraph. This continues the idea that the lionization of Frederick in Germany was not stopped by the defeat of WWI. Though not mentioned, I deleted much of the commentary on Ritter in the third paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would still argue that the article disproportionately praises Frederick, which seems not to be in agreement with WP:NPOV. Suggestions below.

I see that, in the Historiography and legacy section, there is a whole paragraph on the opinions of early historians (many from the 19th century). On the other hand, modern historians are not cited directly, but some views are summarised, in the last paragraph of the article. I would suggest to focus more on views of modern historians, to bring those historic praises into perspective and to contrast them. For example, the German article has a quote from German historian de:Karl Otmar von Aretin, which translates to: "The Mainz historian Karl Otmar von Aretin denies that Frederick ruled in the manner of enlightened absolutism and sees him as the founder of an irresponsible and Machiavellian tradition in German foreign policy." I think this is an interesting point of view that could be added.

In progress. The previous change addresses much of the concern. I will rework last paragraph slightly using some sources I had already lined up. When I'm done, I'll strike this out, report back and request further comments.Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Done, added clause citing that aspects of Frederick's generalship are questioned. Cited Blanning and Showalter.

I didn't add Aretin's point. With Ranke, Droysen, and Ritter gone, along with their quotes and issues, hopefully we have the needed balance. In addition two accessible, English-language sources, Fraser 2001 p. 5-6 and Clark 2006, p. 196 suggest that contemporary views comparing Frederick's actions through WWII is inappropriate, as both argue that Frederick operated within the contemporary power politics of his time.

• Johann Gustav Droysen was even more favourable. – I would recommend to remove this. It doesn't seem to add anything except that there is another early historian praising Frederick. This makes sense if you aim to give mention to every such important historian.

Deleted. See previous comment on deleted paragraph.

• Clausewitz praised particularly the quick and skilful movement of his troops – You are mixing historical notes like this one with those of modern historians, but this does not become clear to the reader as you didn't add dates. I would suggest to simply remove the historical assessments like this one in the "Military theory" section, also to reduce the praise count.

Deleted. My main purpose in trying to find a home for this was trying to honor an editor's mention of Clausewitz, but otherwise, I don't think the article loses much.

• I still think there is a huge imbalance as the defeats are not properly described. The late defeats, where Prussia was close to collapse, of course played a highly important role in Frederick's life, and they are as important for this article as his victories. The German Wikipedia has a whole screen page on them. I think this aspect needs to be much expanded.

• This "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" – This looks to be a mistake. The "Miracle" does not seem to describe the sudden death of the Russian Empress, which is a later event. The actual Miracle (the troops did not march on Berlin) is not described in the article at all.

Deleted. And yes, the link is wrong. It appears to have been called the "second Miracle of the House of Brandenburg", But without mention of the first and with a misleading link, it makes no sense. And I don't think it is needed anyway.

• The psychological consequences of the near-defeat for Frederick could be covered as well.

In progress. To address the imbalance, I'll write a couple of paragraphs summarizing the final years of the Seven Years War, and when I'm done, I'll strike this out and report back to see if it addresses your concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft of narrative laid down and put into article in the middle of Seven Years War. If you can take a look and see if this addresses your main concerns, that would be great. Note that the original "Miracle" has shown up. I think Frederick's psychological state of mind due to near defeat is seen in his 1762 letter to Finckenstein, which the article quotes. If you are good with this, I'll put in the citations. I'll return here and note when I've got the citations in.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for adding citations to the Seven Years War, which is time consuming, but not onerous, have I addressed your concerns?

Thank you, again! Wtfiv (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, all looks very good now! Once the new paragraphs have received references and a copy edit, I'm happy to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• One more point on a recent addition: though aspects of his generalship remain open to question – I'm not sure if this helps, as it is unclear what aspects this might be. None seem to be mentioned in the "Military theory" section. So as it currently is, I think it raises more questions than it answers. Maybe remove this here, and instead add these aspects to the "Military theory" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If it is okay with you, I just prefer to delete, as both reference links are not of the best quality, both being Google book snips. Blanning argues that Frederick was an outstanding "warlord" and less a great general; Blanning also makes the point in the cited podcast. Showalter argues he's is just a general in his milieu. But the arguments for each are spread throughout their respective books. I'll be getting to work on the citations and reporting back. Thank you for your support! Wtfiv (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Citations done. added a few more details. Hopefully, these address the final concerns! Wtfiv (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Image and source review + spot-check (support contained therein)

All images are well placed but I don't see ALT text anywhere. The maps need some explanation of where the information comes from. File:Battle rossbach trap.png has a broken link. Licences and copyright seem OK to me.

I've added an archived copy of the source URL to the Commons page for the Rossbach tactical map, and (I think) I've added alt-text to all the images in the article. The Commons pages for the maps say that they are based on a map of Europe in Putzger's Historischer Weltatlas, 1990 edition, with the details recolored to reflect changes in territorial control between various dates. So, you could compare with e.g. this Putzger map of 1740 to verify details? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems largely OK as a source - probably want to ask someone at the graphics labs to correct Circassia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Now onto source spot check:

• 25: OK.
• 55: I take that the information on Frederick's goals is on p.18?
• 62: OK.
• 64: Can I get a copy of the page that this is sourced to?
• 81: OK.
• 90: OK.
• 112: JSTOR does not seem to have a p.85?
• 121: OK.
• 145: Can I have a copy of p.216?
• 152: OK.
• 185: It seems like the source emphasizes the contradictions more than the balance.
• 186: The mint and northern Germany claims seem to be on a different page.
• 199: OK.
• 217: OK.
• 233: OK.
• 249: OK.
• 262: OK.
• 280: The source notes that this battle was a bit more tactical than strategic win.
• 291: OK.
• 307: OK.

Sources are consistently formatted, but is it just my impression that they are heavily tilted towards the English language? his is mainly a German topic.

Yes, the article is intentionally focused toward English, as the goal is to create an accessible article for English readers. I edit under the following assumptions, which I strive to accomodate:

• most readers can't speak the languages in the article
• most readers don't have access to the sources of another language

Sometimes German sources were all that were available, so I tried to adhere to the following rules to keep the article readable and verifiable for English readers, particularly those without access to paywalled sources. All citations for German sources followed the following rules:

• Must be accessible via link
• Relevant text is quoted in original and then translated in footnote. That way, readers without access to an automated translator (i.e., on a mobile device) can understand what is said but at least verify the words were there. Speakers of the original language can decided for themselves the nuance of what is said, and as editors improve the translation (which was done by a non-native speaker.)

This follows the WP:NOENG guidelines mentioned by Gog the Mild (I didn't know them, but I'm glad my intuitions and preferences align with Wikipedia's larger goals). I imagine the typical person clicking the Frederick II article is an English-only speaker, who I wanted to respect by giving them the sources directly rather than trusting the source is correct. In my editing, I keep learning that many of the sources don't say what they are taken to say. That was particularly the case in this article when we started the project, so allowing public and shared verifiability when at all possible allows for proper correction. Yet, I aim to ensure there is enough there to pique the specialist as well.

I like the way more specialized sources are taken up to discuss the king when his relation to the specialized topic comes up. With respect to the books, I cannot vouch for the reliability of most but are Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, Norman Davies, William Arthur Shaw, Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, Gerhard Ritter and especially Theodor Schieder reliable sources? Some things in their biographies give me reason for doubt.

Here's my sense on the "doubtful sources":

• Princess Helena of the United Kingdom: edited and translated Wilhelmine's memoirs into English. (Wilhelmine being one of her ancestors.) Given her intimacy with Wilhelmine's diary and history, plus her knowledge of Carlyle's work, she seems a reliable source regarding Wilhelmine for the one citation of her forward.
• Norman Davies: He's an established academic historian, and I was unaware of any controversies. Looking at the article on him, I see he didn't get tenure at Stanford. I'm unaware of his views and what caused tenure problems, but his work seems well-researched and well-cited. His sole contribution to the article is from a citation that's been around for more than a decade, I think, that Frederick bombarded the Vistula.
• William Arthur Shaw: From what I understand, Shaw may have made some incorrect conclusions based on the financial data he used, but this article just reflects two of his statements of fact about the finances of Prussia. As an expert on finances, who wrote about Prussian finances in English, he seems a reliable source.
• Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve: As a literary critic, Beuve seems ideal here. Beuve's one citation focuses on how Frederick's writing relates to Frederick II's way of proceeding in caring for the country. Beuve's point is supported by the Administrative Policies section of the article.
• Gerhard Ritter Ritter was a professional historian with direct access to the original German documents. This makes him ideal as a historian of a German topic. That said, Ritter is no doubt one of the most controversial of the sources. There was a section on him in the article I removed (see dialogue with Jen in this FA review process above), and the talk archives in this article have three rather large discussions on him spanning decades! However, the debate is less about credentials, but his inferences given his background. There is no doubt that he was a conservative German Nationalist of the old school type, like Ranke and Droysen, but his famous pre-WWII (1936) biography of Frederick II daringly made the strong argument that the Nazi regime was not an extension of Frederick the Great's policies. If you look at the German language Ritter, you will see that he was allowed to remain at Frieburg until 1956, in part because his work did not serve as Nazi apologetic. He did remain a political conservative, however. Additional reasons to keep him:

• Ritter's research is respected. If his conclusions are challenged, his facts are less so. Most citations here reference Ritter's corroboration of facts.
• This biography is a historically recognized work (see Paret, 2012, cited in the article, more difficult to access, unfortunately, it is one of the handful of paywalled sources that seemed important enough to keep.) by a traditionally trained German historian with access to primary sources available and directly verifiable with an accessibly translated work in English.
• 16 out of 22 citations (72%) are corroborated by one or two additional sources.
• Of the remaining 6, a number make points critical of Frederick, in spite of Ritter's nationalist reputation. For example,

• Two regarding the Polish Partition actually make points that reflect poorly on Frederick II's impact on Polish Prussia.
• What mentions Frederick's invasion of Saxony brought international criticism

• The remaining "stand alones" are statement of facts, such as a listing of the coalition aligned against Frederick II, the battle of Torgau securing Berlin from further raids, Prussian immigration policy allowing a relatively quick recovery of population, Frederick II's preference for Greyhounds over people.

• Theodor Schieder He was recognized as a historian whose role in Germany enabled him to continue his career in post-war Germany. He worked for the the West German government and the University of Cologne. I was unaware of Schieder's views or political background when editing the article. I see that he was associated with the Nazi party, but though he remained controversial after the war, Points in favor of keeping Schieder:

Respected post-war German historian with access to primary sources. According to his article, his Nazi background may have impacted his language use but in this article:

• Work is relatively contemporary in the Frederick II biography continuum (1983; second half of 20th century). The work is English, accessible, and from a scholar who could access primary sources in the original language
• 9 out of 15 citations (60%) are corraborated by one or two additional sources.
• Of the remainder, most are statement of facts. Schieder does infer the Prussian law code balanced various factors and in another, he implies the purpose of giro discount an bank credit were to stabilize the economy, which seems a reasonable inference.

The specialized journal sources seem OK, while the online sources are so-so.

My feeling is that online sources provide decent, accessible summaries to non-specialist readers, particularly those without access to paywalled resources. Most of the points made are also supported by the journals and books cited in the article.

I won't be able to update the article changes until next week, When I get back, I'll:

• Add Alt tags to images
• Update the battle of Rossbach image
• Get citations for the two maps on the change of Frederick's kingdom. (The recently added map of Frederick's II's major battles is self-documented with links, and each battle is listed in the article.
• Fix the links problems you caught on your spot check. (All links should be freely accessible, though you may be need a jstor or archive.org account to get them.)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have first three have been addressed to sufficiently address your concerns? (Thank you so much @Bryanrutherford0:!) I think another editor is currently addressing the spot check issues! :I've reached out to some of the other dedicated editors to make the changes while I'm unable to do sustained edits. You may hear from them here about addressing the issues.Wtfiv (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Regardless, we should have them addressed by early-mid next week at the latest.

Thanks particularly for the link spot check! The links are critical. One of my goals is to ensure the article is accessible to a wide variety of people who read English, giving them- as much as possible- the opportunity to verify each point for themselves by directly accessing the sources- rather than having to trust the sources are reliable. At the same time, I think it serves the goal of minimizing the impact of access barriers (e.g., paywalls; ability to access books via purchase or library), allowing readers to actively interact with the sources if they are inclined.

I appreciate the time and effort you took to look over this article. When I fix the issues next week, I will ping Jo-Jo Eumerus. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Just checking that everyone is aware of WP:NOENG: "... English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance ...". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi all! Concerning the source list, here's what I've found/changed

• 55 - No it's not, pg. 18 citation is for the Habsburg dynasty claim. "Frederick's goal" claim may warrant an addition citation.
• 64 - Due to copyright I cannot provide a copy, but I can provide a link to the archive.org page where you can view it yourself. The citation for the surprise is on page 206, with the rest of the pages simply providing additional context. Here you are!
• 112 - This is true, a replacement source may be necessary and I'll try looking.
• 145 - Source confirms the villages but not the 300,000 immigrants, this has now been removed from the article. Once again cannot provide a copy, heres the link!
• 185 - Emphasis never negates statements made, the citation confirms that despite its contradictions The General Law Code of the Prussian Territories did mirror and was akin to Frederican Prussia. This citation is fine.
• 186 - The information crosses from 92-93 about financial reform but as I cannot access the full book; the mint claim is disputable.
• 280 - Article has been corrected to mention it was a tactical victory

This is just what I could tidy up a bit, I have no idea what to do with 112 I'm afraid, Wtfiv is far better at this than I am so maybe she could help out. Cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chariotsacha! I followed up a bit on the work you did with the three outstanding items, 55; 112, 186.

• 55. This one struck me as the biggest issue. The first half of the sentence preceding the semi-colon was unsupported. I broke the sentence into two. The second half was about the Hapburg empire, so that citation worked fine. The first half needed it's own citation, which is now, Fraser 2001, pp. 55-56, which discusses the strategic situation Frederick confronted. The sentence is rewritten to better reflect the citation. (Fortunately, all archive.org books are available. Usually for one-hour viewing, but registration is required. That's how I navigate the sources.)
• 112 Rose 1914a p. 85 is available for viewing via JSTOR, but the reader will have to register (for free). For now, JSTOR is allowing 100 free article views per month for anybody who signs in. (I think in the past it was 6/month) Of course, they have institutional accounts as well, for readers fortunate enough to have them.
• 186. I moved the final 186 reference to a new one as the comment about Northern Germany was on page 93. Fortunately, it too was accessible by Google Books. It mentions northern Germany explicitly.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: With the changes made by Bryan Rutherford, Chariotsacha, and myself, have we addressed the concerns?

Well, emphasis may not negate a statement but it casts doubt on it in this case. So I think a small rewrite to emphasize that the reception is mixed would be necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A small rewrite seems perfectly suitable! I'll do it right away, thanks to everyone here who's been tying up loose ends. Chariotsacha (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Chariotsacha has made the change regarding the reception of the legal code. Please take a look and see if it sufficiently addresses your concern. Wtfiv (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you comfortable supporting the article for FA at this point, or is there more needed? Wtfiv (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with it. Thus, support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and again thank you also for taking the time to thoughtfully review!

• 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) 19:53, 9 October 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 September 2021 [48].

---

A Voyage Round the World

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article (my first FAC in 15 years, so apologies if I don't know everything about the current process) is about a report by Georg Forster (my other FA) about the Second voyage of James Cook. It has a famously controversial genesis (it appeared in competition with Cook's official account), and is an important book in the history of travel writing and source for 18th century Polynesian ethnology. While I have written almost all of the article, I would like to acknowledge the very helpful GA review by Chiswick Chap last year and the recent thorough GOCE copyedit by Twofingered Typist here. The article contains a rather lengthy paraphrase of the content / the voyage, illustrated by contemporary paintings and by the author's own watercolour. Of course all of these long quotes are only acceptable because they are PD-old, but I do hope they help to give a good overview of the book. —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• A couple images lack captions
• Lead caption is missing italics
• Suggest scaling up all charts/maps
• Rather than "see caption", suggest "refer to caption" for alts
• File:Forsterundsohn.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Ditto File:Gallirallus_hypoleucus.jpg
• File:Cook'sSecondVoyage53.png: what is the source for the data presented?
• File:Georg_Forster_-_Halcyon_leucocephala_acteon.jpeg needs a US tag and a more specific source
• File:Table_Mountain_and_Cape_Town_(William_Fehr_Collection_CD21).jpg is incorrectly tagged and attributed - under US law, reproducing a 2D work does not garner a new copyright
• File:ForsterWEB72.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Hodges_easter-island.jpg, File:Cook-1777.PNG, File:Georg_Forster's_sämmtliche_Schriften,_Erster_Band.jpg
• File:Norfolk_Triller.jpg has a dead source link and needs a US tag, but there is also a copyright statement in the description claiming this is reproduced by permission - what are the details of that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've done the easy bits (i.e. in this article, not on Commons). Do you have a suggestion what is best practice for dead source links? For the Rigaud painting and the Hodges paintings (and Forster's ice blink), I have other (online and offline) references that verify that these images are old and by these painters. If I add these, is that OK even if I don't know exactly where the .jpg is from? (They're not the source of the actual jpg data, but a source for the picture). This is definitely a worthwhile exercise because, for example, the original dead source link for the Rigaud painting was a random university website where it was probably used as an illustration, so thank you for pointing this out. The Forster pictures are less well published, I'll have to see whether I can prove more clearly they are indeed Forster's. There are data sources for the voyage map given at c:File:Cook Three Voyages 59.png; I'll check with the uploader who is still active.
The additional US tag for PD-old items was news to me (seems to have been introduced a few years ago), but I'll make sure the images get tagged correctly and will report back. Thanks a lot for looking at these! —Kusma (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Fell into a little rabbit hole of learning about the history of File:Forsterundsohn.jpg. Uploader has added source for File:Cook'sSecondVoyage53.png. Hope these two are acceptable now. Will do the others slowly and carefully tomorrow-ish. —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Will look in more detail once you've done that, but a quick response now: if the dead source links are appropriate sources, then an archived version (eg from archive.org) would be a good replacement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are unfortunately no archived versions that I could find, so I have removed the Forster watercolours of birds as not properly sourced and replaced them by File:Gallirallus_pacificus.jpg, the lead image from the FA Tahiti rail. I've also replaced the Cape Town image by a File:A View of the Cape of Good Hope, Taken on the Spot, from on Board the Resolution Hodges 1772.jpg, as there are claims that the previously used image was actually painted ten years later on a different journey (not a debate I want to cover here).
• For everything that was missing a US tag, I have added one, together with the best information on the images and their publication history that I've been able to find (from the authoritative art book and catalogue Joppien, Rüdiger; Smith, Bernard (1985). The art of Captain Cook's voyages. 2. Melbourne: Oxford University Press in association with the Australian Academy of the Humanities. ISBN 978-0-19-554456-5).
• File:Forsterundsohn.jpg has a higher-resolution but less bright version at the Australian National Portrait Gallery; I'd rather keep the current version if possible. It can be found here (which I've mentioned), but I think it is likely they copied it from Commons.
• Should there be further copyright issues (unexpected PD-US/date of publication questions) with any of the images here, there are many alternative images that could be used to illustrate the content section. For example, ethnographic and other engravings from Cook's 1777 book or Forster's plant images from the 1775/76 Characteres generum plantarum. —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. There are some issues around publication for paintings - as per the definition of publication in US law, simply being displayed does not constitute publication. So for example for File:Forsterundsohn.jpg, the information provided only confirms a publication date of 1976, not pre-1926. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I had based my reading on c:Commons:Publication that I have perhaps not read closely enough; I've adapted one of the tags at File:A View of the Cape of Good Hope, Taken on the Spot, from on Board the Resolution Hodges 1772.jpg. For File:Forsterundsohn.jpg, well, the question is whether the publication of faithful engravings (the 18th century version of publishing pictures) counts as publishing this picture. Alternatively, it could be PD-1996? BTW Alamy claim to have a higher quality version and seem to believe it is PD, but I guess this doesn't tell us anything usable. The best other information I have on the painting and its derivatives is in this self-published book; I'm not sure the author is right about everything, but it is a good place to find further information (and reliable sources like the scholarly edition of Therese Huber's letters do refer to it). —Kusma (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

When and where were engravings published, according to the sources you've consulted? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

They were available for sale in Germany in 1860: [49] (mail order catalogue), which should count as publication under the US law you linked to above. The first books containing reproductions that I am aware of are in Germany in 1953 [50] and in the UK in 1961 [51]. —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have added one more image, File:Houghton Oc 127.72.3 - Cook, Otoo.jpg (unquestionably PD everywhere, published in Cook's 1777 book) and moved some other images around for slightly improved image balance on wide screens. Please let me know what you think of the license tags now (and whether I have broken anything else). —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Still pending: publication history for File:Gallirallus_pacificus.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've commented it out for the moment and asked the uploader for further information. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't say when it was first published, but it was at least published by 1989 in the French book Le Grand Livre des Espéces Disparues by J. Balouet, according to the 2000 edition of the book Extinct Birds by Errol Fuller, which is where I scanned it from. It is very possible it was published before, but 1989 at least makes it public domain according to EU rules.[52][53] So with this info, I think it could use the same licensing as this:[54] FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, with @FunkMonk's explanations of the publication history, do you think this can be used or should it rather be left out? —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Tahiti rail is back in. —Kusma (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I've made some changes to image captions (some trivial, mostly links, but one more substantial expansion). Please let me know if you think I've messed up. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't see any caption issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, are you ok with this review now? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Tim riley

Just putting my marker down. A cracker of an article at first glance, but I'll be back with substantive comments over the weekend, I hope. Looking forward to it. – Tim riley talk 21:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I found this a riveting article, particularly the main Content section, which is as good a thing of that kind as I have seen in Wikipedia. I have a few minor prose points – very few and very minor – that I hope you will find helpful.

• Background

• the urgings of geographer Alexander Dalrymple – I do not think the use of false titles, à l'américaine (or à la Daily Mirror), is becoming in a piece of formal British English. A definite article before "geographer" would do what's necessary. Later we have naval surgeon and inventor Charles Irving, First Secretary of the Admiralty Philip Stephens, Royal Society vice president Daines Barrington, First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Sandwich, writer and editor John Hawkesworth, Oxford astronomer Thomas Hornsby, Canadian anthropologist John Barker and others, including the massed ranks of those suffering from false titles in the Modern Reception section.

• Adding definite articles. Let me know whether there are too many the's now. Many of the fake titles are intended to be glosses.

• Looks fine to me now. The prose flows smoothly and the definite articles do not obtrude – quite the opposite. Tim riley talk 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• with the aim to circumnavigate the globe – strange phrasing: one might expect "with the aim of circumnavigating…"

• Germanism. Fixed.

• Banks' scientific entourage – surprising form of possessive, here and later, where Banks's would be usual (and would reflect how it is pronounced). Likewise Wales' later on. Ess-apostrophe-ess is the form used in Modern English Usage and Plain Words, my two stand-bys for such matters.

• Fixed.

• mentioning Georg was a "very able draughtsman and designer" – is there a "that" missing after "mentioning"? Looks a little odd without it. Or perhaps "was" should be "as"?

• "As" was intended. Fixed.

• Writing and publication

• Observationes historiam naturalem spectantes quas in navigationes ad terras australes institutere coepit G. F. – the Manual of Style would have us provide an in-line translation of foreign titles or phrases, though I have got away with putting such things in an explanatory footnote. Same goes for Voyage aux régions equinoxiales du Nouveau Continent, later.

• Footnote and short title of English translation added.

• artifacts – surprising, and not especially welcome, to see a spelling of "artefacts" more usually confined to AmE, and best left there, in my view.

• Fixed.

• Content

• I have no quibbles at all about this whole section, which is ideally set out and judiciously proportioned. There is, I should say, just about the right amount of direct quotation from the book (and what a good writer Forster was, whatever Dr Johnson thought! Anyone who influenced Coleridge, even at second hand, is all right with me.)

• Glad you enjoyed it! I added this during the GA review on my reviewer's suggestion, near doubling the length of the article. I have expanded the rest a bit since to make the content section less dominant.

• Post-publication controversy

• questioned his belief that sea water could not freeze – would it be out of order to suggest that for the benefit of scientific ignoramuses (e.g. me) it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying whether Barrington's belief was right or wrong?

• Barrington was wrong, but he wouldn't have been able to accept that. The belief (influenced by Samuel Engel) that seawater couldn't freeze was central for the existence of the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage. Barrington even initiated the 1773 Phipps expedition towards the North Pole, which was supposed to avoid sea ice by avoiding land. I've managed to stop myself from writing a long essay, but there is now a short footnote.

• Good. Thanks for that! Tim riley talk 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Those really are all the quibbles I can scrape together. A really fine article, which I look forward to supporting for FA. – Tim riley talk 14:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tim riley, thank you for the review and the suggestions! I think I've addressed everything. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to support the promotion of this excellent article to FA. It appears balanced and comprehensive without being excessively detailed. The sources are many and look authoritative (I think there may be a matter of indentation to be be dealt with for Williams 2013 in the list of Sources) and there is a good balance of old and new sources. The illustrations are well chosen and plentiful. The prose is clear and satisfying, and the whole thing is a pleasure to read. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim riley talk 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting. Thank you for your help and support. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "East coast of Australia" probably should lower-case "East".

• Done.

• First Lord of the Admiralty, First Secretary of the Admiralty could use links. Also Admiralty.

• Could have sworn I had included those links, but you're right, they were not there. Moved Admiralty link to first mention.

• "In the South Pacific, they discovered New Caledonia, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands." The last two are not in the Pacific.

• removed "In the South Pacific".

• "his philosophical remarks." Isn't this better termed "scientific remarks"?

• In modern terms, yes. In 1770s terms, no, scientists were "philosophers" back then. Could put it in quotes, but I'd rather leave as is.Is also a direct quote from the text of the agreement, so "philosophical remarks" in quotes it is.

• "Southern hemisphere" Should be capped.

• Done.

• "Function with the Adventure." Should Adventure have italics?

• I'm using the original styling for the chapter headings (as do all other editions), so no. And it's "Junction", embarrassingly.

• It's possible the claim of major influence over Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a bit overstated, given that it is based (the Albatross, especially) on a published incident in George Shelvocke's journals. Is this something that is generally accepted?

• Bernard Smith makes a fairly convincing argument that Coleridge was strongly influenced by William Wales and Cook's journey (he cites from Cook, Forster, and from Wales's journal and compares them with the Rime), and I haven't found anything that cites his work and claims it is wrong. Thomas & Berghof state "[E]vidence that Coleridge read and used Forster’s account for key passages remains inconclusive. Yet we should not discount the effects a narrative such as Forster’s might have had on Coleridge simply because we cannot find an exact match. By definition the poetic imagination transforms its sources, often beyond recognition. Bernard Smith has ably demonstrated that George Forster’s Voyage was part of a set of narratives that furnished crucial details for Coleridge’s poem." In any case, I've toned down the claim and attributed it better.

• I'm getting citation errors from the English edition section.

• Used |ref=none to fix it.

Very interesting article, looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments, let me know what you think of my fixes/responses. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the helpful comments! —Kusma (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• Avoid 1-2 sentence paras - surely the 4th tiny para can append one of the others....?

• While I like making paragraph breaks, I see your point. Better?

• When they returned to England after more than three years... - it'd sound (slightly) more natural to me as, "When they returned to England over three years later..."

• It's not "three years later" compared to the sailing to 71° 10', so that could be misunderstood and I've not changed anything here.

• Another aim, following the urgings of the geographer Alexander Dalrymple, had been to find Terra Australis Incognita. - this comes over as a bit clunky too but an alternative not immediately springing to mind...

• I have simply removed the urgings of Alexander Dalrymple, as I think his involvement in the story of Cook's first voyage is more complicated than that and also doesn't quite belong here. (Dalrymple would have loved to lead such an expedition himself). I've read a little more, and it seems that Dalrymple was not just a great believer in Terra Australis, but also the person who suggested to not let the opportunity go to waste that presented itself by having a ship already at Tahiti. I've reformulated it, tell me whether I've made it worse.

• I'd mention that Benjamin White was a publisher

• Added.

• The voyage first passes the Canary Islands - I'd argue that the "first" here is redundant.

• Removed.

Other than that looks pretty good on comprehensiveness and prose. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! I've worked on all your points except one where I'd rather keep things as they are. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• This already has the "necessary" supports, but as you say, it is your first FAC in 15 years, and it overlaps with some articles I've written, so I thought it would be good to give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• At first glance, there's a good deal of WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[55]

  Thanks. I've removed most, the remaining duplinks are deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• James Cook should also be linked at first mention outside the intro?

  Done.

• "hoped to find Terra Australis Incognita" Explain that this was a hypothetical continent?

  Done.

• Link Cape of Good Hope.

  Done.

• "The Royal Society suggested" Add "of London", to make clear form the beginning where we are?

  I'm not totally convinced that this is necessary, and not convinced that would be effective. But I've put it in so we can try it on for size.

I don't think it hurts, since it is already part of the official name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "they became the first Europeans to cross the Antarctic Circle" Not people, period?

  My source has "first time in history", and another "first men ..." It is now "they made the first recorded crossing of the Antarctic Circle".

• " having lost only four members of his crew on board the Resolution" Why "only"?

  Good point. My cited source doesn't say "only" at this point, so I'll find something better (not today). Cook himself proudly stated "I lost but four men and only one of them by sickness". Generally, the comparison to keep in mind here is George Anson's voyage around the world, 1740-1744 (188 out of 1854 people survived) that made the Admiralty pay attention to scurvy.

  I've removed the "only four" at this mention, and made a footnote at JRF's erroneous "no man lost by sickness" claim instead. The story of Cook and scurvy doesn't really belong here, but see Glyn Williams (2013) Scurvy on the Pacific voyages in the age of Cook if you are interested.

• Not sure if it's deliberate, but you present some people with occupation at first mention, but others not.

  Supposed to be glosses for people who need glosses. Are there any missing or superfluous?

The main characters like Cook and Forster senior. Also, some people seem to get nationalities listed, but most don't. Omai could also get some kind of brief context? FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The text makes it clear enough that Cook was a navigator and JRF a scientist. Nationalities are not relevant for the 18th century people (it's more important that Sparrman was a student of Linnaeus than that he was Swedish). I have them in the reviews section to show where these reviews come from (mostly, but not exclusively Australia and New Zealand, but this is generally where interest in Cook's voyages seems greatest at the moment). I could remove the nationalities entirely if that makes the article read better. (Some are not there because New Zealanders living in London for most of their life shouldn't be given a one-word mention of that).

Omai: excellent point. Added.

• "Forster believed he would be allowed to publish a narrative of the journey" Which Forster? This is kind of an issue throughout.

  I was hoping this would be clear from context. "Forster" is sometimes Reinhold in the early sections, where he is the leading actor.

I was confused by this particular instance because when I looked at the infobox, it said Georg was the one who wrote the account, So I was unsure whether he or the father had been the ones who asked to be allowed to writre it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That instance was unclear, with "Forster" meaning JRF directly following a "Georg". I've tried to improve this.

• There is some inconsistency in how you write out the names of the Forsters after first mention. Sometimes full names like Johann Reinhold Forster, sometimes only last names, sometimes elder Forster, and sometimes Reinhold Forster. I wonder if it would be less confusing to just stick to one style, for example "G. Forster" and "J. R. Forster" after first full mention? Would save space too.

  I think that would be bad for the Content section, and sticking to one style would read worse overall (variety is spice...). I've asked my copyeditor about this issue, who seemed to think it is working out well currently. But I can try to sort JR Forster a bit better (another problem is that GF's first name is, in a sense, also Johann).

Not a huge deal, but I did get confused in places when only "Forster" was used prior to the Content section. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Both Kahn and Thomas&Berghof use "Forster" in both meanings, relying on context. T&B switch between various ways to write JRF, inclduing "Forster senior", "Johann Reinhold". I hope it works now.

• "The marine Isaac Taylor, who has been afflicted with consumption" Had been?

  Oops, thanks.

• Link more personal and place names in image captions?

  Linked the artists, even repeatedly, and the people in the paintings. Not a huge fan of linking parts of the image names to locations. I've found out who Otoo, King of O-taheite is (Pōmare I); this is now in the image caption because it might distract from the main text (I don't think I can link to his article without some sort of explanation).

Don't think it's needed at every mention of the same name, just first occurrence in a caption. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, removed a couple of William Hodges links again. —Kusma (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "when they appeared in an illustrated German edition of Voyage" Could the year be given in-text?

  Couldn't think of a good way to do that and keep the "over 200 years" so the readers now have to figure out for themselves that a long time passed between 1777 and 2007.

• Link travelogue?

  travelogue is a DAB and travel literature a bit all over the place, but as it was already in the infobox, I've linked it.

• " Peoples described include the Tahitians, the Maori of New Zealand, and the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego" Links to these peoples?

  Good idea. The Fuegians link is me not figuring out which peoples these really are, but it seems like the correct terminology for the time.

• "This wasn't completely correct" Contractions should be avoided.

  I've clarified and removed the unnecessary contraction.

I think I've responded to everything (following your suggestions often, but not always). Thank you FunkMonk for your careful reading and comments! —Kusma (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes look good, I'll continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Should names of ships be in italics in section titles?

  I'm trying to follow the original edition as closely as possible, including the dashes. None of the later editions italicise Adventure here either.

• Is there any description of how they communicated with the natives?

  Words and signs. Some sign language is mentioned in the Content section, as well as the observation that there are several languages of Vanuatu, although I haven't found a good place to link that article. The Forsters collected not just plants, but also words. A comparative chart of Pacific languages is in JRF's book Observations made..., about which I haven't managed to get around to writing an article yet.

• "proving the existence of cannibalism in New Zealand" Anything to link?

  Cannibalism to Human cannibalism seems best.

• Link albino?

  Linked to Albinism in humans.

• "R. L. Kahn, the editor of the 1968 edition of Voyage" By this time you have already mentioned him with full name but no link or presentation earlier.

  Moved.

• Why is the Danish edition only mentioned in a footnote about the German edition, and not listed in-text along the other language editions?

  The information came from two different sources (Kahn's list of translations omits the Danish one), which isn't a good excuse. Merged.

• "almost half of the literature about Voyage has focused exclusively on this part of the journey" Do we know why?

  The three-letter answer is probably just "sex". For a longer answer: my source annotates this fact as "irritating, but understandable". In my own opinion (I haven't found a source directly stating this), Voyage became part of a heavily romanticised narrative of Tahiti as an ocean paradise (pre-Fall of Man) that had been started by Bougainville calling the island "Nouvelle Cythere", essentially Aphrodite's island. Narratives of Pacific islanders were often read as erotica. I have sources stating things like "The poet and essayist Heinrich Wilhelm von Gerstenberg fantasised about establishing an Arcadian colony of German writers on Tahiti, under the guidance of Forster", but that was in 1777 (and seems to not have been discussed for very long) so doesn't quite explain why modern scholars like it so much. I think the Mutiny on the Bounty and its massive literary reception is partially responsible.

  Generally I'd like to avoid saying much more about the scholarly literature and discourse here, given that the analysis in Peitsch's book runs to about eight pages without giving all that many details about each of the articles he writes about, and that's just the state of the art 20 years ago.

• The first and last paragraphs of the article body are pretty long walls of text, wonder if both could be broken in two to help the reader parse the text?

  Split the first one. For the last one, I don't see a natural breaking point.

• "In his review of it, the Canadian anthropologist John Barker" Do we need to know his nationality?
• "The Australian historian Kay Saunders" Likewise, and there are a good deal of similar cases under Modern reception where the nationality doesn't seem to add anything, which would be ok if it wasn't for more notable characters not being presented this way earlier in the article.

  Removed all in this section. Better than having to discuss whether the Forsters were German, Polish, or Prussian or to explain that Kahn was German-American (escaped the Holocaust via Kindertransport). I think that Engel (only in a footnote) being Swiss adds to the absurdity of his armchair navigator's views on the Open Polar Sea.

Wasn't a huge deal, but after the fifth Australian reviewer, it started to become a bit pointless... FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• "about the publication of a narrative of the journey arose" Double "of the" is a bit repetitive, any way to vary it?

  How about "publications rights for a narrative of the journey"?

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: See above for replies and changes made (or not made). I can try to dig out more on the Tahiti fascination but I'm not sure I can tie it directly to Voyage, so I am unconvinced it should be stated here. —Kusma (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you'd need to go into much more detail, but the way it is written now made me, and probably many other readers, wondering, as it's a bit of a tease. Maybe something brief like "much of this literature focuses on erotic aspects" or "it tied into a fascination with Tahiti at the time" or similar could solve it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, ok, I think I understand what you mean there now. I've said a little more which I hope gives a better idea without just looking like a tease, while staying on the right side of WP:OR. I should also probably write an article about Bougainville's book :) —Kusma (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - issues nicely addressed, but they were minor in any case. Fine article! FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

SC

Dropping back in to FAC on the advice of Tim riley to have a look at this one. Very nicely written and put together. I made a series of very small MoS changes earlier, which I hope you don't mind. I'm impressed with the quality of what I read and the assurance in the way it's been put together. Very nice indeed. I'm not sure if comments or !votes from IPs are counted, but this is a Support from me. (If any of the FA Co-ords want to confirm who I claim to be, they are welcome to contact me directly.) Cheers - the editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61D9:58A7:69EC:6CCB (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that this IP is indeed the artist formerly (not "formally", fumblefingers!) known as SchroCat. He and I and other current and past Wikipedians meet frequently at the Wehwalt Arms in London, and this, above, is undeniably from him. Whether or not an IP contribution counts for FAC purposes, for my part I take this one seriously, and concur with it. – Tim riley talk 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedits and the support, glad you enjoyed it enough to come back here! —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Alas, the doyen of our séances at the Wehwalt Arms, Brian Boulton, is no longer alive; I smile sadly to think how immensely he would have enjoyed reviewing this article, even though it lacks the shipwrecks, drownings or other fatalities en regle in a BB seafaring FA. – Tim riley talk 16:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. A moment's pause for reflection is in order. But cheering to hear that the editor formerly known as SchroCat has mastered ouija. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Spot-check and source review

Formatting of sources is mostly consistent but I see that sometimes publisher information is missing. I see some "|volume= has extra text" errors. The Guardian isn't an academic publication, so it probably shouldn't be formatted like one. That source and some PhD theses might not be good sources for a FA, I think - everything else seems fine.

Added a publisher or two, and ISBN/doi information for one publication that was very poorly presented. The Guardian formatting problem I can't quite see (uses {{cite news}}) but I agree that citing the Guardian here isn't up to the standard of the rest of the sources. I can try to use more from Edwards 2004 or the paper I link to in response to 51 here instead and perhaps shorten this story (which really belongs in an article about Hawkesworth's book that needs to be written). Will do so once other issues are resolved in order to not mess up the numbering. Anything else? —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the Guardian. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• 106: OK.
• 37: Can I have a copy of this page.

  Got this, the source seems to say that Cook had authorial intentions himself and that this was more important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Gordon has this from Beaglehole's biography of Cook, who doesn't say that in a way that would allow us to state it as fact. Perhaps it's best to cite this to Edwards, p. 112, which says after mentioning Hawkesworth "[Cook] decided he would be responsible for publishing his own account." —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Changed, using Edwards and other sources. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• 40: OK.
• 80: OK but I don't think we need a reference here if you are describing what the book itself says.
• 33: Can I have a copy of this page.

  I don't think I received this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, got this one. It seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• 26: Can I have a copy of this page.

  Got this, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• 126: Can I have a copy of this page.

  Got this, it needs to be reworded so that it reads less like a word-by-word translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  It did combine Hahn/Fischer with a "in Germany" from Steiner so it wasn't a direct copy, but I have tried to rephrase it a bit. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• 154: Can I have a copy of this page.

  Got this, it does not mention Akademie-Verlag? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  It says "that which constitutes Band 1 of Georg Forsters Werke (Berlin, 1968)" which uniquely identifies the Akademie edition. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• 57: OK.
• 8: Can I have a copy of this page.

  Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• 53: OK.
• 125: Can I have a copy of this page.

  Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• 87: OK but I don't think we need a reference here if you are describing what the book itself says.

  I have page number references for all direct quotes, no references for the content description (other than the chapter headings). —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• 99: OK.
• 107: OK.
• 130: Can I have a copy of this page.

  I don't think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Now you do, sorry, technical difficulties. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Got it, that checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• 51: Which page was this on?

  It's kind of the whole text, especially 72-73 (access to Cook's text) and 78-80 (Cook's text as source) so I haven't given the precise page. I could also cite this (available on TWL at [56]), which gets the point across as well and is in English. See pp. 253-255. What do you think? —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Added page numbers (also to one other publication). —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• 101: OK.
• 79: OK.
• 70: Can I have a copy of this page.

  Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Will have to scan/photograph the hardcopy books, sent some electronic files by email already. The Dawson thesis is explicitly named as a source (or even praised) in several clearly reliable sources (and this is mentioned in the article), so I think it should definitely be used. Generally, PhD theses in this field often are the main publications that actually go and study the sources: both Dawson's and Gordon's thesis include archive material that was not previously published, so their theses are widely cited by other literature. (I think the objection against PhD theses isn't equally valid in all fields). I would like to cite from Gordon because this thesis is an additional study independent of Hoare (these two are almost the only ones who really studied JRF's life in England in any sort of detail and using the widest range of sources). —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sent the scans. Jo-Jo Eumerus, let me know if there is anything wrong with them and I'll try to scan better versions / smaller files. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've looked through the Gordon cites in detail. 21 (to Gordon p. 153) is perhaps not so great, it's Gordon taking JRF's journal at face value, though Sandwich's letter to Lord North kind of makes it very plausible. 26 is mostly redundant with 25, and could be removed or (perhaps better) both moved to the end of the sentence, if 26 is changed to citing pp. 155-157. Per what I said above, 37 could be replaced by citing Edwards 2004. (My poor excuse for not using Edwards 2004 more is that I didn't have proper access to it until buying a second hand copy last week, incidentally with a sticker identifying it as from the library of Nicholas Thomas). So I could go without citing that PhD thesis, but Dawson's should stay. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, if the PhD thesis is frequently cited in its own right then it can stand. Seems like most other issues are resolved as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed the old 21 from Gordon and the text it supported. The old 37 was also replaced by other sources. 26 is still there per above (stating unambiguous facts), but could be removed without much harm. Gordon's thesis is also relatively widely cited in its own right, but not with as much praise attached to it as Dawson's. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: please check my recent edits and let me know whether you think anything else is needed. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I did check but the only thing that comes to mind is the source seems to say that Cook had authorial intentions himself and that this was more important. which seems to still be an issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought I had adressed that in my response to 37 above so I don't believe it is still an issue: I have removed that citation based on the objection to PhD theses and changed it (it is now 38) to refer to Edwards 2004, p. 112, which I quote above, as the "Cook had authorial intentions" is Gordon's interpretation of a section in Beaglehole's biography of Cook, "Beaglehole tells us that Cook, if not intentionally, then subconsciously kept his journal with the ambition of publishing it" that just isn't very definite. This interpretation of Cook's subconscious relates to the time before March 1775 when Cook saw Hawkesworth's book (and was shortly after confronted with ridicule at St Helena, where the inhabitants showed him that they did indeed have wheelbarrows, unlike what Hawkesworth wrote, see here: (not a citable RS, but a good account nevertheless)), and the authorship intent seems to become clearer afterwards. The issue is hinted at a bit later: "Both Cook and Forster had kept journals for this purpose and reworked them in the winter of 1775–76." (The Williams book cited, for example, says that Cook's several versions of his journals were evidence that he was writing for the public, not just the Admiralty). —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the thumbs-up! I think I'm done now. —Kusma (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, would I be correct in taking this as a pass for both the spot-check and source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 26 September 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) 18:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2021 [57].

---

Islands: Non-Places

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Islands: Non-Places is an odd little game that I picked up in a charity bundle last year and found myself quite taken with. It's simple to the point of being hypnotic, but the visuals are gorgeous enough to bring me back again and again (the fountain! the palm tree escalator!). Amazingly, there was enough mainstream coverage to sail it past the bare minimum of the GNG and well into thoroughly-sourced territory, so here we are as a little palate cleanser between larger projects. (For anyone watching my FACs, yes, I do apparently love colorful minimalist indie games with similar names). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

In the lead's first paragraph, there is one sentence that starts with "The game..." and it is followed by a sentence that starts with "The short game...". I find that somewhat repetitive so I would change the first instance to "It" instead. Cheated and condensed it into a single sentence instead :) That is probably the better option lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For the two images used in the body of the article, please use ALT text. Oop, I always forget alt text I am the worst with ALT text so I understand that. I am just bad at writing ALT text lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For this part, it is usually described as an art game, I would attribute who describes the game this way. Is it critics, players, someone else entirely? Added "critics" For this part, Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra, he, I would substitute "he" with "Burton" to avoid any confusion since James Turrell is discussed in the previous sentence. It is already clear from context, but I think it is always good to make sure any points of potential confusion or misinterpretation are avoided when possible. No you're right it is a bit unclear in my original; I tweaked it I would incorporate this sentence, Islands was nominated for the Nuovo Award at the 2016 Independent Games Festival., into one of the earlier paragraphs to avoid having a one-sentence paragraph at the end. I wound up integrating it into the first paragraph of that section - does it work? That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For Citation 17, I would clarify that this source is in Japanese. Done Several of the citations seem to include the website and publisher (like Citation 1 with The Verge and Vox Media), but there are some citations that only include one of these bits of information (like the one for Kill Screen or the one for the Philippine Daily Inquirer). I would be consistent with one method or the other. Under Template:Cite_web#Publisher, it says to omit the publisher where it is substantially the same as the website name (ie "The New York Times co." doesn't need to be included when citing "The New York Times"). The Philippine Daily Inquirer was an oversight but the rest of the ones where they're missing are intentional because they're substantially the same. (I made an exception for Vice (magazine) and Vice Media on the grounds that they have separate articles). Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For Citation 8, I would link Annals of Tourism Research and add that Elsevier is the publisher. Done For Citation 15, the access date and archive dates are not presented in the same format as the other dates so I would correct that for consistency. Fixed

The article looks very good to me. I have honestly never heard of this game. To be completely honest, I do not think I agree with the non-place idea, but I think this is one of these cases where some people find value in it while others do not. My comments are relatively minor and nitpick-y. I hope this is helpful and have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for your comments - always lovely to hear from you at FAC :) It's definitely an obscure game, even more so than Islanders, but I was just so taken with the art style I couldn't resist writing about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I really enjoyed reading the article and I always appreciate it whenever an editor brings an obscure topic through the FAC space. I also like the art style, from what I have seen so far, and it seems to compliment its gameplay very well. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a great start to your week and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Sdkb

You have great taste in games :) This article looks quite sound, so I only have a few comments.

• In the lead, Many reviews drew comparisons to other minimalist art games is a little obvious. Would the Nuovo Award nomination maybe be a better piece of information to stick in that spot? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sure

• It's not quite clear what you mean by "anonymous" in the lead, as that term generally refers to people, not places. Would "nondescript" or something else perhaps be better? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• It can also mean bland or non-descript, and Merriam-Webster specifically uses a building as an example of this definition.

  I still think "non-descript" would be clearer, but it's your article, so I'll defer to your preference. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• As a note I wound up adding "non-descript" based on another comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• The paragraph breaking in the lead could maybe be improved. The current break is between two sentences talking about the gameplay, which doesn't seem a logical place. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tweaked

  Looks good now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• My understanding is that most FA reviewers don't hold my view that templates used in FACs should be up to featured-level quality, so this isn't something I'll require you to address to earn my support, but I want to at least mention it, as readers are going to notice prose that isn't up to 1a standard just as much in the infobox as they would in the body. All of the instances of (s) in the infobox are unnecessary and distracting, as the values are all singular, so for this article, the labels ought to be, too. This is an issue I've been working on addressing at a broader level (see here). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah this is something we ran into at Inuit clothing as well. I don't have the patience nor the interest to go mucking with complicated templates like infoboxes that happen incidentally to be in my FACs, and to be honest I don't feel the (s) would that big of a deal for readers.

  No worries; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to dive into technical template areas. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• For the Turrell image, it's unfortunate that we don't have an actual good photo of a skyspace rather than just a rendering. The sparsity of Turrell photos is something I've encountered before—I wish ones like this were public domain, but given the current available selection, I think the rendering is the right choice, and you've properly disclosed that it's a rendering in the caption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I dunno, I like the current image. The unreal and monochromatic palette is quite similar to the visuals in the game; you can really see what Burton was drawing from.

• For In an interview with Gamasutra, Speaking to Fast Company, and Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra, I don't think it's necessary to provide in-text attribution. See the Lancet example at WP:INTEXT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• INTEXT also says "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech", and all three of those are direct quotes from interviews.

  The way I interpret that is that it's important to attribute Burton when quoting him, but I'm sure how it helps the reader to also attribute the publication he's speaking to. A quote from him is still a quote from him, no matter who he says it to, and the publication is available in the reference for anyone who wants to check it out. This is a small point, though, so I won't let it hold me up from giving you my support below. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Experimental music has a page and might be a good wikilink to put near Watson. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sure

• For the Augé wikilink, should the link cover the apostrophe? (I forget, but I assume the answer is somewhere at DYK or the MOS.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Refactored the sentence to avoid having to read the MOS any more than is humanly necessary

  Haha fair. I looked it up for myself—at Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook#H13, it recommends that possessives not be linked over the 's. I can't find anything at the MOS, but I'd assume the best practice recommendation there would be the same. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• The reception section is missing {{Video game reviews}}. Was that omission intentional, due to there not being enough available reviews or some other reason? It'd be nice to have it as a quasi-visual element, but if not possible it's not possible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Intentional, Metacritic takes 4 scored reviews to generate a composite score, and there are only 3 with scores, so I didn't think it was worth it

  Got it; too bad. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• For ref10, there should be a "the" in the name of The Boston Globe. Also, Jesse Singal can be wikilinked, assuming it's the same person (the reviewer has middle initial R) and that it survives its current AfD. I'm not sure if having the publisher really adds anything, but I'll leave that up to your discretion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed, linked, and I was advised that publisher was mandatory if available at the FAC for Islanders, so it's in there.

  Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• For the refs 11, 17, and 18 (the three without bluelinked publishers), could you speak to why you found them reliable or noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? Checking ja-WP for a possible ILL to The Massage is probably also worthwhile if you haven't already done so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• In terms of "noteworthiness" I generally like to get as much opinion about a source in as I can. Particularly for gaming, where most sources are fairly positive, I want to get a breadth of criticism if I can find it. To that end, 148 Apps & Twinfinite were both somewhat more critical than other reviews (although I realized that I forgot to put in 148's criticism - fixed now). Per WP:RSOPINION, these kinds of sources are reliable for the purpose of giving their opinion, as long as it's clearly attributed in the article and not UNDUE, which I don't think it is here. Strip 'em out and we lose a good chunk of the criticism. As for The Massage, I felt it noteworthy that a Japanese indie culture site had noticed the game enough to review it. (No ja.wiki article though, I checked).

  Sounds good to me; RSOPINION seems to cover them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting once these things are addressed, and I hope to be able to check out the game for myself at some point. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and looking forward to your responses :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support, as my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Overall, this is a very solid article that makes maximum use out of a limited pool of sources on a niche topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now......

I'd describe Auge "French anthropologist" rather than just "author"

Otherwise......looks ontrack prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked, and looking forward to any additional comments :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. I left some copyediting comments on the article talk page which are mostly dealt with now. Reading through again I have only a couple of minor points that don't affect my support.

• "The ambient soundtrack was inspired by": do we need "ambient" here? We've already said that the soundtrack includes ambient environmental sounds.

• Trimmed

• "Allison Meier of Hyperallergic found that the limited gameplay eventually became repetitive, but was overall impressed by the way each scene unfolded in an unexpected way": I think this could do with rephrasing. "Way" is repeated, and I think "was impressed overall" would be more fluent.

• Reworded & also re-ordered to make more sense with the building of criticism from "good but limited" to "deeply annoying" to "these criticisms suck anyway".

A concise and well-written article; it's particularly nice to see a well-structured and interesting reception section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Mike, I appreciate them (and the support of course!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Comments comin'. I recommend Proteus (video game) next. Panini!^🥪 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Dang, it's a FA already.) Panini!^🥪 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It has to have "island" in the name to really fit the scheme :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I was aiming towards a game with a minimalistic art style and its main component is an island. There's The Island (video game) if title is what you aim for. Panini!^🥪 15:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, tomorrow, I promise. Panini!^🥪 21:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Man, I'm awesome at keeping promises! I'm very sorry, I've been doing a lot of IRL writing recently and have recently got involved in a project that is eating up all my free time. I'm gonna get this done nice and early before I do anything major today. Let's do this.

;Lead

Okay, I lied. This article is actually written exactly how I do. Even the Reception, which I always shake my stick at. I made some minor changes that I could easily do myself. I do want to hear before I lend the easiest support of my life on the lack of a {{Video game reviews}} table because it seems that some of these reviews have numerical ratings. Panini!^🥪 11:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Panini!, see Skdb's comment section - I didn't put it in because there's only 3 and Metacritic requires 4 to start a composite. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Panini!, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for checking up on me. I should be back to usual editing tomorrow. I was waiting to see if there was a reason for the lack of a review table (which there was, as PMC commented on); with that, I will more than gladly Support. Panini!^🥪 23:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TRM

• "artist and animator Carl Burton" nationality?

• NYC-based so I assume American. The only sources I can find on it are his own website or a blog (Colossal (blog)) - not sure if that's RS enough to add

• Is Burton not notable enough, even for an optimistic red link?

• I don't think so, unfortunately, based on my searches. There's minimal coverage of him, just the game. Maybe if his second game takes off on its eventual release.

• "is extremely minimal" no need for "extremely".

• Aaaaagh it wounds me but okay, enough people have complained that I really can't defend it

• "the Nuovo Award at" what was that for? Design? Sound? Graphics? Gameplay?

• It doesn't specify, although Independent Games Festival states that the award used to be called the Innovation Award, so I guess for...innovation?

• "overall effect invokes the feeling" presumably "effect is intended to invoke" because Wikipedia can't dictate what it does invoke in all people.

• Tweaked

• "extremely minimalist" just minimalist.

• As above

• "it isn't made" avoid contractions.

• Fixed

• "The soundtrack ... The soundtrack..." repetitive.

• oop, fixed

• "freely licensed recordings" shouldn't that be "freely-licensed recordings"?

• Fixed

• "the internet" we sometimes call it the Internet.

• Chicago Manual of Style and AP both use the lowercase as of 2016

• "Warr described a scene" maybe to avoid scene again, you could say "Warr described one such vignette"

• tweaked

• "machine...like" non-breaking spaced before ellipsis and normal space after ellipsis in this case per MOS.

• fixed

• Any word on a follow-up or any similar work or anything done by Burton subsequently in a similar way?

• According to his email newsletter he's working on a sequel/followup with a similar look, but I don't have a reliable source (or even a non-transitory one) for it.

Short and sweet, I enjoyed the article, thanks, and only a few minor issues for me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man thanks for your commentary, insightful as always and I'm glad you liked the article. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I had nothing much to gripe about, so now my comments have been addressed where possible, I'm content to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Alexandra

Infobox and lead

• Single-player is typically linked in video game infoboxes

• Done

• Considering this game isn't about Burton or the podcast he worked on, I find it a little too high-detail for the lead to say that he worked on season 2 specifically. I would suggest striking that from the lead and only mention it in the development section.

• I think it's relevant; it tells the reader where the game's aesthetic, which is basically a more complex version of the GIF style, comes from.

• Similarly, do we need to mention in the lead that he made animated GIF illustrations rather than just "animations" or "illustrations"?

• "Animations" on its own to me implies a longer clip, and illustrations on its own doesn't communicate that they move.

• The gameplay is extremely minimal - I would recommend cutting "extremely". It does not really add anything, as you already describe how the gameplay works.

• I disagree. I know it's fussy to argue for a single word, but IMO it does matter. Minimalist can mean a range of things, and Islands is on the "arguably barely a game" end of that scale, which is fairly extreme.

• Okay, enough people have brought it up that I must accede - I've removed both instances of it and "heavy" as below

Gameplay

• You're probably already aware, but there's a [./Islands:_Non-Places#cite_note-7 [lower-alpha 1]] visible in the rendered page.

• VE weirdness. Fixed it.

• All of the sounds in the game are pre-existing, freely licensed recordings which Burton found on the internet. - this seems more like development than gameplay.

• Yes, you're right. I moved it down and created a new paragraph under Development.

• Like in the lead, I'd recommend cutting "extremely" and "heavy". The minimalist gameplay and focus on visuals is well communicated without them.

• See above second-indent comment

Development

• I recommend opening sections with topic sentences - here, [Islands] was developed and published independently by artist and animator Carl Burton... works better for that than the game's release date.

• Done

• I know another reviewer brought this up already, but I agree with them: In an interview with Gamasutra, Speaking to Fast Company, and Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra are only necessary if it is important who he was interviewed by, and I do not see how that is the case here. Attributing quotes by Burton to Burton is not the same as mentioning the interviewer every time.

• Fair, I've trimmed that.

Reception

• Try to avoid making subjective reviewer opinion come across as objective/universal truth, such as noting that the game felt like "a relatively logical step" for the artist to take.

• Somewhat in reference to your point below as well, the whole point of quoting that in particular was to make it come across as subjective opinion. The quote starts with "felt like" and is clearly a quote of opinion from a reviewer.

• There are a lot of quotes here, most of which are paraphrasable. You should aim to do so whenever possible, using only particularly illustrative quotes - there is for example nothing gained by literally copying "a relatively logical step" from the source.

• The use of quotes is fairly typical for a reception section, and is intended to avoid presenting subjective opinion as objective fact. However on your advice I've trimmed/reworded a few.

• none were entirely certain of Burton's intended meaning - I don't think we can make such a universal claim based on three sources (or based any amount of sources. Can we really with certainty say that no one who has ever reviewed this game felt certain about the intended meaning?)

• Tweaked to say "most".

References

• Other sources seem fine, but Twinfinite is listed on WP:VG/RS as unreliable.

• Per WP:RSOPINION even an unreliable source can be useful for an attributed statement of opinion. In this instance, I feel it's important to include as much criticism as possible, and Twinfinite was one of the somewhat more critical views.

Please {{ping}} me when you have responded to the above, and I will be with you again.--Alexandra^IDV 11:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV - all responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Alexandra IDV, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Premeditated Chaos and Gog the Mild: Apologies - I have been (and am) sick, and haven't used my PC as much as usual. I'll try to look at this and post a response before the weekend is over.--Alexandra^IDV 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• My concerns have been addressed/answered, and I will go ahead and support this FAC.--Alexandra^IDV 03:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Alexandra IDV, thanks for your support and I hope you feel better soon! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – pass

Hi PMC. I hope you are well. OK, starting the source review:

• The year for Warr seems to be 2016, not 2020.

• Oh yup, typo.

• The date formats 2020-09-24 and 2021-03-05 for Asuncion are inconsistent with the other dates.

• Fixed thx

• Ref 14, the author should be Chris Kerr, date February 6? Also I see that Gamasutra links to Game Developer, but the source shows Game Developer. Do you even need Gamasutra at all?

• Gamasutra recently renamed itself with the aggressively anodyne name Game Developer. There appears to have been some weirdness on the website in the transition. If you look at the archived version ([58]) from the original release of the article, you can see that the author is given as Joel Couture with a date of Feb 7. This discussion had consensus to retain Gamasutra as the name in references that were published before the rebrand.

• There is a space included in the name of 148 Apps when used in the References section but not in its use in the main text.

• Fixed

• I will accept your argument about Twinfinite above. I also wasn't sure about 148 Apps or The Massage, but they are likewise used for statement of opinions, so seems like they should be OK.

That's all from me, cheers. Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Moisejp, thanks for the review, should all be sorted now! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• You're welcome! It all seems good now. Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – pass

• There are two non-free images with adequate FURs.
• The two non-infobox images have good captions.
• For File:James_Turrell_-_Rendering_for_Aten_Reign_-_Photo_01.jpg, it may not be a requirement, but I exported the image to be Wikimedia Commons. I'm not sure if there's an extra step I need to do make the image "More details" link go directly to the Wikimedia Commons version, or whether a bot makes that change. In any case, that shouldn't affect this image review. Moisejp (talk) 16:56, 27 September 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) 17:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [59].

---

1987 Football League Third Division play-off Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...), ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Back in the mid-1980s, English football was at a low ebb: poor crowds, hooliganism etc. Part of the solution was this new-fangled thing called the English Football League play-offs which was essentially a postseason tournament for clubs who just missed out on promotion and relegation. It was intended as a stop-gap method of balancing teams in the leagues, but more than 30 years later, we're still loving/hating/loving/hating it. This particular article covers the play-off final for the third tier of English football in that inaugural season of the play-offs, which was met with varied support. Obviously, anyone who has won the play-offs loves it, and some of us who have lost in half a dozen, don't love it so much. This FAC was brought to you as a co-nomination by me (an independent Tractor Boy) and ChrisTheDude (a Gill), and both of us will work as hard as is required to cover any and all constructive concerns raised. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...), ChrisTheDude. 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• Link replay in the lead.
• "Howard Pritchard scored for Gillingham, but Eric Gates then scored twice for Sunderland. In the second half, Cascarino scored to make the score", slightly repetitive here with the use of score maybe? Could do with some variation.
• "after 15 minutes after", change the second use of after to when perhaps?
• "Kite made two saves", first mention of Kite so needs the full name and link.
• In the second leg, Kite is linked but is mentioned previously as above.
• One of the books in the bibliography section has a location, the other two don't. Best to try and stay consistent.

A few very minor points from a run through. This article seems in great shape really and I can find little to complain about. Kosack (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kosack: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support, great quality stuff as usual. Kosack (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Amakuru

Route to the final

• "This was the inaugural season of the Football League play-offs" - It seems a bit odd to start the article's body with "this", when we haven't been talking about anything yet. Maybe switch to "The 1986–87 season" or similar. You could even include a link at that point.
• "for a place in the second tier of English football for the following season" - given that we've just been talking about the "Second Division" and "Third Division", it is slightly confusing to now use a different piece of terminology for the Second Division. Suggest saying Second Division here, and including the nugget about the tiers of the FL system somewhere else.
• Link away goals rule in first paragraph, rather than in the third
• "Sunderland had finished the 1986–87 season in 20th place" - optional, but I think just "finished" might work better than "had finished" here. It's all in the past anyway, and all part of the "route to the final". Up to you.
• Ditto for Swindon Town
• nine defeats in 20 games - 9/20 or nine/twenty
• "nine points behind Swindon Town and 16 points outside..." - ditto
• "After just four minutes Howard Pritchard scored for Gillingham" - you can either have a comma here after "minutes" or not, but it needs to be consistent. The next sentence starts "In the second half, a goal from Cascarino" and further down I see "In the other semi-final, Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic", which do have commas after the introductory clause. Either remove all or add all.
• "In the other semi-final, Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic and the first leg was held at Springfield Park" - talking of commas, there isn't one before the "and" in this sentence, while similar sentences above (e.g. "... a penalty kick to give Sunderland a 1–0 lead at half-time, but in the second half Tony Cascarino ...") do have commas in that position.
• "into the Swindon net" - slightly journalese terminology perhaps?
• "Ending in a 0–0 draw, Swindon progressed to the final..." - it's more likely the match that ended in a 0–0 draw, rather than Swindon Town, who are still in existence to this day.

• Done as far as here. Need to log off now - @The Rambling Man:, if you are about at the moment, might you be able to look at the below? If not, I'll pick it up tomorrow...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

• The first sentence seems like a bit of a repeat of information we've already been given above, and is also slightly inaccurate, as if Sunderland had won the play-offs then there wouldn't have been a "third and final team to be promoted". Would it be possible to move all the Background to a new section above "Route to the final"? This would match the layout we've been adopting more recently at articles such as UEFA Euro 2008 Final.

ChrisTheDude I think it's reasonable to suggest that some of this has already been covered, and there doesn't seem much mileage in keeping the non-duplicated stuff here? I think most match background stuff was usually limited to team choices and referees and any other stuff, like police issues, ground issues, fan issues etc. What do you think? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the Background section up and rejigged things a bit to make the flow make more sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• On that note, there are details often included in a "pre-match" section which are not present here, for example team news, the mood in the camps before the games, the choice of referee and so on.

As you know, the first play-offs in 1987 were met with an almost anonymous feeling. They were not covered in any way at all outside the UK, and unless you can find any source (including the paper one that I have) which contains information that we're missing, I'm not sure how to action this comment. Or is this another "there must be something more out there, surely?" kind of thing? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Team news is already covered (eg "Chris Kamara was an injury doubt for Swindon while Gillingham's Steve Lovell, Joe Hinnigan, Mark Weatherly and Irvin Gernon were all out" for the first leg). I can't imagine any media source would have devoted space to discussing the choice of referee for a Third Division match. I've added a couple of snippets from the build-up to the first leg, couldn't find anything equivalent for the other two games...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah... sorry I hadn't looked at the match summary yet, the first paragraph there is basically the pre-match. Although this would tend to suggest that the match summary is lacking some information which it could have. I'll defer a decision on this one for now, I might be able to help you with a bit more info from local papers. Otherwise I guess it's as good as it can be.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - all points thus far addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude and The Rambling Man: I managed to make a trip to the British Library today, and I've located some material regarding the games from the Swindon Evening Advertiser and also the Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham News. It has a little bit of extra detail on the matches themselves, as well as some previews and reactions. Annoyingly I failed to find a match report for the first of the three games, but the Advertiser has them for the other two. To avoid publishing copyrighted material, I'll email you links as to where you can view those articles. Then hopefully we can move on with this review!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - that's amazing, thanks so much! I have incorporated information from your sources into the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - BTW, well done on proving me comprehensively wrong that the press wouldn't bother writing about the choice of ref for a Third Division match ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Ha ha! It seems they got in a right old tizz about it as well, for no particular reason other than that he sent one of their players off in an earlier game. Thanks for the updates. BTW I think there are some facts from the Clive King match reports which could be added to the match summaries. For example, Kamara had a limping upper-thigh injury in the first half of the second leg, and was replaced by Henry at half time. And there's more information on the Swindon equaliser. And then Gillingham had a period of pressure with David Smith looking dangerous (if that can be summarised in a neutral fashion). There isn't a massive amount there that's relevant and not already covered, but since the match summary is quite short already it would be worth including any information we have. I'm still irritated with myself for possibly missing the Saturday paper's report of the first leg, it was the end of the day yesterday and I think it possibly zoomed past me on the microfiche reader! If I have time I'll look again next week. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - I worked those snippets in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude. Following those additions, I'm here to finish off my review, below.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Match

• "Swindon Advertiser" - I think it was known as the "Swindon Evening Advertiser" at the time.
• "Before the match trouble flared between rival groups" - per the above point, there should be a comma after "match" I believe
• "struck the Gillingham crossbar, but just after the hour mark, Swindon equalised: Henry controlled a pass..." - wondering if the comma should be after "but" instead of before it? Also, I think maybe a full stop would work better than a colon after "equalised", and just describe the goal in a separate sentence?
• "although just before half-time, Elsey played a one-two with Quow, but his shot went outside the far post" - it sounds slightly odd to have "although" and "but" in the same sentence; perhaps "whose shot went outside the far post" instead?
  • "whose" wouldn't work there, because the shot was Elsey's, not Quow's..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-match

• "After he led the team to two consecutive promotions" - I fought at first (having forgotten the detail on the previous promotion from the Background) that this might be referring to another promotion the following season. See if it can be reworded to make it clear that this was the second of the two.
• "They would finally reach" - simpler just to say "They finally reached" I think.

Lead

• "contested by Gillingham and Swindon Town over two legs on 22 and 25 May 1987" - I know we haven't mentioned the result of the two legs yet, but rather than maintain the suspense I feel like it would be good to mention the replay and its date at this point as well, since it is covered by this article too.
• "in their semi-final by away goals" - isn't "on away goals" more common phrasing?
• "a spot in the Second Division" - slightly colloquial language. Maybe just "a place in the Second Division"?

That's it! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - all done with one tiny exception, as above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Edwininlondon

Another fine episode in the FA play-offs series. Not too much to comment on. Just a few minor things:

• I find the mixture of Swindon Town and Swindon a bit jarring. I'd prefer to either use Swindon Town consistently or start with Swindon Town and then shorten it to Swindon (first in the lead and then do the same in the body of the article).
• Gillingham and Swindon were competing --> both should be linked (and subsequent uses delinked)
• after which Lou Macari was appointed --> after which Macari was appointed
• Swindon had won 3–1 at Priestfield Stadium in December --> link Priestfield Stadium and say whose stadium this is
• and the match at the County Ground in May --> link County Ground (and delink subsequent use) and say whose stadium this is
• Swindon Town finished in third place --> this looks fine to me but we have a 4th place a few lines back, so some consistency would be good, one way or another
• 3–2 to the "Gills" --> I'm not so keen on using this nickname, doesn't feel very encyclopedia-like
• Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic --> link Wigan Athletic
• With two minutes remaining, Mark Jones crossed from the right and Peter Coyne scored with a header, making the final score 3–2. --> it is not clear which team these players are on and thus who won

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• We will have our hands full". --> We will have our hands full." -- done
• His opposite number --> doesn't sound very encyclopedia-like -- done
• before Quinn headed over --> I thought he was substituted off -- done
• Both teams made one change for the second leg. --> I would add how many days later this match was. -- done
• Quinn, who had been substituted in the first leg --> that was already mentioned before, so this redundant -- done
• Replay summary: I would add how many days later this match was. And a bit about which neutral stadium. Anything known why they chose Croydon? -- can't find any evidence that a specific reason was announced for the choice of Selhurst Park. It would have been geographically convenient for the two teams, but that's as much as I can say
• the FA Cup Final at Wembley". --> the FA Cup Final at Wembley." Plus link Wembley. -- done
• he felt "as low as I have ever felt in football" --> not sure if this correct in English. It wouldn't be in Dutch. I mean, starting with third person and then continuing in the quote with first person. But maybe fine in English. -- yes, I think it's OK
• The following season, Swindon Town finished --> The following season, Swindon finished -- those look identical to me??
• The "Gills" finished --> Gillingham finished .. And then replace Gillingham with They in the next sentence -- done
• Is there anything about the fans reactions? I recall from one of your earlier FACs that Gillingham did a victory parade in town when they won a promotion. Nothing happening in Swindon? can't find anything. @The Rambling Man:, anything in any of your sources?

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon has Chris addressed your concerns? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, all fine. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Looks good to me (t · c) buidhe 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

References

• #6 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #7 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp " parameter
  • Added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #11 — How did you access this source?
  • It was accessed in person at the British Library (on microfiche). I can send you a photo of it if necessary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #12 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #18 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #19 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #20 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #21 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #23 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #25 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #26 — Publisher location missing. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • Location added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #17 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #30 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #34 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #35 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #36 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• #40 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #41 — How did you access this source?
  • At the British Library as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Mattick 2004 — Publisher location missing.
  • Added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: - all addressed above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, retrieval dates are no harm at all if the printed matter has been accessed online. And I'm unaware of any requirements to demonstrate how sources were accessed? But thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

All looks good. The Rambling Man, I didn't say it was a requirement to remove the retrieval dates; they may be unnecessary (it's like saying when you went to a library to look at a book), but neither is it necessary to not have them. And I, too, am unaware of any requirement to demonstrate how a source was accessed—I was merely asking because if accessed online, it would be helpful to add a link. As a general matter, however, I don't see a harm in having a source review cover both requirement and suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: as this has the customary support/image/source reviews to enable another co-nomination, can I go ahead and do that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: any update on this request? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Reviewing this to reduce the FAC backlog. I appreciate that this nominator has been reviewing lots of other FACs, helping to get them promoted. Non-expert prose review.

• "This was followed, however, by two goals from" Not sure if however is necessary here. Consider deleting it.
  • I think it is necessary, personally, because it highlights that Gillingham went 2-0 up and seemed to be in a commanding position but it then swung dramatically the other way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Wikilink Heathrow Agreement and delete the quotes?
  • Quotes deleted, but there is no article on it to link to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
    • FAs can have redlinks. The question to consider is: Can Heathrow Agreement get its own article one day because it is notable enough to have one? Considering that this agreement led to significant changes to the league structure, I suspect that there has been notable coverage of this topic to warrant an article. However, it is ultimately the nominator's decision as I am not an expert in this topic. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Although the play-offs raised an extra £1 million in revenue in their first year, half of which would be shared by all member clubs, and a spokesman for the Football League dubbed them "a phenomenal success", they were criticised by some in the game." I think this sentence should be broken up for flow. Perhaps, "The play-offs raised an extra £1 million in revenue in their first year, half of which would be shared by all member clubs, and a spokesman for the Football League dubbed them "a phenomenal success". However, they were criticised by some in the game."
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• "As a result Gillingham ended " Comma after result?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• The last paragraph in Post-match gives one sentence to Swindon's subsequent season and three to Gillingham's. Is there more information that can be given about Swindon's season? Maybe what their expectations were going into the Second Division or significant changes to the team/personnel staff?
  • Searched various sources, including contemporary books and newspapers, and couldn't find anything about either of the points you suggest (they seem to have signed only one new player before the subsequent season), but have added a second sentence to make the section a bit more balanced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Several book sources are listed in Bibliography, but Ref 10, "The Definitive Gillingham F.C.: A Complete Record" is not. Consider moving it down to keep similar media together, and thus keeping a consistent reference style.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:BIB, bibliography is discouraged as a section heading. Consider changing it to "Works Cited" or something similar.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping after they are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - see responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment above re: Heathrow Agreement Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Z1720: I genuinely don't believe the Heathrow Agreement merits a standalone article. @The Rambling Man:, as co-nom would you concur? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • As an indication, I'm struggling to find any source that even says what all the ten points were. All I've found so far is endless variations on "the play-offs were introduced following the Heathrow Agreement"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I'll wait until TRM weighs in. @The Rambling Man: Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
          • No, the Heathrow Agreement isn't notable in itself, and the play-offs formed only a minor part of it. There's going to be more on it once I finish the English Football League play-offs article improvements I'm working on, but it doesn't merit a link in my opinion. It would also be covered (or should be) in the history section of English Football League. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
            • That was my last concern; everything I flagged has been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 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) 04:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2021 [60].

---

Pyramid of Sahure

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This pyramid's unimpressive physical proportions – roughly 1:30th the size of the Great Pyramid of Giza – and ruined state, deterred much exploration until the turn of the 20th century. When Borchardt finally pulled it out of the desert, however, he discovered a quite remarkable pyramid complex. Spread across its walls were an estimated 10,000m2 of masterfully crafted relief art. Special mention must be made of a scene of Sahure hunting for the brutality of its imagery. Unfortunately, the relief is fragmented. Of the section presented in the article, I'd draw your attention to the bottom left where a horned herbivore has an arrow impaling its forehead while a hyena, equally speared, leaps at its throat. The quality of the artwork was such that for two millennia, pharaohs returned to copy the artwork for their own constructions... and to steal limestone, there was a lot of stone-thieving. Special thanks to Ceoil for their copy-editing, sorry for the prolonged delay [~ 2 years]. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Before I give the article a close perusal may I ask whether it is meant to be in English or American spelling? At present it is a mish-mash of the two, with "centre", "colour", "colourful", "metres", "mould", "sceptres" and "symbolising" in BrE and "centering", "equaled", "funneled", "gray", "program" and "skillfully" in AmE. Either is fine, but not a mixture of both. Tim riley talk 09:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

British English. Although I didn't know program was AmEng, would 'scheme' be acceptable as replacement. I thought you meant the word. Programme. Got it. I've fixed most of the ones you've brought up. 'Equaled' is in a quote, by an American. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Good. Point taken about the quote. I'll run a swift eye over the text for remaining Americanisms (if any) that are not within quotes. [Later: now done and all is fine]. Meanwhile here are my few comments and suggestions:

• Lead

• pyramid building in Abusir by Sahure's successors, which had also previously been used by Userka – does this mean pyramid building by Sahure's successors in Abusir, which had previously been used by Userka?

• Yes. Changed.

• excavated by Ludwig Borchardt between March 1907 and 1908, who penned the seminal work… – could do with rejigging as excavated between March 1907 and 1908 by Ludwig Borchardt, who penned the seminal work… And "penned" strikes a rather twee note: wouldn't a plain "wrote" do?

• Done.

• Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re – needs an in-line English translation.

• Done.

• the enormity of these constructions – the word "enormity" doesn't mean bigness of proportion: it means "extreme or monstrous wickedness" (OED) as in the enormity of a crime.

• Replaced with immensity.

• a mere 150 m2 (1,600 sq ft) – WP:EDITORIAL

• 'A mere' removed.

• The valley temple is situated on Abusir lake, which is unusual for having two entrances – you mean, I think, that the temple has two entrances, but this actually says the lake does.

• Quite. 'which' replaced with 'and is'. Thus the valley temple is situated on Abusir lake and is unusual ...

• destruction that was visited up the Abusir monuments – "upon" rather than "up"?

• Fixed.

• Location and excavation

• Perring was also the first person to enter the substructure of Sahure's pyramid – the first person in modern times, perhaps, but what about the people who built it?

• Added 'in modern times'. Cause you're quite right. Builders, the king, looters and stone thieves all entered the tomb long before Perring.

• Layout

• adjacent its east face – adjacent to?

• Fixed.

• The complex is the most expertly decorated and containing the most thematically diverse relief-work yet discovered from the Old Kingdom. – WP:DATED: safer to pin the date down, e.g. as at 2021.

• Fair comment. Will come back to this.

• The last king of the Old Kingdom, Pepi II's mortuary temple contained 200 running metres – this needs a comma before "mortuary" but that looks a bit odd, and it might perhaps be better to rejig the sentence on the lines of "The mortuary temple of Pepi II, the last king of the Old Kingdom, contained 200 running metres"

• Done.

• Main pyramid

• Its outer faces were framed using massive – at Neferefre's unfinished pyramid the single step contained blocks up to 5 m (16 ft) by 5.5 m (18 ft) by 1 m (3.3 ft) large[59] – roughly dressed grey limestone blocks well-joined with mortar. – That's a helluva parenthesis; I think you're trying to make the sentence (and the reader) do too much work. May I suggest something on the lines of "Its outer faces were framed using massive roughly dressed grey limestone blocks well-joined with mortar. By contrast, at Neferefre's unfinished pyramid the single step contained blocks up to 5 m (16 ft) by 5.5 m (18 ft) by 1 m (3.3 ft) large"?

Afterthought. I assumed "well-joined" is a technical building term, but now I check I don't see it in the OED. If this just means they were joined well, you don't want the hyphen. Tim riley talk 11:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not meant to be contrasted. The blocks at Neferefre's pyramid are taken as representative of those used in the other Abusir pyramids. Neferefre's is used plainly because it's easy to see how that pyramid was built owing to its incompleteness. A single, solid 5x5.5x1m limestone block weighs many (~ 60) tonnes. I'll come up with something. Also Hyphen removed.

• using significantly smaller blocks – what did they signify? Plain Words has this to say about "significant": "it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'" The word "significant" occurs eight times in the article, and with one possible exception is in my view misused.

• Well... Plain Words would not be happy with my use of the word at all. I've replaced with important and considerable as appropriate.

• information regarding its dimensions and appearance contain a degree of imprecision – singular noun with plural verb. And is "regarding" an improvement on a plain "about"?

• Changed.

• A ditch was left in the north face of the pyramid during construction which allowed workers to build the inner corridor – could do with a comma before "which", I think.

• Added.

• Valley temple

• An alternate entrance – one might expect "alternative" rather than "alternate" here.

• Changed.

• Then an even narrower, recess in the first's rear wall – stray comma?

• Comma removed.

• trampling captive Asiatic and Libyan enemies – are we sure about "Asiatic"? The OED makes no comment on the point, but I have the feeling it is nowadays regarded by some as offensive, or at least not politically correct.

Later, after a rummage on my shelves, this is what the latest edition (2015) of Fowler's Modern English Usage has to say: Asian, Asiatic. The standard and accepted adjective when referring to people is Asian rather than Asiatic, which has offensive connotations. However, Asiatic is standard in scientific and technical use, for example in biological and anthropological classifications, e.g. Asiatic lion/lily/Greeks/ Peoples.

• Asiatic is dated, so I've changed it to Asian. I am dubious on it being genuinely offensive as opposed to offensive because old.

• Corridor and courtyard

• The sedated posture of the king's courtiers – sedate rather than sedated, perhaps?

• Changed.

• may have originally been sheathed with metal, that was eventually stolen by thieves – no comma wanted. If you want the comma, "that" should be "which".

• Drainage system

• Comma removed.

• intricate network of copper pipes laid beneath the temple, which lead down the length of the causeway – is "lead" (present tense) rather than "led" (past tense) meant here?

• Yes, past tense.

• Cult pyramid

• centring around the burial – some people get very exercised about "centre around", insisting it must be "centre on". I think it's a bit of a fuss about nothing, but the objection has a certain logic to it.

• Mmm.... no, there is indeed a logic there. It is isn't exactly centred if its around. Changed.

• Cult of Sekhmet

• Its influence likely waned – in AmE this is fine, but as you are going for BrE this is not a normal usage, and "likely" should be "probably".

• Corrected.

That's all from me by way of query or quibble. I enjoyed this article and learned a lot. I'll look in again and, I confidently hope, add my support. Tim riley talk 11:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks as always for the review Tim. I think I've addressed all but two comments which I'll come back to after some consideration. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I'm happy to leave the blocks at Neferefre's pyramid in your hands (so to speak) and am ready to support promotion to FA:

Support: It is a close-run thing between Mr rnddude's Egyptian articles and Dudley Miles's Anglo-Saxon ones as to which contain more names that make my eyes glaze over, but as both are top notch I cannot possibly complain. The present article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is evidently comprehensive, widely sourced, balanced, proportionate, splendidly illustrated, well constructed, in a consistent variety of English, and a pleasure to read. – Tim riley talk 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. The excavation section I imagine is particularly brutal: this person did this in this year, and then these people did that a few years later. It's my least favourite section to write. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments (incl. source review) from A. Parrot

A solid article. I've made a lot of minor adjustments to the prose already, so as not to leave too many prose queries here; feel free to revert or adjust any you disagree with. Here are my remaining points about prose and content:

• The passage in the lead about Borchardt's work is a little odd. "Properly" sounds somewhat opinionated, and I think of "seminal" as a work that reshapes a field of study, which I don't think Borchardt's work would qualify for unless it marked a major change in how pyramids in general were studied. You could simply use the same descriptors as in the body: "thoroughly" instead of "properly", and "standard" instead of "seminal".

• Yes, that works.

• "Farmed" for stone is unusual terminology; I've seen "quarried" used in this sense, but not "farmed". (When "farm" is used in a more metaphorical sense, it usually still has the meaning of cultivating something, which obviously isn't the case here.)

• Fair.

• Although Verner calls it an obelisk, we don't actually know whether the ben-ben in Heliopolis was obelisk-shaped (e.g., Arnold 2003, p. 30, calls it "a pillar-like monument, having an irregular conical shape").

• I don't think the word 'obelisk' is vital to comprehending the sentence since the focus is on the pyramidion. So I've removed it.

• The section on the layout says "the main pyramids were dramatically reduced in size and adopted simplified construction techniques", as if that were one of the innovations introduced by Sahure's complex. But the chart in Lehner (p. 16) shows that Userkaf's pyramid was of similar size to Sahure's. I don't know if you can cite sources that say exactly this, but it seems that Userkaf established the modest size of Fifth Dynasty pyramids while Sahure's temple complex established the layout.

• The base length Sahure used [taken as 78.75 m] is fairly consistently used in later Old Kingdom pyramids as well, with the exception of Unas. Though the kings did favour a slightly taller build of 52.5 m. You are quite right to point out that Userkaf's is equally small. I've changed it to 'From the outset of the Fifth Dynasty ...' and added a cite pointing to Lehner's table.

• "The complex is the most expertly decorated and containing the most thematically diverse relief-work yet discovered from the Old Kingdom" — I'm not sure how to re-word it, but the clauses in this sentence don't quite fit together.

• You make a second comment about this later on, I've responded there.

• "A stark departure from the Fourth Dynasty." is a sentence fragment, and it's not clear what aspect of the complex is a stark departure from the Fourth Dynasty.

• Removed. I'll take a look at rewording the whole. Note - I've added a sentence at the end explaining the intent behind the enlarging of the storeroom complexes.

• "The pyramid had a, probably horizontally layered, core comprising six ascending steps, five of which remain." I think the passage about horizontal layers should be placed at the end, or even in a separate sentence clarifying its meaning (horizontally laid courses of stone).

• Moved to own sentence.

• I'm not sure of the purpose of the sentence about the size of the blocks in Neferefre's pyramid.

• The intent is to answer the potential 'how massive are these blocks?' question the reader may have, but that's only really possible from reference to Neferefre's pyramid. It didn't work within the sentence as it overburdened the reader. So I moved it to a lone sentence. It's not exactly a vital sentence to keep, so I can remove it if that would be better.

I think it would be better to remove it.

• Re: Asiatic vs. Asian, to Americans "Asian" tends to connote people from East Asia. "Near Eastern" seems to be the term most commonly used in Egyptology other than "Asiatic".

• Changed. I settled for 'Near Eastern peoples' rather than 'Near Easterners' in a couple cases.

• I pointed out in a previous FA nomination by Iry-Hor that "Bedouin" is an anachronistic term, although Egyptologists sometimes use it; in that FAC it was replaced by "nomad" or "desert dweller".

• Replaced with Nomads.

• "The architect Mark Lehner suggests that the corridor represented the untamed wild, surrounding a clearing – the open courtyard – of which the king was guarantor." Lehner is an Egyptologist, is he not? And "untamed wilderness", or perhaps even "natural world", would work better here than "wild".

• Yes, he is. I think I wanted to say archaeologist for variety and then bungled it and ended up saying architect.

OK. There's still the slightly awkward use of "wild", though.

Source review

All sources look entirely solid, citing a wide variety of Egyptologists and including the most authoritative scholars on the subject (Borchardt, Arnold, Bárta, Edwards, Lehner, and especially Verner). There are a couple of oddities in the formatting, though:

• Why is it necessary to specify the title of Bárta 2015 within the citations? I'd expect an unpaginated source to be cited by author and year alone.

• Loc parameters emoved.

• Arnold 2005 is a duplicate of Arnold 1997. Presumably 2005 is a reprint, but there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in pagination.

• I only have access to the 1997 edition and the material is there on the same pages so I've just removed the 2005 version and changed the footnotes to 1997.

I've also carried out 15 spot-checks and found no unambiguous errors, though I have a few that raised questions:

• Citation 18c: Verner's text does say the diverse subject matter and artistic quality together make Sahure's reliefs "the highest level of the genre" from the Old Kingdom, but it doesn't quite say that the subject matter was the most diverse ever found.

• I've modified the sentence and introduced Verner as a direct quote.

• Citation 3h: The citation accurately reflects Lehner's text, but his measurements differ somewhat from Verner's (e.g., Lehner's slope of 50˚11′ 40′′ as opposed to the 50˚30′ in Verner 2001d, p. 463). It's particularly a problem because Lehner doesn't note the slightly off-square dimensions of the base, mentioned in the article's next sentence, which means the pyramid can't actually be 78.75 meters square. Verner gives 78.5 meters; in neither case do they specify whether they're measuring the longer or the shorter side. I don't know what to do about that problem.

• The obvious thing to do is to consult Borchardt (see. p. 27 of the 1910 source). He notes that the measurements are imprecise owing to the error but gives a length of 150 cubits / 78.75 metres [same as Lehner] ; an angle of 50.5°, i.e. 50°30′, [Same as Verner] ; and a height of 91 cubits / 48.31 metres [closer to Verner]. Borchardt's height has an error. 91 cubits is 47.75 m not 48.3 m, but 47.75 m mathematically matches the slope of 50.5 [47.765 so off by 1.5cm]. I can add a '~' in the infobox to denote an approximate measure. In the body this causes a complication. Borchardt is an older source so both Lehner and Verner would be preferred. Lehner/Borchardt have the same base measure ; Verner/Borchardt have the same angle ; nobody has the exact height [or Borchardt does if we accept his royal cubits measure and convert from that]. I would personally favour: base = 78.75 m, slope = 50°30′, height = 47.75 m. I could say something like: 'had an intended base of 78.75 m, converging at 50°30′ to a height of 47.75 m.' The next sentence would then explain why 'had an intended' rather than 'had'.

You might also list the range of figures given by the three sources.

• Citation 161: I'm wondering why you render the priest's name as Ny-ku-re, as Scott 1952 does, rather than Ni-ka-re, as Allen 1999 does. I would expect a preference for the more recent of the two transcriptions.

• I probably found it in Scott 1952 before Allen 1999. Changed to Nikare.

A. Parrot (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and the source review. It may take me a while to resolve all your queries and comments. I will post a second note below when completed. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I've gone through all of your comments A. Parrot though there are a couple you will want to comment further on. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've replied to three of your replies, but all other my comments look to be resolved. A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Done, done, and done. Sorry, I had seen your comment about the wild but it slipped my mind as I was changing other things. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, all looks good to me. Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

looking now....

Sahure's monument represents a milestone in the development of pyramid construction - why? comes across as a bit vague and puffy - I generally let facts speak for themselves i..e. "First ...."

The complex is expertly decorated, containing thematically diverse relief-work identified by the Egyptologist Miroslav Verner as "the highest level of the genre" found in the Old Kingdom - "expertly decorated" is puffy - I am sure all tombs were decorated by experts. Why not just "The complex contains thematically diverse relief-work identified by the Egyptologist Miroslav Verner as "the highest level of the genre"...."

I'd link subsoil, adze

There is a largely unexplored necropolis found through the side-entrance on the transverse corridor's southern end.... - dumb question, why is it unexplored?

Only minor quibbles - a fascinating read and on track WRT comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Casliber. I've effected the latter two changes. After some consideration to your first point, I think the paragraph was poorly structured, but I don't think it unreasonable to say plainly that it was a milestone in complex construction. Here is the full quote from Verner (2001d) p. 46, and you'll note that 'milestone' is not my word choice: Sahure's pyramid complex, built at the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty, was a milestone in the development of royal tombs, a masterwork not only in its fully achieved architectonic balance as a whole and in its individual parts, but also in its decoration and in the construction materials used. With a few modifications, Sahure's complex became the model for the royal tombs that followed during the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, and to a large extent for later periods as well. I think you'd have to agree that I'm markedly more toned down in my summary than Verner, a foremost expert on the Abusir pyramids [he should be, he is the director of the Czech mission (1975–ongoing) at Abusir]. Arnold is more conservative in language: Under King Sahure, priests and architects designed a new ground plan for the pharaoh's cult complex that served as the prototype for at least nine of the mortuary temples of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties ... All pyramid temples from Sahure to Pepi II are, with only minor variations, based on the same ground plan. Lehner quotes others saying [t]he plan of the mortuary temple has been called the 'conceptual beginning' of all subsequent Old Kingdom examples. You might compare the layout plans at Nyuserre's, Djedkare's, and Pepi I's to that of Userkaf's (sadly, none of the 4th Dynasty pyramids have layout plans, which I think would be a fairer comparison as Userkaf's is unusual even for them). It becomes rather plain why the fuss over Sahure's complex.

Regarding your question about the necropolis, I don't have a solid answer. There are some fifty sites in Abusir, and I guess that one just isn't a priority at the moment. It's far from the only neglected one, Setibhor's pyramid has only just started being properly explored, and Djedkare's causeway and valley temple haven't been investigated either (the valley temple is buried under houses and will likely never be investigated). This list might better illustrate just how much work there is in Abusir. As far as I am aware, the only current project at Sahure's pyramid is the consolidation of the substructure to prevent it collapsing.

Let me know if you have further comments. If you still think that line too puffy, let me know if you have a rephrase that would work. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay - I figured the sheer volume of unexplored material or lack of funding would be the issue. Anyway, is good on comprehensivenessa and prose now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ceoil

Only starting to read through. Leaning support.

• As a result, sources differ as to whether the funerary apartment... consisted of a single or twin chambers. Efforts to clear the substructure have been made since 2019, confirming that the funerary apartment consisted of two rooms, with the burial chamber still to be investigated. Given the since 2019 statements, do sources still differ, or should it be that until 2019 sources differed?

• Fixed now.

• A small point, but watch ref order such as ...Libyan enemies led to him by the gods.[80][24][82]. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Reordered numerically.

Hi Ceoil, did you want to continue? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• hi Ian, yes, over the W/end Ceoil (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• s 47 m (154 ft; 90 cu) tall main pyramid comprised six ascending steps of stone encased in fine white limestone,[3][41] with a cult pyramid located at the south-east corner,[42] and a mortuary temple, the standard-bearer for future variants,[3] adjacent to its east face.[43] These elements were connected "were connected" is a sudden tense change - these are

• Done

• Early excavators neglected to perform thorough investigations of Sahure's monument - "did not" rather than "neglected", which carries a value judgement

• Done

• Perring was also the first person to" - "Perring was the first to"

• Done

• The pyramid was later re-entered by Jacques de Morgan - drop later in favour of a year or year range

• Dropped later, but I can't be more specific. Verner doesn't say when and it could be anytime between 1840 and 1860 [at least based on his half-a-century comment].

• grand, "re-entered " implies after

• It then remained ignored for fifty years, until the Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt visited the site - needless comma, and "ignored" doest seem right, as it was prob a matter of funding rather than ignorance.

• Done and done

• In 1994, the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities opened the Abusir necropolis to tourism. In preparation, they had restorative works conducted at Sahure's pyramid. - Tense shift "they had restorative works". Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Done, I think?

• Fifth and Sixth Dynasty, making it a milestone in pyramid complex construction. - "making it" is weak, also alliteration, while "milestone" is a very 21st c word

• You made this change, it originally said '... thereby representing a milestone ...'. I don't see a problem with milestone, it is described as such by Verner.

• I didnt introduce thereby, nor milestone

• No, of course not, I did. I'm saying you changed 'thereby representing a milestone' to 'making it a milestone'. You suggest 'making it' should be changed, but if I did, I'd just change it back to what it said originally since I don't know your reasoning for changing it. I could obviously drop 'thereby' and have it say 'representing a milestone', but I don't know if that is satisfactory.

• Good with me, and obv revert any changes i make at will. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• After some consideration, I've gone for 'marking' instead of 'representing' as I think the latter term might be a misuse. I mean, it doesn't depict or show a milestone, it is a milestone.

• Frankly, I shouldn't have raised this in this context, my objection/prediuce came from alt album articles where journalists, gratingly, throw the word around like chocolate (see also "embarked upon" and "critically recieved"). Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure how to couch this but logically "is a late-26th-to-25th century BC pyramid complex built for the Egyptian pharaoh Sahure of the Fifth Dynast" would be better as a pyramid complex built c the late-26th-to-25th century BC for...."

• Done

• The mortuary temple was a voluminous, rectangular building oriented along the east–west axis,[45]: voluminous? also drop "oriented" maybe for "positioned". Ceoil (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant expansive. Done and done.

• Beyond the courtyard is a transverse (north-south) corridor which separates the public outer from the private inner temple. What does beyond actually mean. The sentence seems a bit guide book

• Beyond as in past, after, behind. Would any of those work as an alternative?

• no, on 2nd thoughts is fine as it is Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Changes and replies above are good, all on minor points, overall the article is excellently written, very well sourced as noted by others, and am happy to support. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

All images are well placed, properly licenced and sourced but I often wonder where the captions come from. OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus - Thanks for checking those. Can you give an example of what you mean regarding the captions? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

For example, File:Sahure Pyramid Complex annotated.png - how do we know which part is which? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a few ways that you can attempt to verify. The easiest is going off similar images in one of the main sources which in this case are Borchardt (1910), Lehner (2008), and/or Verner (2001d). The image in question is derived from Borchardt (1910) Blatt 4 [Plate 4]. Lehner p. 143 has a similar image derived from Borchardt (1910) Blatt 5 [Plate 5] – a mirror image of plate 4 – that has annotations which affirms most elements: 'causeway', 'satellite pyramid' [alternate name for 'cult pyramid'], 'entrance hall' and 'open courtyard' [which are elements of the mortuary temple], and 'burial chamber' [an element of the main pyramid substructure, which is also a bit of a bluesky anyway]. That leaves only the enclosure wall, for which the next method is going off written text. You won't find an annotation that directly supports the attribution, but there is Borchardt's description on p. 26. Since you speak German, I'll just quote it: Pyramidenhof: Allseitig, nur mit einer Unterbrechung an der Stelle des Totentempels, umgibt die Pyramide ihr kalksteingepflasterter Hof, der von den Ausgängen in denbeiden Seitenflügeln des Tempels aus erreichbar ist. Die hohe, mit Kalkstein verblendete Mauer, welche ihn von der Außenwelt abschließt, ist oben mit dem bekannten runden Profil abgedeckt. Bei der Kletterfähigkeit der Ägypter wird sie aber keinen wirksamen Schutz gebildet, sondern nur so lange die Ruhe des Königs geschützt haben, wie eine wirkliche Bewachung des Ganzen noch ausgeübt wurde. The second sentence describes the 'enclosure wall'. It tells you that the pyramid is surrounded on all sides by the courtyard and wall except where the mortuary temple lies. If we look at C, the unidentified subject, we can see it matches the description in that it surrounds the pyramid and terminates at the walls of the mortuary temple.Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You may also check Lehner pp. 18-19 where he gives a general description of the pyramid complex that covers all of its major elements including annotated graphics of both the mortuary and valley temples. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

See, my thinking was that you may want to add these references to the images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need given the image can be referenced against cited text in the article body, but I've added citations to the images under layout, substructure, valley temple, and mortuary temple. The map of the necropolis and the causeway are taken from Borchardt and the file name points to both the figure and page in his work, so a citation to those would be redundant. Those are all the layout and annotated images. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 28 September 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) 10:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your comments and reviews. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2021 [61].

---

1999–2000 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

After successfully promoting 1986–87 Gillingham F.C. season and 1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season to FA status, I now present another significant season in the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C., namely the season in which the team gained promotion to the second tier of English football for the first time in the club's 107-year history. I was at the game which clinched promotion and suffice to say I was very happy, but once again I am confident that I have written the article in an engaging yet neutral manner. I look forward to receiving feedback, all of which will be acted upon promptly....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I would move File:Peter Taylor 2011.jpg to the left to avoid having him look off the page. I think it would add some nice variety anyway so all the images are currently presented on the right side.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• For this sentence, Southall added a third goal in the last 10 minutes and Gillingham won 3–1 to reach the quarter-finals of the FA Cup for the first time., I would avoid having four citation as this seems like citation overkill. You could bundle the citations or find another way to avoid this. From my experience three is usually the limit before it goes into overkill territory.
  • Removed one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• This is more of a clarification question, but I am guessing this sentence, Thomson scored 14 times across all competitions, and Southall was the only other player to reach double figures, with 13 goals., is supported by the citations for the Player statistics table?
  • Essentially, yes. It's simply reiterating the figures from the table, which are supported by the sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • That makes sense to me. I just wanted to confirm it. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Are all four citations for the Player statistics table necessary? If so, would it be possible to bundle them to avoid having four citations used at once?
  • Bundled -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• This is not required for the FAC, but I would encourage you to archive all the web sources to avoid any future headaches. Citations 4, 7, and 18 are some examples. I do not think the Gale citations need an archive so you should be good there. Again, it is not required, but dead links can be a pain in the future.
  • I'll look into that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• I have made some minor edits to the article prior to this review. A majority of them were minor. I added a comma here and there and fixed some spacing issues and an issue with one of the citations. I just wanted to clarify that in my review.

I only have a few minor comments. I know absolutely nothing about English football, but even with that, I was still able to follow what was being said in the article without any real issues. I only bring this to say that I can really comment on the content itself so I focused more on how it was represented in the prose. Reading this article does remind me how important it is to review outside of my comfort zone. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• • @Aoba47: many thanks for your review, all points address above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing all of my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are doing well, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:RainhamEndGordonRoadStand.jpg: is there a reason the original URL was removed from the description? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - no idea, looks like an error by the bot that transferred it to Commons. I have added it back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....

The main stand was also demolished, but the work to build its replacement encountered various problems - bit vague...what problems?

I presume it was supplier/finance issues, but I can't say for definite, so I changed it to "encountered various delays" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe another sentence right at the end on how long they lasted in the second tier?

Not seeing anything else actionable. Looking good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Amakuru

Background anr preseason

• "manager Tony Pulis" - there's a WP:SEAOFBLUE here
• "midfielder Junior Lewis" - ditto
• "Defender Barry Miller" - and here
• "Forwards Andy Thomson" - sorry, I'm finding quite a few of these!
• "goalkeeper Vince Bartram"

August to December

• "The team then suffered another setback, though, losing" - I think the "though" may be superfluous here
• "Pulis' first appearance" - should be "Pulis's" per MOS:'S

January to May

No issues that I can see here.

Play-offs

• "The second leg was an emotionally-charged game" - according to whom? Sounds a bit of a POV observation to be making in WikiVoice.

FA Cup

• "Manchester United's controversial decision" - controversial according to whom? Could possibly omit this word

Football League Cup

No issues

Football League Trophy

No issues

Players

• "he missed only one Second Division game, one FA Cup game, and one League Cup game" - did he play in the solitary FL Trophy game then?
• Oh, never mind, it seems he did from the table below. Good.

All good apart from that. A very well-written article, thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy turnaround Chris! I've just realised I forgot to review the lead... (I usually do the body first, and forgot to come back to it)

• "went on a much-improved run due in large part to the goalscoring of Robert Taylor" - I guess it's sort of obvious from the fact that they improved to fifth place, and Taylor scored a ton of goals, but noting that I'm not seeing these two facts explicitly stated in the body. Might be worth adding a line somewhere, with a cite.
• "was signed by Manchester City for a new club record fee" - clarify that this was a Gillingham record, not for Manchester City (assuming it wasn't).
• "best ever run in the FA Cup" - the body says they reached the quarter-final for the first time, but it's not quite the same as they might have had a better run since then. Clarify in the body.

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - also done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: fantastic, thanks. Happy to support now. BTW if you feel like doing a review yourself, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/UEFA Euro 2004 Final/archive1 is awaiting some input. No obligation or pressure though, of course! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheck

Been a while since I've done of these. Spot checking a few sources; can't get a very broad sweep due to offline and paywall sources but I see no issue based on the sampling I could take (version used for ref numbers):

• Ref 75: Used accurately
• Ref 86: Used accurately
• Refs 79 & 80 (linked usage): Used accurately
• Ref 87: Used accurately
• Ref 4: Used accurately
• Ref 40: Used accurately

Sources used are reliable—largely long-standing, reputable newspapers or the Association of Football Statisticians. Book sources generally seem to be used for dry facts—match results, transfer fees, etc—and so seem uncontroversial. As for formatting, some nonstandard quotation marks in ref 80 could be replaced. I'm surprised to see Grauniad sources behind a paywall as their archives go back to this time period but I couldn't find web versions of some of the articles used, which is unfortunate, but has no real bearing. Overall I see no problem with sourcing here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Grapple X, is that a pass on both then? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Gog the Mild yes, sorry, consider that a pass from me. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Bibliography should be in alphabetical order. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild - fixed, my bad :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - with the current status of this nom, might I be permitted to start another one.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "the first round of" in the prose but "First Round" in the infobox etc. Round or round?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "the FA Cup, beating" is it worth linking the specific FA Cup season?
  • I dunno - the sentence is "Gillingham also had their best run to date in the FA Cup", covering their entire history in the competition. Linking the words FA Cup to one specific season in this sentence doesn't feel right to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "home leg of" could link leg to two-legged tie.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent with pipelinks, e.g. Peter Taylor is linked to a redirect in the infobox.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "manager of Leicester City." which division?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "1999–2000 season" put season in the link.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "but the team " which team?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Gillingham finally gained" little POV to say "finally".
  • Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "joining on loan from West Ham" already linked "loan" above albeit to a slightly different target.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "beat Oxford United 2–1 " overlinked.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "inflicted Bristol City's first home" overlinked.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• " of Burnley on" overlinked.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "with the teams who finished fourth, fifth, and sixth" why not "with the three teams below them"?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "In the first leg of the two-legged tie" maybe first match rather than have leg repeated.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Gillingham scored two goals in the last six minutes" I can't imagine how utterly amazing that must have been.
  • Yeah, it was pretty cool -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "the FIFA Club World Championship" is there a specific year article?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "win on aggregate.[77] In" overlinked.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Football League Trophy" any reason the table is sortable with one entry?
  • Not really other than that I copied and pasted the headers from another table. Now removed the sortability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "the highest number of appearances" -> the most appearances.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• "only appearance for Gillingham" that season or ever?
  • Ever - clarified in the text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Is Mitten not notable after an appearance in the FL trophy?
  • Well, probably by the strictest interpretation of NFOOTY he is, but with a professional career that consisted of a single appearance in the FL Trophy, I can't see him ever having an article (and if he ever had one and it was brought to AfD I could see it getting deleted) but I have redlinked him nonetheless -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That is all for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all done, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support this now, good work Chris. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:29, 30 September 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) 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 24 November 2021 [62].

---

Craig Bellamy

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about possibly one of the most polarising figures in modern British football, Craig Bellamy. A former captain of both the Welsh national side and Great Britain Olympic squad, he spent more than a decade in the Premier League with numerous teams. A managers' worst nightmare on occasion, his career has been blighted by injury and endless controversy. As usual, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments

Nobody outside of Britain knows what "gobbiest" means, I reckon. Also, there's absolutely nothing about his playing style in the lede. The Style of play section too, has only a perfunctory mention of his "quick, bursting technique and calmness under pressure" before an extended managerial back-and-forth about whether he had a bad attitude or not. There's needs to be more on his stocky stature, finishing ability, the positions he played etc. I haven't read most of the article but some of this stuff must be in the lede and in Style of play.—indopug (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Indopug:, thanks for taking a look. In regards to the gobbiest quote, Robson is one of the most noted British managers of the last 40 years, so his quote is more than suitable I would suggest and would be commonplace in WP:BRITENG. The style of play features more than you seem to imply I would say, several of the quotes mention his intensity and commitment on the pitch which was a key factor in his style of play. I've expanded further to provide more though as well. In regards to this being in the lede, this not a common thing in football articles, see FAs such as Thierry Henry, Steve Bruce, Kevin Beattie, etc. The lede is generally used as a summary of the player's life and career. Kosack (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those examples. Thierry_Henry#Style_of_play is actually exactly what I had mind with my comments above. Some things that impressed me in that article's section:

• what position Henry played in and how it changed over time
• the kind of goals he would score and the techniques he used for scoring
• who his heroes were and how they inspired his play
• other aspects of play like heading, passing and set pieces

Also, while Henry has one quote per paragraph, mainly to give flavour to the text, Bellamy's section has a quote in nearly every sentence, overwhelming the text.—indopug (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

While it's unlikely I'll be able to get into Henry's level of detail due to the sheer amount of coverage he has, I've added an extra paragraph from a few sources I dug up. I've also trimmed the number and length of quotes that are included as well. Kosack (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from WA8MTWAYC

• Ref 3 in the lede is not needed
• "was born on 19 July 1979 at" ==> the infobox and lede say 13 July
• Pentwyn Dynamos has a wiki page
• "2–2 home draw with Bury" ==> you could link draw here
• "leading goalscorers in the division" ==> was this division the First Division?
• "assisted Wayne Quinn" ==> you could link assisted
• "Goal of the Month for September 2009" ==> Goal of the Month has a page
• "In 2007, Bellamy was invited to visit Sierra Leone" ==> by whom?
• I'd move ref 216 to the end of the sentence
• I'd also reorder the honours by chronological order, so e.g. the Community Shield comes first under Liverpool (but I don't know if there are any rules about this...). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've implemented all of the changes noted above. Kosack (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I read Bellamy left Anderlecht last weekend and Kompany was quite emotional about it. I hope everything will be alright. Nevertheless, this is a great article, well done. I support. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This has hit the three week mark with limited indications that a consensus to promote is forming. Unless this changes over the next 2 or 3 days, I am afraid that this nomination may be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Kosack ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is done as well. Forgot to mention. Kosack (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there is still an instance of fixed px size - this should be replaced with |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Kosack, could you fix this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

• "Soon after, the under-10s side of local team Caer Castell FC, which included Bellamy – who scored all four goals in the club's first fixture – was formed." Awkward phrasing because of the two asides in a row. Maybe, "Soon after, the under-10s side of local team Caer Castell FC was formed, and Bellamy was chosen for the team. Bellamy scored all four goals in the club's first fixture."
• "In 1993, he met his future wife Claire after his brother Paul introduced the pair;" -> "In 1993, his brother introduced him to his future wife, Claire;"
• "Bellamy had previously travelled to Norwich by train on Saturday afternoons, played a youth match on Sunday morning before returning to Cardiff." Put "then" after the comma
• "although the decision was later overturned on appeal." Delete later as redundant.
• "he entered a downward spiral that culminated in an argument outside a Cardiff nightclub." Who was the argument with?
• "Robson's man-management ability" What's a man-management ability?
• "after fearing his own personal problems could leave him in a similar position." What did Speed die of? Did Speed's cause of death make Bellamy believe he would die a similar fate?
• "Bellamy agreed terms with Oxford" agreed to terms?

  Agreed terms is a pretty common phrasing in relation to football. Kosack (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• If that's the case then I'll withdraw this concern. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• " against a claim of bullying of a youth-team player." Delete of
• "They had their first child together—a son named Ellis—at the ages of 17 and 16 respectively." The sentence doesn't list the two people, so I am not sure which age refers to which person.
• "In March 2019, he was banned from driving for 18 months after being found to be over the permitted alcohol limit while driving in Cardiff early that month. It was Bellamy's second driving ban; in 2013, he failed to declare himself as the driver of a car that was caught by a speed camera." I think these events should be in chronological order, perhaps with the speed camera incident described before the binge drinking.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when everything is responded to. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks very much, everything has been addressed bar the one comment above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• Kosack just a quick reminder that as soon as you've dealt with the open issues from Lee and Amakuru, I'm more than happy to get straight on with my comments. Feel free to ping me if I don't notice. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review – pass

Hi Kosack, starting source review:

• A number of pp's with single pages. I see at least refs 59, 61, 64, 84, 176, may be others I've missed.

  All fixed, I went through every usage to find any stragglers as well. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• What is "Developments: One World a Million Stories, p 14 Issue 49 2010" that was published by the Department for International Development? Does it need any italics, quotation marks, or more punctuation in the "p 14 Issue 49 2010" part?

  I didn't add this ref so I'm not really sure. It wasn't formatted with a template, so I've added that which should fix the punctuation issues. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but if you didn't add it, and that means you're not familiar with the content in that source, one idea might be to remove it altogether, especially if the cited info is already covered by refs 217 and 218. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• For ref 9, I think Trevor should be Terry? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Does ref 13 support the statement "but left the school with no GCSEs"?

  Ref 13 doesn't, but it's not directly supporting the info. That would be 14, which does support. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies, I somehow got 13 and 14 mixed up when I was looking at them. Sorry about that. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's not a requirement, but do you have a system for which refs to include archived versions for? All things considered, it seems like it would be good to be consistent. Moisejp (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  I just use the auto archiver tool really. I don't manually archive anything. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• All right, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• The linked page for ref 42 doesn't seem to list John May as the author, unless I've missed it. Moisejp (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  The article begins with the line "BBC Sport Online's John May charts the progress of Craig Bellamy". I took this to indicate he was the author of the piece. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• You're right. There it is. Sorry about this mistaken comment too. ;-) Thanks for your responses so far. I'm going to try to finish this source review very very soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of dead links. I also was not always 100% sure what constitutes a reliable sports source, but the ones I looked at seemed reasonably reliable-looking, so would like to give the benefit of the doubt on them. I'm satisfied with the sources. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Amakuru

• Very general comment: This article is on the long side. At 58kb of prose, it is within the 50–60kb range at which it "may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". I won't specifically mark it down on this, but I'd at least contrast it with Steve Davis, an FAC I recently opposed as too short. As one of the snooker greats, I'd expect more detail on him than our old friend Craig Bellamy, who was more of a "journeyman pro", all other things being equal. Kevin Beattie is another footballer FA with only 22kb of prose, so there is at the very least some inconsistency going on here. As such, while there's obviously there's no haste, and it doesn't have to be reduced in size, I may be on the look out for things that don't look necessary in the context of this bio article.

I can't really comment on the Steve Davis article but in relation to Beattie, Bellamy is a modern player making the availability of sources far wider than players of the older generation. I think journeyman pro is under-playing Bellamy a bit as his career has been certainly one of the most colourful in recent years. A more accurate comparison for me would be Robin Friday perhaps, which comes in at 41kb despite having less than a third of the playing career Bellamy did. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Early life

• "The area was considered a traditional working-class environment and had been experiencing an economic downturn following the closure of the East Moor steelworks the previous year." - there's an example right there. Does this detail really help us to understand Bellamy? It would be sufficient IMHO to simply say "the Splott district of the city, a traditionally working-class areas" or similar, leaving out the economic downturn and the steelworks closure. - trimmed
• "He first attended Baden Powell Primary School before switching to Trowbridge Juniors where he joined the school football team at the age of seven.[5][11] Despite being younger than most of the other players, he was selected to play and featured in his first match against Gladstone Primary School" - do we need to know the names of his primary schools? We could possibly distil all this down to just that he joined the team at the age of seven despite being younger than most of the players.

It's relatively common information to include, pretty much any substantial page tends to have it? Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "his father instead offered to form a team if Bellamy could find enough players. Soon after, the under-10s side of local team Caer Castell FC was formed" - I initially assumed that the Caer Castell side was the one that his father had formed, but that might not make sense if he had to be "chosen" for it. Did the plan for his father to start a team not come to anything, or was it in fact the Caer Castell team?

The under-10s were the side formed, Caer Castell already existed as a club. I've dropped the chosen part to hopefully make that clearer. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• All looks good in this section apart from that. I'll be back later to look at the following sections, although I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the length question. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Bristol Rovers and Norwich City

• "Bellamy had attended youth sessions organised by Cardiff City in Ely for a year after being encouraged by his father" - I don't think this needs to be phrased in the past perfect tense, just "Bellamy attended..." would be fine. Also it would be good to have some sort of dates or ages on this, so we can place it in the narrative. I might be tempted to put it in the "Early life" section too, since it doesn't pertain to Bristol City or Norwich.

  I've rephrased but I think it fits better here than in the early life section as it sort of segways with Rovers picking him up too. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The club, however, took little interest in him as a youngster and, at nine-years-old, he joined Bristol Rovers after being spotted by former professional Stan Montgomery, who was working for the club" - two uses of "the club" in the sentence, and not referring to the same club!

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy found the opportunity of better coaching and his own playing kit irresistible" - sounds a bit journalese, maybe reword

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He spent two years with Bristol" - probably more usual to spell out "Bristol Rovers" in full

  Done. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy had previously travelled to Norwich by train on Saturday afternoons, then played a youth match on Sunday morning before returning to Cardiff" - I would put this earlier, and probably in the prior paragraph, since it relates to a time chronologically earlier than him moving to Norwich full time. It would also be good to clarify the times/ages again. I am slightly confused by what ages all these things happened at.

  Moved and added his age at the start of the following paragraph. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Again, with the transition from YTS to reserves, and the contract for £250 per week, it would be good to know when this was.

  Added his age as dates aren't readily available. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He made his professional debut for Norwich on 15 March 1997" - did he play no games for the reserves before this? And would be good to add his age so that we can slot it in relative to the prior events

  He likely did but those wouldn't be professional games. Added age. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link Substitute (association football)

  Done. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "2–0 defeat to Crystal Palace in the First Division" - I think it's usual to clarify on first mention that this is the second tier of the English football league system etc.

  Added. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Two further appearances from the bench" - newcomers to football might not know what "from the bench" means?

  Changed to substitute appearances. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Premier League side Crystal Palace" - they were in the First Division at the start of this paragraph. Maybe clarify that they had been promoted in the interim

  Added. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the experienced Peter Grant who" - probably needs a comma after "Grant"

  Added. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Coventry City".  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy's form improved further after the arrival of his Wales strike-partner John Hartson" - I feel like another couple of sentences on the latter half of the season might be useful here, to provide some more detail on this point. Did he score more goals for example?

  The Coventry period has been a struggle to flesh out as it seems to be one of the more uneventful spells of his career. I could add a few mentions of goals, but they seem fairly routine moments? Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Newcastle United

• "Bellamy was involved in controversy when he was one of four players sent home from a winter training camp in La Manga after missing a team meal in honour of former chairman John Hall. The group claimed to be unaware of the significance of the dinner and had stayed on at a local restaurant" - I feel this could be trimmed down a little bit, just state what happened without saying it was a "controversy". Also, the word "claimed" should probably be amended to something else per MOS:CLAIM.

  Trimmed. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keiron Dyer - spelling

  Fixed. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy reacted to the defender pinching him, which resulted in a three-match ban" - this sounds like it might be the pinching that led to a three-match ban, so maybe reword slightly

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy began suffering from tendinitis in his knee that continued to cause him problems" - tighten a bit, it feels redundant to say he began suffering and then immediately that it continued to cause him problems.

  Trimmed. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "entered a downward spiral" - sounds slightly journalese / informal; see if it can be reworded more encyclopaedically.

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "two qualifying matches for Wales" - qualifying for what?

  Added. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Wales' matches" - MOS:'S advises us to say "Wales's"

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In March 2004, he reportedly threw a chair" - "reportedly" is a bit WP:WEASEL; you might want to attribute the statement, or reword

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Graeme Souness era

• "In a disappointing start to the season" - disappointing for whom? Reword for NPOV*: Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• "in a post-match interview claimed it was" - reword "claimed"

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "With his Newcastle career in doubt Bellamy later" - comma after "doubt"

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "stating that Bellamy would never play for Newcastle again while he was manager and consequently the club fined Bellamy two weeks' wages" - was the fine a consequence of Souness's remarks, or was it a consequence of the original incident?

  Original incident so I've removed consequently. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "His last goal for the club came in a UEFA Cup group stage match against Sporting CP in December" - this doesn't seem to tally with Souness saying he'd never play for the club again, and his being exclude from training. Unless the Sporting game was before all that? Best make clear anyway.

  Reordered. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Celtic loan

• "with Rangers win over Hibernian" - should be "a Rangers win"?

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers

• In contrast to other sections, this one feels a little short for a 34-game stint, especially as the first sentences are about Everton.

  I've expanded a little but, similar to the Coventry section, there doesn't seem to many stand out moments as far as I can see beyond listing goals. Kosack (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "an awkward final meeting with Moyes" - this sounds like an opinion rather than an objective fact

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy's efforts were rewarded" - journalese?

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That brings me to "Liverpool".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Amakuru, is there more to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: thanks for the ping. Sorry I should have been clearer, but I have sort of paused my review here, awaiting some resolution to Sportsfan's concern below. As per my comment above, I had also raised a concern about the article length, which I would probably be prepared to tolerate if it was just me who was concerned about it. But I think if Sportsfan77777 is going to outright oppose this FAC or demand wholesale changes, then it would be better for me to do a fresh review after that's completed. If that concern is satisfactorily dealt with and Sportsfan77777 is happy to continue, however, then I'll get right back on to the review. Hope that makes sense to yourself and Kosack, but feel free to ping me if there's anything further I can do. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, that makes perfect sense to me. Apologies if I speed read your comments and missed that. Thanks for the prompt response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, Sportsfan77777 has said "I'm content with the nominator's responses". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thanks for the update. I will return to this early next week if that's OK, since as you know I'm spending my time trying to gather a last few points in the WikiCup, and hopefully Kosack won't mind as they're not involved in this phase of the Cup this year! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yes, I'm here! I even started adding some more comments earlier today, but I never got around to hitting save 😃 I will finish the review tomorrow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool

• "to allow him permission to talk to the club" - the word "permission" feels a bit unnecessary here
• "paying £2 million to remove the clause" - it's not clear to me who would pay the £2 million here; it sounds like it's the club, but I'd have thought the clause benefits the club more than the player
• "As a boyhood fan of the club" - this is the first time anything like this has been mentioned; the "Early life" section gave the impression that he was a Cardiff supporter
• "18 yards (16 m) box" - this seems an odd construct, particularly with the conversion to metric. Might be better just to say "penalty area" and also link it.
• "Liverpool had a disappointing finish in the Premier League" - "disappointing" again
• "they reached the final" - I think it's usually better to link it as the final so that it doesn't look like a link to finals in general

West Ham United

• "Sam Allardyce, who was manager of Newcastle, was rejected over a suggested swap deal involving Michael Owen" - slightly odd passive wording here. Maybe something more active like "Newcastle manager Sam Allardyce proposed bringing him back to the club in a swap with Michael Owen, but this was rejected by Liverpool" or something.
• "Bellamy and his wife saw the birth of their third child" - encyclopedic wording. Just say the child was born, rather than that they "saw" it...
• "the club struggled for results" - phrase a bit more clearly, did they lose games?
• "Bellamy attracted the attention of several clubs" - this implies that Zola wanted to sell him, but it's not explicitly said.
• "Bellamy refused to hand in a transfer request" - "hand in" wording could be made more encyclopedic, and also why did he have to make such a request anyway? Was that a conract clause?
• "believing the club wanted to imply he had pushed for the transfer" - a few things here: (1) we shouldn't state that Bellamy believes something in Wikivoice, better to attribute it or make it a quote or something. Also, I found it a bit difficult to parse this with so many levels of indirection - believed / wanted / implied / pushed for... Maybe try to word more clearly
• "accepted from a third undisclosed bid from City" - shouldn't it just be "accepted", rather than "accepted from"? And I'd prefer "Manchester City" on every usage, not "City"... check the whole article at least and make it consistent throughout anyway
• "said to be around £14 million" -  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• "West Ham, however, continued with the move and accepted Manchester City's bid" - going back to the previous point about him being required to ask for a transfer request, it sounds here like West Ham were free to sell Bellamy without his wanting to move

Manchester City

• "believed to be around £14 million" - we've already made the point that the fee was believed to be around £14 million in the previous paragraph, so probably could omit this detail here. Also as before, "believed to be" needs to be attributed per WP:WEASEL.
• "This took his career-total transfer fees to £47m" - not sure the relevance of this. If I sell you a pen for £1, and you then sell that pen to someone else for £1, who sells it on again for another £1, and that chain continues 10,000 times, then the pen has achieved an aggregate total of £10,000 in sales, but it's still only worth £1 😃
• "also arrived within a week" - repetition of "arrived"
• "it was his third appearance before scoring twice against FC Copenhagen in the UEFA Cup two weeks later" - what does this mean?
• "He argued with the group on more than one occasion" - seems like a repetition of the "with all of whom Bellamy clashed on several occasions" - from the last sentence
• "later named Goal of the Month for September 2009" - the linked article does not italicise this; I'd also clarify that it's the BBC one
• "18-yard (16 m) box" - can we just call it a penalty area (with a link) rather than this rather odd-looking unit conversion?
• "sent off" - on the first occurrence of this (which is actually up in the Newcastle section I think) there should be a link to Ejection (sports)
• "which angered Mancini" - probably not necessary and feels like it makes the sentence overlong; we know they argued already

Cardiff City loan

• "paying a large percentage of his wages to make the move" - sounds like it's missing a word; should it be "make the move happen" or something?
• "Reading" - link on the first mention, not the second
• "swelling profusely after games" - language sounds a bit overdramatic here!
• "brace" - probably worth rewording as non-football people might not know what this means
• "confirmed a playoff place for Cardiff" - elsewhere you say "play-off", and indeed that's what our articles on this subject say
• Link Volley (association football)
• "Cardiff manager Dave Jones' sacking" - we already know he's the Cardiff manager; probably just say "Jones's" (and note that 's per MOS:'S)
• "£4,000,000" - elsewhere we use the "£4 million" style

Return to Liverpool

• It would be good to say here who won the League Cup final between Liverpool and Cardiff, since we get as far as knowing it went to penalties!
• Links to appropriate articles for the League Cup and FA Cup finals would be good

That brings me to "Return to Cardiff City". More later today hopefully!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• "despite new Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers offering him the chance to stay" - what does this mean? Why would Rodgers not have allowed him to stay? Was it a case of him having to be offered a new contract by Liverpool?

Youth and senior arrival

• "who was renowned for his unusual methods" - renowned by whom?
• "friendly game" - could link to Exhibition game. Although the first occurrence is actually up in the Bristol Rovers/Norwich section, not here!
• "Wales' manager" - Wales's
• "Wales defeated Finland before facing Italy" - maybe change Wales to "they" here, as we've had a few too many mentions of Wales in consecutive sentences
• "played-in Bellamy" - doesn't need a hyphen I would think
• "stating; "The height of Toshack's ambitions" - the semicolon doesn't seem quite right here. Either a colon, or maybe even no punctuation at all

Style of play

• "Bellamy has been described as having a dynamic style of play" - it would be good to say who described him thus
• "WalesOnline" - link

Personal life

• "their third, Lexi, in 2007" - more recent sources seem to spell the child's name as "Lexie": [63][64]
• "MMA gym" - if we're going to use the abbreviation, then put it in brackets after the fully-spelled-out version
• Apparently he also has another child called Orla, who is one year old. I've only been able to corroborate that in the Daily Mail though, so if it's not covered anywhere else then it's probably right to omit it, particularly as there's no other context.[65]

I think that's about it. A long read, as I already noted, but it seems well-written and comprehensive anyway. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Kosack ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 12 November 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.

I've done a thorough read through, and I can't come up with much. It's a well written article. Below is all I could put together:

Lede

• becoming the club's record signing - should really explain this was transfer fee, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reowrded. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• His time at Liverpool is arguably the height of his career, so could do with being fleshed out in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Expanded. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• • His full name could easily be sourced to the lede and not the infobox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's generally preferred to keep refs in the infobox. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• YTS - could we not just say "youth"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think YTS was the official name for the signing of youth players at the time. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  It was the Youth Training Scheme, no? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Bellamy does remark that he was offered a "two-year YTS apprenticeship" in the source. Kosack (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's quite a lot of whitespace on my screen before the refs, any reason for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I can't see anything obvious on my end, but I'm on mobile so the layout is always different for me. I've checked the coding in the honours and international goals sections for obvious excess space and can't find any? Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is a ref for the Express, isn't this unreliable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, I used the ref for his DYK a couple of years ago unless it's changed since then? I can remove it if needs be. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• career high 19 goals in all competitions. - is this the highest he scored throughout his career? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• about £80,000) - could we inflate? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Added. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• AC Milan - A.C. Milan Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 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)} 11:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Lee, I've responded to all of the points above. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments from Sportsfan77777

I'm leaning oppose for the article being too long, along the lines of what Amakuru has already said. All of the top athletes and other notable bios brought to FAC over the past year have been told to stay closer to 50kb than 60kb. Bellamy definitely isn't a top footballer, maybe not even a top Welsh footballer, so I don't see why his article should be this long when that's not even being allowed any more for all-time greats or important historical figures. With someone like Robin Friday, you can get away with having more detail because his career was short enough that even with so much detail, the article still isn't that long. If Friday had as long of a career as Bellamy, Friday's article wouldn't end up at 60 kb; it would be closer to 50kb and some of the detail currently in his article would end up being cut. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be seen as a competition between how well-known someone is to how big their article can be and indeed Friday is a prime example of that. There are a stack of FA-rated cricket bios between 50-60kb and even 47kb articles on a single year in a player's career. We cover what is generally considered notable and covered by sources. As a modern day footballer with his considerable catalogue of incidents, Bellamy has probably received more print coverage than some of the world's best players combined from years gone by. As the availability of sources increases, so surely does the breadth of coverage we can provide. I have no doubt that there is probably some fine-tuning that could be trimmed here and there, as Amakuru is helping with above, but I think the article is of reasonable size for the subject.

In relation to Friday, I think it's an underestimate to say his article wouldn't hit 60kb. He played around 150 matches in his career, while Bellamy played nearly four times as much and holds a considerable international career to add as well. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Other FAs have certainly done that before, even if the recent ones haven't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Another big problem is that the article doesn't seem focused. The club career section covers three main facets: his accomplishments, his controversies, and his injuries. The way it's written (in particular with the length), that seems like too much. I could easily imagine someone coming to this article just to get an overview of all of the controversies he has been involved in or an overview of his injuries (those are the first things I looked for after reading the lead), but there's no summary of either of those things anywhere in the article. You essentially have to read the entire >6000-word club career section just to understand why he is so controversial or how injuries have affected him. That's too much to ask of a typical reader who just wants to find some specific info on Bellamy. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You could potentially mitigate that issue by splitting off the controversies into a separate section. I could understand why his rift with Souness is an important part of the club career section because it led to him leaving Newcastle, but most of the other controversies don't seem to have any big or longterm effects on his career. Relatedly, I have doubts that proper weight is given to each of the controversies. He was suspended three matches for a head-butting incident, but that only gets one sentence. Meanwhile, his fight with Riise gets a full 10+ sentence paragraph, even though he wasn't even suspended for that and there is no longterm significance (or at the very least, no longterm significance is mentioned). The missed dinner and police caution at Newcastle are examples of incidents that are worth mentioning and maybe have the right weight, but might be better off in a separate controversies section because no significance of these events is indicated towards his playing career or how he is perceived. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article lists the events of his career in chronological order. Separating controversial incidents into their own section seems like bordering on WP:TRIVIA in my opinion and would possibly be adding WP:UNDUE weight and focus onto the incidents in relation to his career. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I may be overestimating how controversial he is perceived to be. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Another thing I was wondering about was is Bellamy associated with any particular club? My impression from reading the article is that he is not associated or remembered for playing for any one or two clubs in particular because he played for so many different clubs. If that is correct, then nothing needs to be done to address this concern. But if he is best associated with say Liverpool and/or Cardiff (and/or Newcastle??), then that should be made clearer. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably not really, no doubt fans of those club's would see him as such, but I don't think he's synonymous with any one club. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Sportsfan77777, do you have any further thoughts on this? Especially regarding the length. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I commented above. I'm content with the nominator's responses. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Kosack - It looks like you haven't edited since 3 October, and it looks like a fair number of Amakuru's comments are not addressed yet, I'm afraid this may have to be archived if we can't get this restarted over the next couple days. We can't hold this open indefinitely, unfortunately. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

With a number of outstanding comments still here, and Kosack on a lengthy break, I'm going to have to archive this for now. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 24 November 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 24 November 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) 14 October 2021 [66].

---

Tala tank

Nominator(s):  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the century old, world's largest overhead water reservoir, built by the British in Kolkata. Also, it is my first WP:4 attempt.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions by Chidgk1

• If water just flows one way first paragraph could be written something like:

"The Tala tank, or Tallah tank, (Bengali pronunciation: [ˈʈala tæŋk]), is a water tower in Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Construction started in 1909 and the tower was inaugurated by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in May 1911. Owned by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) the tank is fed by Palta Water Works near Barrackpore. More than 110 years after construction the tower is the world's largest overhead water reservoir, and remains the major water supplier for the city of Kolkata."

"The Tala tank covers 3–4 acres ......"

• Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sketch a plan of the structure and ask Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop to draw it in svg
  • Couldn't find any plan to refer to. Only the satellite images.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @ArnabSaha: But don't you understand it well enough now to be able to sketch a plan yourself? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Chidgk1: I can and I would love to do that, but will it be reliable and as per FA rules?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @ArnabSaha: Not sure about FA rules. But if it will not take too much of your time sketch a plan (and if your drawing is as bad as mine submit it to graphics lab to be smartened up) so that other reviewers can see it and comment on whether it is useful. For example some readers would likely be surprised about the teak, so I think it would be nice to be able to see at a glance which parts are teak. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
          • @Chidgk1:, User:Seloloving will try to make one.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Chidgk1, Due to the complexity and lack of clear photos and specs, it will be hard to draw for Seloloving :(  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
              • @ArnabSaha: I didn't mean it had to be detailed and to scale. Just an idea of the shape and which bits are made of concrete, steel or teak - so schematic(s) would be fine. Something a child would understand. Especially because it is hard to see from the pictures. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Chidgk1:, Big thanks to User:Seloloving, they made the diagram and I have added it.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Use either imperial or metric first - at the moment sometimes one is first and sometimes the other (also tonnes is already metric)
  • I mentioned it as per sources. Somewhere imperial is used, somewhere metric in the sources.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Any more detail of "American roofing material"?
  • Sadly, nope.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Security against terrorists? Maybe that is secret so you cannot write.
  • The source is available publicly. So, its not a secret anymore...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @ArnabSaha: So was there anything worth adding from the source you found? ? Perhaps some of the security details were published to reassure the public after the poisoning rumors? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
      • No other details. the source has just one line on that. Regarding the poison thing, I am searching for a highly reliable source, as also suggested by HJ Mitchell below  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am not an engineer but I am curious why they did not fill all the tanks completely before the cyclone arrived - maybe because repairs had not been finished?
  • It was as per the calculations mainly.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Future? For example is it big and high enough to help balance electricity supply and demand - by running the pumps at certain times?
  • Yup  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

great so when you have finished your exams (good luck) see if you can find a source and write a sentence or 2 Chidgk1 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Might you, or one of your contacts, be able to take a better photo?
  • I am planning to go and capture a photo for a long time. But covid, lockdown and my exams are the hurdles  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    • You could ask the photographer of https://www.flickr.com/photos/31998351@N04/2994653684 if they would be willing to upload it (and/or one of their 2 closer shots) to Wikimedia Commons Chidgk1 (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I messaged the photographer, but they seem inactive. In the mean time I will try to visit the tank.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bonus - Improve it on Openstreetmap (just shows as "building" now) and add the Wikidata identifier there -if you don't know how to do that please ask
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Sadly, unable to click a picture. Not getting time to visit the tank. One of my friend used to live there but he shifted to other place recently. Regarding future, couldnt find any repot or study on future of the tank.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything else I should change to win your support?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Chidgk1, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha: Thanks very much to you and Seloloving for adding the excellent side diagram - and the measurements in feet are a nice bonus to get people wondering about the past. The article is very close to getting my support. All I want now is a simple diagram from the top. If I understand the text right this would just be the big square of the tank divided into 4 small squares. Or perhaps there are 4 small squares within a big square as perhaps the outer wall is not a tank wall? No need for subtank measurements if they are not easily available. The benefit of this is that the reader can instantly understand this subtank feature without having to read deep into the article. As I guess the subtank feature is very important to keep the water supply going if one of the 4 needs major repair? If that can be done I will support . Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Could "which is characterised as the world's largest overhead water reservoir" be either "which is the world's largest overhead water reservoir" or "which is claimed to be the world's largest overhead water reservoir" depending how good you think the source is? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 Both done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Excellent work Chidgk1 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Image licensing is fine. Hog Farm _Talk 14:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

While this has attracted some general comments and passed the important image review the nomination has been open for nearly three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next three or four days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Coming up to four weeks and still not much in the way of a consensus to promote. This nomination needs to attract more attention in the next day or two or it will be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Please could you leave it a little while more as I am very close to supporting Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Now supporting - could other commentators support or oppose Chidgk1 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 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.

As I did the GA review, I'm pretty happy with this one, but here's a couple points still in the way of a support

Lede

• KMC is acronymmed in the lede, but not used again there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• You actually use this name for "Calcutta Corporation (or KMC)", which is odd. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• world's largest overhead water reservoir is said twice in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• Lal Dighi at B. B. D. Bagh , - misplaced space and what are these things. Needs adjectives Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • BBD Bagh is a placed, and i have wikilinked it.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• potable water - can we just say drinking water? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• —which is now known as Indira Gandhi Water Works— do we need to know this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. Right, its not needed  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• via Tala - Tala? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. Wikilinked Tala, it is the name of the area.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Second para is huge, can we split? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You can better guide me in this. I feel it can't be split as the whole para describes the construction  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• A few times you use jargon for no descernable reason, see "piling work", "gusts", "potable water", etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Replaced potable water with drinking water. Couldn't find any alternative to piling work. And shall I remove gusts?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Do we need to say what the names of the places are now? See WP:RECENTISM. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I mentioned old names as per sources and official british era names. Like, Pulta was used by British, thus mentioned. Now, its Palta, but I mentioned both otherwise readers' might think its a spelling mistake. Wellington Square became Subodh Chandra Mallick Square, it is a complete name change, thus mentioned.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Is JU a suitable acronym? Can't we just say University? Is it relevant which one it is? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • JU is like COMMONNAME here.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:33, 23 September 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)} 20:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski:: I have tried to solve the issues you mentioned. Please check  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  21:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Nikkimaria

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• What makes timestravel a high-quality reliable source? IJRET?
  • Timestravel is the travel related branch of Times of India. And IJRET is a peer reviewed journal.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Can you elaborate on the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • As per their website their journal is peer reviewed and is approved by University Grants Commission (India) and other bodies. So, I think it should be high-quality reliable source.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Given that the journal is listed here, we're going to need something more to support that the journal is not predatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I see... I dont think, we will get anything else to support that the journal is not predatory. But I will try to find. And Meghnad Saha Institute is a popular institute, also the journal is UGC approved, whick is the highest body of university regulatory body in India.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • Sorry, this went above my head. Can you please elaborate?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • You have references that are formatted using citation templates, such as {{cite web}}. You have other references that are handwritten - ie <ref>Citation details</ref>. Mixing these two things causes the formatting of the citations to be displayed in a way that is inconsistent. Either all of the references should use citation templates, or all of them should be consistently handwritten. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Kolkata Municipal is a publisher, not a work. Ditto ICE, check for others
  • I mentioned them under "Name of the website"  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Suggest switching to |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I have modified till citation [16].  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
        • (pinging @Nikkimaria:)  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
          • It doesn't seem that this is done? There are still a number of refs that use Kolkata Municipal in a work parameter. (By the way, it isn't generally necessary to have both parameters filled). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Done Nikkimaria Now its complete  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in when you include location
  • I have tried to add location, if its mentioned in that  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria Can you kindly check whether I am in the right track or not.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
      • What you're going to want to do is come up with a consistent rule for what information is included for what kind of source. So for example FN18 includes location, whereas FN32 does not - but these are the same type of source, so they should be doing the same thing. Location isn't mandatory for these type of references; you need to decide to either include it, or not, throughout. (This can differ between source types too - you could decide to include for newspaper and not for website. But again, need a consistent decision). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Added location of all the news sources  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
• FN5: the publisher listed appears instead to be the affiliation of the authors
• FN13: work title should use title case
• FN16: NewspaperArchive should be credited using |via=; the work in this case is New Castle News
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• FN25 is missing language
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• FN34 is missing article title and the author name is formatted incorrectly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. Is this correct now?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Not quite: this isn't a book but a magazine article, so instead of {{cite book}} it should use {{cite magazine}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • So, there's another template for magazine. Thanks for the information.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Whats the next step?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any progress on IJRET? In what cases are you including location? In what cases are you including publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Authors are from a notable institute, the journal has sources and IRJET is UGC approved. That's what I found. I have added location for news sources and publisher for all sources.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• But that isn't the case for all sources. For example, FN36 has no publisher. (It's not mandatory for newspapers to include publishers - I'd actually suggest simplifying the citations instead - but if you're going to do it it needs to be done consistently). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Corrected. Publisher for all citations and Location for news related ones. I have wikilinked the names wherever used first, like first Kolkata, first KMC etc. @Nikkimaria:  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• What does the Titanic have to do with anything? That seems like an odd thing to mention, especially in the lead. Lots of objects were built with steel.
  • Itss said that its the same steel as used in Titatic. And its mentioned by the sources since its The Titanic.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  21:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Before pumped water supply to Kolkata began in 1820, [...] in the early eighteenth century Redundancy
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  21:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest putting footnote a in the body; the reader is likely to ask, as I did, "what's Lal Dighi?" ie is it a lake, a river, a man-made reservoir, or something else?
  • I added a footnote after Lee Vilenski's comments  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Second paragraph of the history section could do with being split for readability.
  • Where should I split as im confused...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  21:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Split  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Arthur Peirce, devised what became Tala tank in 1901. The Chief Engineer of KMC, W. B. MacCabe, designed the tank in 1902 I'm not sure I follow? Was it designed by Peirce or MacCabe? In 1901 or 1902?
  • Peirce planned in 1901, MaCabe finalised it in 1902.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider the likely notability of some of your red links. A major body of water and a city square are likely to be notable enough at least for a few paragraphs of history. Could the same be said for Babu Khelat Ghosh?
  • Found some piece of history and wikilinked it  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  21:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Tala tank also endured bomb scares during the India-Pakistan Wars of 1947–1948 and 1965 Is there anything more to say
  • Nope.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• one of the strongest storms to impact the area ever? Recently? That year?
  • "In the last 20 years". Added in the article  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Put refs in order, eg [22][23][9], [14][5] under "threats"
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Up to 2020, the reservoir developed only fourteen leaks. "only" is arguably editorialising—how many leaks would it be expected to develop? Also, when were the leaks and how serious were they? What repairs were carried out? What impact did the leaks have? Any flooding or loss of water supply?
  • Done Removed "only". and they weren't serious to disrupt the city water supply. Renovations are carried out as a whole. Thats mentioned in the next para.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• and steel of the same that was used in RMS Titanic As with the lead, I don't see the relevance of the Titanic.
• No need to be so precise with measurements, eg (6.1–7.6 m) logs.[6] The 288–295 88.5 ft (27.0 m). You can use a parameter like |0 to round to significant figure.
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• And you can use |adj=on in the convert template where the measurement is an adjective (eg 20–25 ft (6.1–7.6 m) logs)
  • Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• The tank is unique; it acts as a balancer,[6] having a single 60 in (150 cm) diameter mild steel water source and a supply pipe that fills the tank during off-peak hours and stores water in four equally sized, isolated chambers and supplies it to the city and other major underground reservoirs according to demand. This sentence seems unnecessarily long and complicated. I'm not sure what exactly is unique. Suggest breaking the sentence up for readability.
  • The balancer nature, and the structure makes it unique. As per ICE, it was an innovative concept at that time.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Split  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• What's the relevance of the first two links in the see also?
  • tala tank is located in the Northern part of Kolkata. And removed Esplanade  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• You should give the names of publishers/publications, not just web addresses.
  • Yes, I am doing that, as suggested by Nikimaria also  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• What makes Incredible India a high-quality reliable source?
  • Its the official govt of India's tourism campaign. Incredible India  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm concerned that the article is sourced largely to various Indian news outlets (I don't know what the reliability is of these), local government, and a few foreign sources like the ICE blog. Two books are cited but neither appears to contain a detailed study of the Tala tank. In fact, one doesn't mention it at all and appears to be a business studies textbook. In the UK, I would normally expect to see such an impressive piece of engineering covered in more books and academic sources. I'm not used to writing about India, but I have reservations about the depth and breadth of research. For example, in about five minutes of Googling, I found that there had been several (unfounded) rumours that the tank had been poisoned during periods of religious/sectarian violence.
  • Almost all the sources are from popular Indian news outlets. Indian topics lack sources, studies and data. Its very hard to find one. I couldnt even find a architectural plan of the tank. Regarding the poison thing, I didnt add it, since its a rumour and lack of highly reliable sources.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  21:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting and well-put-together article on an interesting feat of engineering. You've done a good job but I need convincing that it has the depth of a featured article. I have concerns over criterion 1a (well written) but those are relatively easy to address; I'm more concerned about 1b and 1c. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I have tried to address all of your points. Kindly check  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi HJ Mitchell, how's this one going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I still have concerns, I'm afraid. I'm not sure if I should outright oppose, but I can't support at the moment. I have a few fairly minor concerns, like formatting of references and the use of a government tourist website as a source, which I could overlook or fix myself. But the omission of the poisoning rumours and the context of ethno-religious conflict during the partition makes the article incomplete in my opinion, especially as I was able to find it with relative ease in multiple books on Google Books, and I don't think the depth and breadth of sourcing is up to FA standards. The article relies too much on news articles and websites in my opinion, and not enough on books and scholarly sources.​ HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Although I have already supported I tend to agree with HJ that there should be some mention of security. I don't know whether poisoning rumours should be mentioned but I think that publically available info on security should be included - http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/cisf-guards-at-tala-palta-tanks-soon/748759/ mentions security from 2 different organisations. Were the number of entry points reduced? @ArnabSaha: you mentioned there is some publically available info you can cite - I am guessing maybe nowadays the first line of security is provided by the operators of the tank? Also any info on how often the water flowing out of the tank is tested would be good - if available? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently working on this. Will try to complete in couple of hours  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1:, security was provided only for sometime, during the political tension between the 2 political parties. It wasnt permanent. neither any security is provided now nor water is tested from the tank, for poison. Normal water is tests are carried out in source (Palta) and other various parts of the network, which is irrelevant for the article.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Added poison to the tank  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Added poison rumors in the article  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, which is the same concern that Kavyansh.Singh expresses below. The article is built around web sources, mostly news articles, when an encyclopaedia should be relying on scholarly sources like books and journals. In this case, it's clear that these resources do exist but haven't been consulted. For the time being, I oppose on 1b and 1c of WP:FA?. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment

• MOS:LAKH and MOS:CRORE do not seem to have been met. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild I have used INRConvert  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  10:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Read the requirements of MOS:LAKH.

Note "the South Asian numbering system is conventionally used for certain things (especially monetary amounts) in South Asian English. This is discouraged in Wikipedia articles"

And "When it is done anyway, for contextually important reasons, link the first spelled-out instance of each quantity (e.g. crore, which yields: crore). If no instances are spelled out, provide a note after the first instance, directing the reader to the article about the numbering system."

And "Provide a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity (the templates {{lakh}}, {{crore}}, and {{lakh crore}} may be used for this purpose), and provide conversions for subsequent instance"

• What are the "contextually important reasons" for the use of the South Asian numbering system in this article?
• If it is to be used, have you "Provide[d] a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity ... and provide[d] conversions for subsequent instance[s]" etc?

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Done Changed to million/billion  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• ₹ needs a translation at first mention in each of the lead, infobox and main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose from Kavyansh.Singh, suggesting to withdraw

• Great work has been done on this article, but I have to agree with HJ Mitchell. My most major concern with this article is its comprehensiveness. Following are few source which I found by a quick Google Scholar search. They are very informative, and seem to cover various other things which the article does not.
  • Dey, Ayanangshu (April 8, 2021). "Challenges of retrofitting the world's biggest elevated water reservoir: Tala tank of Calcutta". Engineering History and Heritage. Institution of Civil Engineers. doi:10.1680/jenhh.20.00019. eISSN 1757-9449. ISSN 1757-9430.
  • Pal, Amitava; Bandyopadhyay, Aloke Kumar; Patra, Parthajit; Dey, Ayanangshu (October 1, 2019). "Refreshing Kolkata's 110-year-old, record-breaking elevated water reservoir". Civil Engineering. 172 (4). Institution of Civil Engineers. doi:10.1680/jcien.18.00040. eISSN 1751-7672. ISSN 0965-089X.
• The above two source have various architectural plans of the tank, including "Details of a single bottom plate", "Details of column supporting the new ceiling with a strengthened base", "Diagram of the Palta–Tala water supply system showing numbers and diameters of pipes and how they connect the tank and reservoirs to the local distribution network", etc. Quoting a paragraph from the first source:

The tank was actually supported by a system of columns arranged in both longitudinal and transverse directions (Figure 6). Each system of column support was composed of four squarely placed columns, of equal sizes, to support any particular and corresponding portion of the tank above this frame. Initially, it was decided to strengthen the foundation by breaking and exposing the footings to its reinforcement. However, as footings were found to be more prone to cracks and not all were affected equally, the plan was later revised. Only the damaged ones were exposed and epoxy was used to bind old concrete with new. As the flooring was observed to be damaged and broken at several places (Figure 7), a 300 mm thick solid, reinforced concrete slab was also cast to raise the foundation and make it even and consistent.

• Above quote in an example of an important detail which the "Structure" section of the article does not discuss. Aloke Kumar Bandyopadhyay, one of the author of second source has been mentioned as former Director General of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. I am not confident that the article is complete, and feel that it needs some more academic sources like books and journals. That being said, I am open for reconsideration if the issues are resolved. Feel free to ping me if you need any help. Thanks for your work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll further suggest to withdraw for now, access more academic sources through WP:TWL, expand the article, and then open a peer review page for a future FAC. Thanks for your work on this article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

It is clear that there is not a consensus to promote, so I am archiving this nomination. The usual two week pause will apply. I recommend that the nominator takes on board the helpful comments by all of the reviewers above with a view to resubmitting.

• 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [67].

---

2021 Tour Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2021 edition of the Tour Championship snooker event. All previous events are at FA class, so looking forward to any comments you might have on this iteration. Thanks for your time.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by FormalDude

• Not sure the very first sentence in the lead needs commas.
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps show USD or EURO in addition to GBP since it was a world tournament.
  • I'd never really thought about this before, but MOS:CURRENCY suggests this isn't the consensus. It would be suitable for if it were a less well known currency (other than the ones you've listed). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Possibly incorporate more from the summary into the lead section.
• Really great job on the sources. Everything appears verified and properly referenced, though I'm not quite an expert on FA citation formatting.
  • Grand news. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Really good attention and diligence paid to the MOS as well.

Overall I think this article is well on its way to FA! ––FormalDude talk 20:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude, thanks ever so much for your comments. I've left some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi FormalDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Gog the Mild: I fully support this article's nomination for FA status. ––FormalDude talk 03:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by GhostRiver

• FormalDude noted this, but no commas needed in the first sentence
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• First sentence of the "quarter-finals" section should be in past-tense to flow with the rest
  • Good catch. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• No comma needed after "almost pulled out of the event"
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "sending it to be repaired twice" → "and he had sent it for repairs twice"
  • Slightly different wording, but same ideal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "In frame 17 after O'Sullivan suffered a kick he whacked" → "In frame 17, after O'Sullivan suffered a kick, he whacked"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• No comma needed after "Wilson won the opening frame"
  • Done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• No comma needed after "with breaks of 70 and 90"
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "where he misjudged the path of a red ball and was bested"
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• and led 4–0 after a break of 77 in the next. unclear subject of this clause
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Robertson, however" comma needed after
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• I feel that there should be an en dash or a colon to separate the break numbers from the participants in the "century breaks" section

That's all from me! — GhostRiver 23:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• • I've gone ahead and added this. There is an outstanding discussion at WT:SNOOKER#Century lists punctuation, which suggested we should have something, but no real resolution as to what that would be. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good now, support from me! — GhostRiver 12:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Urve

• Is there a reason that you are using location in some references but not others? BBC Sport does not have one but ref spor_Neil does (both using cite web)
  • WebRef autogenerated it. I've removed it from the Sporting Life refs (but retained for Snooker Scene as a magazine publication location) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Some reference titles are capitalized and some are not - purposeful?
  • I just retain whatever capitalisation there is on the work. So long as there isn't any shouting Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Some reference titles contain website information - is that best practice? (I don't know, hence my question.) The Årdalen reference has "- snooker.org" appended to it, while Livie from Eurosport does not have something similar
  • No, they should have been gotten. Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• known as the 2021 Cazoo Tour Championship for sponsorship reasons - maybe I missed it, but being named this way because of the sponsorship is not stated in the article
  • Added to body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• The players qualified for the series by virtue of their placement on the one-year ranking list (the ranking points won over the course of the 2019–20 season), rather than by their world ranking positions and the following sentence are not directly supported by their references - they speak about the Coral series. Is that the same as this? I am having trouble supporting qualification criteria in 2021 from 2018, but maybe they didn't change.
  • The Coral series is the three events - World Grand Prix, Players Championship and the Tour Championship. The rules it being qualification by one-year list is true for all three. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• The tournament was primarily broadcast by ITV4 in the United Kingdom - reference does not seem to support this, only says ITV4 is a broadcaster from my reading
  • Changed to "Domestic", which is what I was getting at.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Jordan Brown was the ninth ranked player, acted as the first travelling reserve for the event -> Jordan Brown was the ninth ranked player, [so/and] acted as the first travelling reserve for the event or Jordan Brown was the ninth ranked player, acting as the first travelling reserve for the event
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• however, Robertson won the next three frames to lead 9–4 - comma extraneous?
  • I thought you always had to have a comma after However... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "commented" is a good word for dialogue but may be repeated too much here
  • Indeed, I used it 5 time, which I agree is a lot. I've taken out two of these, any better? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• sometimes you precede a quote with a semicolon and sometimes with no punctuation - consistency?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Pretty good article - out of my wheelhouse but enjoyable to read. Plan to support - going on vacation so ping me if you address or answer these. Urve (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks for this, I'll take a look at this in a mo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Urve thanks for the review! I think I've covered everything above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Urve, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gog the Mild - back from vacation now. I took a look over the edits and the article once more, and I don't see anything concerning, so I support promotion. Perhaps one last thing to consider is that the city of Newport is not mentioned in the body, only in captions, tables, and the infobox - but this does not particularly matter to me, as it's not controversial that the hosting Resort is in Newport. Urve (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Urve. Re Newport, if it is mentioned in the infobox, then it should be in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have suitably added this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do over the next couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• You sure you've got the right URL for ref 9? It seems kinda weird for a significant webpage to have a deadlink related to page from this year
  • I have gone ahead and removed it. I couldn't find where that link has gone. It's all covered by the other ref regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Sources are all reliable
• No serious formatting issues standing out to me

Spot checks:

• "O'Sullivan won the opening frame, before a century break by Robertson tied the match 1–1" - I think this is fine, although I got tied up in parts of the snooker jargon in the source
• "O'Sullivan suggested that Hawkins deserved to win the match "He deserved to win. I feel for Barry, he's been grafting at his game, and he's been unlucky in a few results. He deserved that victory. It's a horrible way to lose, but hopefully he can respond from that."" - verified direct quote
• "There were 23 century breaks made during the tournament." - Something's wrong with this source - the live link redirects to a home page, and the archive link looks like a too early archive date was used, as it just reads "There are currently no century breaks available. Please check again later."
• "The event took place at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, South Wales between 22 and 28 March 2021" - Source doesn't mention Newport by name, but that's probably subject-specific obvious matter
• "The event had a prize fund of £380,000, with the winner receiving £150,000." - checks out
• "Robertson claimed that Lisowski would need a "killer instinct" to improve his game going forward" - checks out

Not seeing issues here, although that busted link for the century break should be corrected if possible, as it's currently not possible to verify that the source actually contains that information. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Hog Farm - thanks for picking this up! I have fixed the two issues you have discussed, hopefully that's all you need :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose - this one is on three supports and a source review. Any chance of putting another one on the list, or does this need to wait for the image review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• File:The Resort Hotel, Celtic Manor Resort.jpg – Fine to use. Source clearly states that it is licenced for re-use under CC 2.0. We probably should have ALT text for this one.
• File:Ronnie O’Sullivan at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-06 07.jpg – Fine to use. Own work of a commons user.
• File:Barry Hawkins at Snooker German Masters (Martin Rulsch) 2014-01-29 03.jpg – Fine to use. Own work of a commons user.
• File:Neil Robertson 2010.jpg – Fine to use. Own work of a commons user.

Pass for Image review. Any comments for this nomination would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "It also aired on Sky Sport in New Zealand, NowTV in Hong Kong, and Superstars Online in China; and DAZN across the Americas, Germany, Italy and Spain." It's weird how there are commas throughout the list, then it changes to a semi-colon at the end. Perhaps, "It also aired on Sky Sport in New Zealand, NowTV in Hong Kong, Superstars Online in China, and DAZN across the Americas, Germany, Italy, and Spain."
  • I've changed the punctuation somewhat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Higgins won the opening frame with a break of 72, before O'Sullivan won the next two frames to lead 2–1.[15] Higgins made the first century break of the event in frame four, and the pair remained tied at 3–3.[15] O'Sullivan won the final two frames of the session to lead 5–3.[15]" Is there a purpose for the same citation three times in a row? Consider removing the extra footnotes in the spirit of WP:OVERCITE (although OVERCITE is an essay so this change will not influence my support)
  • I tend to cite every sentence in an FA, unless all of the info in a paragraph comes from a single/set of sources. That way you know exactly what is being sourced where. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• There are other instances where OVERCITE might apply, like with ref 17, 32, 38, and 43, so I will wait until there's a response above about this. If the change above is made per OVERCITE, I suggest doing the same thing with these, too
  • See above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Wilson won frame five with a break of 83; but Selby won the remaining three frames of the first session, despite a break of 50 by Wilson in frame seven." Either change the semi-colon to a comma (recommended) or remove the word "but"
  • Changed to comma. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• "After the match, O'Sullivan suggested that Hawkins deserved to win the match "He deserved to win. I feel for Barry, he's been grafting at his game, and he's been unlucky in a few results. He deserved that victory. It's a horrible way to lose, but hopefully he can respond from that."" The reader is told three times in this section that O'Sullivan thought Hawkins deserved to win. Maybe cut the first sentence of the quote.
  • Made the change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when I can take a second look. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Z1720, thanks for taking a look, I have made the changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 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) 01:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2021 [68].

---

Apollo 16

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... the next to last mission to land on the Moon. It's actually the only one that I remember watching astronauts on the Moon since I was home from school when it was on the lunar surface. Difficult to believe it is fifty years in April.Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

Not much to say. Article looks pretty good. I have some comments though.

• "Virgil I. Grissom" Suggest "Gus Grissom"
• "Duke was 36 years old at the time of Apollo 16" Add that this made Duke the youngest person to walk on the Moon. A record he still holds, although he's now 85. (You do mention it in "Lunar surface")
• I might have also mentioned that Gene Cernan was Slayton's first pick for LMP, but declined in favour of commanding his own mission.

Reading from Slayton's memoirs, he says that happened in the backup crew selection for 13 so it may be better to just skip it in the 16 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Flight directors during Apollo had a one-sentence job description," Suggest colon instead of comma
• I don't think the "Mission insignia and call signs" section is properly a part of the "Crew and key mission personnel" section. Suggest altering the indentation to put it on the same level.
• "ALSEP and other surface equipment": Given how much detail we have here, could we mention that the ALSEP was powered by a SNAP-27 isotopic power system?
• Do we really need all that material in fn 68?
• "The first and second stages of the Saturn V" Given that we've already mentioned the S-IC, suggest referring to them as S-IC and S-II, linking the latter.
• "At the end of day two, Apollo 16 was about 140,000 nautical miles (260,000 km) away from Earth. At the beginning of day three, the spacecraft was about 157,000 nautical miles (291,000 km)" Why isn't the end of day two the same as the beginning of day three?

That is, the start of day three takes into account the sleep period. I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This had been attempted on Apollo 15, but the camera malfunctioned." Ambiguity here; it worked okay on Apollo 16.
• "53.1 x 67.8 nmi" Metric conversion required.
• "The spacecraft and its crew was retrieved by USS Ticonderoga." State that it is an aircraft carrier on first mention.
• "The aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga delivered" Just Ticoderoga now.
• "He left two items on the Moon, both of which he photographed." Ambiguity here; he didn't take the photograph; NASA photographer Ludy Benjamin did. Duke photographed the photograph on the Moon.
• "(NASA Photo AS16-117-18841)" Do we need this?
• I don't think "Pacific Ocean" needs to be linked.
• "They were safely aboard the Ticonderoga 37 minutes after splashdown." Ambiguity here: by "they" do mean just the crew, or both crew and the spacecraft?
• link "lieutenant commander", "Lunar Roving Vehicle", aircraft carrier
• Duplicate links: Apollo 13, Saturn V, Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (I wonder why they didn't abbreviate it as FUC?), regolith, South Ray (x 2), North Ray (x 2), United States Air Force, splashed down, reaction control system
• Matter of personal taste, but I'd dump the poor image of the LM liftoff and substitute one of the nice ones of the recovery.

I think a lunar picture works better here, although as you point out, the still isn't the greatest.

• Strongly recommend that metric consistently be used first

  I think the Apollo suite of articles need to be consistent about this, and right now we're using miles first.

  Sometimes this article has miles first, and sometimes km. Have another look at the Lunar surface section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• The spaceflight portal is already in the subject bar at the bottom, so recommend removal from the See Also section.
• Typo: Hourston

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – pass

Starting the image review...

• The sources for File:Apollo-16-LOGO.png and File:Apollo 16 crew.jpg seem to be broken links. Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Likewise File:Apollo16-SaturnV-to-Launchpad39A.jpg and File:Ap16 pse.jpg, same issue. Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• The source for File:ALSEP AS16-113-18374.jpg and File:As16-118-18885 edit.jpg is just "NASA". Is that specific enough? I don't have a strong opinion, but just most of these seem to direct to a specific source online. Moisejp (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I will get to the other images soon. The licensing and captions on all the first half of the images are otherwise all good. Moisejp (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• The following also have dead links for the source:

• File:Apollo_16_meeting.jpg
• File:Young_and_Rover_on_the_Descartes_-_GPN-2000-001133.jpg
• File:S72-35613.jpg
• File:S72-37001.jpg

Besides that everything is properly licensed and captioned. Moisejp (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed those. Thanks for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, it all looks good now. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support on prose from Extraordinary Writ

First of all: although I've reviewed plenty of GANs and the like, this is my first foray into FAC reviewing, so feel free to correct or ignore anything that seems off. Since this definitely isn't my area of expertise, I'll probably focus on prose.

• The article seems to alternate between "-meter" and "-metre". Since this is in AmEng, I presume you want the former, but of course consistency is all that matters.

Fixed as er.

• to land on the Moon – linking "land" to Moon landing seems like a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG. I'd link "land on the Moon" to it and link Moon elsewhere (or not at all).
• Launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on April 16, 1972, there were a number of minor glitches – this is a dangling modifier. An alternative might be "Launched...on April 16, 1972, it experienced a number of minor glitches..." (This is also a rather long sentence: it might benefit from being split in two or even three.)
• A member of the support crew for Apollo 8 and Apollo 9. – not a full sentence.
• Mattingly then undertook parallel training... – another quite long sentence that could be broken up.
• and kept them updated; – a full stop would work better here.
• Capsule communicators (CAPCOMs) were Haise... – "capsule communicators" was linked above (at was a capsule communicator), so this is a duplink.
• Orion is one of the brightest constellations as seen from Earth. and one visible – Remove the period. You might also link Orion (constellation).
• Although previous Apollo expeditions, including Apollo 14... – The numerous clauses in this sentence make it a bit confusing. Perhaps you could reword it so that the train of thought isn't so often interrupted?
• There remained the possibility, because the... – this would read more clearly if the "because" clause was at the beginning of the sentence.
• At Descartes, the Cayley and Descartes formations... – this sentence is long enough that it should be split in two.
• the first time U.S. astronauts did so – it was across the US (without the periods) earlier.
• ...evidence of shatter cone geology familiarizing the Apollo crew... – I'd put a comma after "geology".
• The astronauts spent much time... – I think the "and" in this sentence belongs after "on the mission".

That gets me to the "Equipment" section, where I'll resume sometime soon. Again, feel free to disregard anything that I've misunderstood. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link Retrorocket.
• These four retrorockets had been deleted from Apollo 15's Saturn V – "deleted" seems an unusual choice of word, although that may just be me.
• I agree with Kusma below that the substantial whitespace is a bit disconcerting to the reader.
• to measure the Moon's magnetic field, which is only a small fraction of Earth's. – I'd specify what precisely we're measuring: "to measure the ____ (strength?) of the Moon's magnetic field". Otherwise, it's not really clear what the "small fraction" is refering to.
• This, in combination with concerns... – break into two sentences
• becoming the tenth and age 36 (as of 2021) the youngest human to walk on the Moon – I think you're missing a preposition here, and it sounds as if he's age 36 as of 2021. One option might be "becoming the tenth and, at age 36, the youngest human to walk on the Moon (as of 2021)."

I've adopted your language, more or less, but it's difficult to state.

• and with Duke erecting the United States flag – if you're trying to say that he and Duke erected the flag together, it might be clearer to put commas around "with Duke".

I've rephrased.

• At a 2019 reunion... – this sentence doesn't seem to tell us anything that isn't already apparent from the previous sentence.

Cut.

• After waking up three and a half minutes early – this paragraph contains seven sentences that start with "after": a bit more of a variety would be good. (It's most acute here, but there may be other places that could benefit from fewer "after" sentences.)
• which Duke described as "spectacular," – the comma goes outside the quotation marks, per MOS:LQ. Ditto for an area known as the "Vacant Lot,".

More soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• later analysis and found it – remove "and"
• it was about 45,000 nautical miles – I'd use something other than "it" since it's not immediately clear what it's referring to.
• they had been so certain that Cayley was volcanic, they had been open to dissenting views – shouldn't this be "they had not been open to dissenting views"?
• I happened to check fn. 136: page 453 of this seems to be a picture of David Scott on Apollo 15. Perhaps the page number or ISBN is off?

Absolutely right, Scott in the LRV. My typo somehow, should have read 483–484.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• analogs from Earth – "analogues" would seem more natural in this context, although that may just be me.

I think analog is more common in US English. Open to persuasion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's note suggests that analogue is preferred except when referring to chemistry or clocks, but (needless to say) this isn't a hill I'm going to die on.

I've switched to analogues.

• separated 24 April 1972 – you've used mdy formatting throughout, so I presume this should be the same.
• the 91-centimetre – should be centimeter, per my comment above.
• The caption on the main infobox picture is a full sentence, so it should have a period at the end per MOS:CAPFRAG.

I don't think it's a sentence, but a description.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• At least on my monitor, there's a considerable amount of image sandwiching, particularly in the Planning and training and Equipment sections. If that isn't just me, you may need to reorder or remove a few pictures.

I cut one that I felt was less necessary. I think that will help some.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we're just about there as far as the prose is concerned; I'll give it another read-through (hopefully tomorrow) before supporting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've acted on these. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose. You've addressed all of my concerns: thanks for your hard work on this article! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for a very thorough review, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

SupportComments from Kusma

I was contacted on my talk page and am happy to comment/review. I haven't read (and won't do so now) the sibling articles in detail, and will just comment on what I would like to see in an article without knowing what is "the standard". I realise that this has advantages as well as disadvantages, and things that turn out just to be my personal view will not make me oppose a promotion. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• General comment: I'm not a fan of the uses of {{clear}} that lead to massive whitespace on wide screens.

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The article seems written very much from a NASA point of view, and sort of ends when the astronauts return. If we'd rather consider this as a scientific mission, we should expect to learn a lot more about the scientific background, the experiments made and data retrieved, and what we have learned from it. (There is quite a bit of this in the article, but it is a bit scattered). Is there some way to provide a summary of in what way science was advanced by Apollo 16?

I've added material on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Although not officially announced, the original backup crew had been If this is not official, you should name your source in the text.

Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• because James McDivitt, who would command Apollo 9, believed that, with preparation going on in facilities across the U.S., meetings that needed a member of the flight crew would be missed. Can you untangle this sentence? Is the Apollo 9 mention here to tell us that Deke decided this pre-Apollo 9? (The previous sentence about Gemini/Mercury kind of answers that, but could also be clearer).

I've tried to clarify. The reason for the phrasing on McDivitt is that he was then an Apollo crew commander and eventually flew Apollo 9 with his crew, but which flight he was to do was swapped around several times and it was not settled on Apollo 9 until around October 1968, long after the support crews were created. I've reworked the Gemini/Mercury sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• "insignia" as singular hurts my Latin-trained eyes, but is acceptable in English.

Understood.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• chose "Orion" for the call sign for the lunar module Do you have to use "for the" twice here?

Rejigged.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• stray period in next Orion sentence

Gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Landing site selection: "type J mission" could be linked again here.

Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are a lot of mysterious unnamed "scientists" here. Are there any names known? Were they all inside NASA or from the wider scientific community?

I've dropped a few names and an affiliation or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• In the same vein, there is a lot of passive voice locations ... were given primary consideration, three scientific objectives were determined, It was decided to target,

I've made it clear what committee made the actual decisions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• sampling the Descartes and Cayley formations ... was determined ... to be the primary sampling interest Can you say this without repeating "sampling"?

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Training: for geology training exercises, the first time U.S. astronauts did so Were they the first to train in geology, the first to do so in Sudbury, or the first to train in Canada?

Canada, thus also Sudbury.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nevada test site: perhaps mention that this is related to nuclear tests? Why did they go there, for Nevada geology or for special trinitite/nuclear related interests?

I hope I've addressed all of that in a compact manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that they had been backups for Apollo 13, planned to be a landing mission, meant that they could spend about 40 percent of their time training for their surface operations You could be clearer in stating that they already knew a lot of stuff (and what type of stuff).

I think this is already made clear by the fact that they had already trained for Apollo 13. So they knew enough to perform that mission (as it was planned, that is).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• We have training without space suits in Sudbury basin and later a lot of training in space suits. I'm still a bit confused whether the not being in space suits in Sudbury was an exception.

They didn't wear them much on field exercises. Those things were heavy under Earth gravity, especially once you added the backpacks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Launch vehicle: So was it very different from the one used for Apollo 14?

Not that different. A little more efficient, since they were always tinkering with things and the final three missions carried more weight, what with the rover and other add-ons for the J missions. There are comparisons between 15 and 14 Saturn Vs in the Apollo 15 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Scientists also hoped to learn from an Apollo 12 sample Who were the scientists, and did they learn anything?

There were two scientists who wrote about it, one with NASA and one with the University of Toronto. I don't find anything that really closes the loop on this one and describes the roles in getting this on board. This apparently was added quite late.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• A Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (UVC) was flown, the first astronomical observations taken from the Moon, seeking data on hydrogen sources in space without the masking effect of the Earth's corona. I don't quite understand this sentence. Is "flown" just "carried to the moon" and is there a "to be used to" missing? And my usual question: did they obtain any data?

I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Will stop here and do highlights later or tomorrow. Hope some of this is useful and not just annoying :) —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent changes so far, very happy with what you've added. (And I learned about the Apollo 14 at the Nördlinger Ries story and Slayton saying "looks like too much fun and not enough work" [69] but that's probably not for the Apollo 16 article). Will continue to review the rest in a bit. —Kusma (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. May add it to the Apollo 14 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Mission highlights section title: Really just the highlights? Looks pretty comprehensive to me.

Changed to "Mission events".

• Trans Lunar Injection: trans-lunar injection looks better to me.
• they attempted to prove the higher purity of particle migrations in the zero-gravity environment. I don't understand what "purity of migrations" is supposed to mean, but I'm still curious whether they were successful or not.

Somewhat, although it looks like the experiment equipment didn't work as well as helped.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Lunar surface: you have already introduced the abbreviation SIM in the section above.
• North Ray crater visit: They drove 0.8 km then 1.4 km so they were 4.4 km away? Something is not right here.

Good catch. The directions don't seem to be complete in the source so I've cut that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• station 13 Is that a proper name?

Should be. I've standardized these.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Solo activities: is this the best possible section title?

In four articles on the landing missions, I've not come up with a better. "Lunar orbit activities" doesn't do it well because the three astronauts conducted experiments and so forth after returning from the surface.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Launch of the ascent stage image: I don't understand what I'm seeing. Is this from an automated camera during launch? Do I see anything that indicates launch?

The TV camera on the lunar roving vehicle was positioned to cover the takeoff. But I agree, it's pretty crappy as a still. I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deep space EVA: Why were these necessary on the J missions (called "J-missions" here)? Is this so super special as to need to be stated in so much detail? (I'm not an astronaut (duh), but I'm wondering whether deep space EVAs are actually easier than LEO ones).

It was necessary to retrieve the film from the cameras that had been photographing the surface, and it had to be done since the SM would not survive the journey. It was, in a way, Mattingly's big moment so I think some detail is justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Return to earth: At end of section, you switch between three units (miles, nautical miles, kilometers) and two units (km, nautical miles) and it's not clear why which is listed first. Can you drop the nautical miles?

NASA was using nmi for their figures at the time. I dislike to totally lose it. Km comes first because it was recommended earlier in the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Aftermath: Thanks for adding this section.
• External links: Haven't checked in detail (but I'd recommend that someone does). Some might be useful as additional sources? This one contains a little more about the science and the EVA, for example.

I think that's it from me. A great article, especially the detailed description of flight and time on the moon. Expecting to support this soon. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Support, great article, very good additions during review. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough review and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

While this has attracted a general support and passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I've put in requests of three people whose articles I have recently reviewed. Hopefully there will be sufficient fruit, though I'd appreciate it if you'd give it time if necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Full support

Wehwalt has again took a major Apollo topic and brought it to featurable status. The Apollo articles, and Wehwalt, could be called treasures of Wikpedia's spaceflight and lunar exploration collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support. I appreciate the nice words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Display name 99

I'm coming into this knowing nothing about spacecraft, but Wehwalt has reviewed just about all of my FACs and it's always a shame to see a nomination fail because of a lack of reviews, so here goes. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what it means to have been in the second or fifth group of astronauts? Second or fifth group of people ever in space? Second or fifth group of Americans? Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified it was the second group to be selected by NASA. That Young was the first American not of the Mercury Seven to fly in space hopefully addresses the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Should be good. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "crew assignment on Apollo 19.[30][31] However, after the cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19 " Fix the linking here. "Cancellation of Apollo missions" is linked twice. I would link it once under [cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19]. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Made it through to the end of "Landing Site Selection." It looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• To the end of "Launch and outward journey." No further issues. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Down to "Solo activities." I think that the article is in very good condition. Can you clarify what data was lost due to the change in flight plan? Also, what does it mean for a frame to be overexposed? Maybe you explained that earlier and I missed it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I've made it clearer that some areas of the lunar surface that they had hoped to photograph could not be, and a link to the relevant photography article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Display name 99, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gog the Mild. I'm still making my way through the article. I should be done today. I'm sorry for my slow pace. I'll finish up the review then. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Display name 99, feel free to take your time. Apologies if I seemed to be breathing down your neck. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support-Excellent prose. Well written and concise. Display name 99 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

References

• #19: Missing title, publisher, etc.
• #20: National Air and Space Museum can take a link.
• #25: Universe Today can take a link.
• #28: Missing publisher (NASA), date, and possibly editor. And shouldn't it be "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal"?

We don't seem to have been consistent in the landing articles on this. "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" encompasses the individual ones, see here. I've gone through the ALSJ cites and addressed the issues with them.

• #31: NASA can take a link. Author and date missing (see bottom of page).
• #32: Date missing. University of Maryland can take a link.
• #33: NASA can take a link.
• #38: Author missing. NASA can take a link.

No listed author. While it is taken from Lattimer's book (which I have), it says it comes from other sources as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• #39: NASA can take a link.
• #43: Editor and publisher (NASA) missing.
• #44: Encyclopedia Astronautica can take a link.
• #45: Missing publisher (NASA), date, and editors. And shouldn't it be "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal"?
• #52: Missing date and authors.
• General comment: Retrieval dates not needed when using archived URLs.
• #56: Author missing. Date missing. Volume/issue missing.

Ref cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• #67, 74: What's up with the page numbers?

Apollo mission reports and preliminary science reports had page numbers such as 5–7, which would be the seventh page of the fifth section. They look awkward, but that's what they are.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• #76: Editor missing.
• #79: Lewiston Morning Tribune and Associated Press can take links.
• #80: Associated Press can take a link.
• #81: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".

It says plainly in the heading "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal". (also applies to others below). Also, not all of the archived versions of the journals have dates beyond the copyright year.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I see the heading now. As to the date, see "Last updated: 2020-02-07". --Usernameunique (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the present footnote 81, not the footnote 81 in the version you reviewed?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep. (Just adjusted the numbering below for similar errors). But old footnote 81 also has a date: "Last updated: 2006-05-08". --Usernameunique (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• #82: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #83: Author, date, and publisher missing.
• #84: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #85: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #86: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #88: What page are you citing?
• #89: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #91: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #92: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #93: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #94: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
• #95: NASA can take a link.
• #96: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #97: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #98: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #99: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #100: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #101: NASA can take a link.
• #102: "Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal", I think. And this is in the "| website = " parameter, not the "| publisher = " parameter, causing the formatting to be inconsistent with the other Lunar Surface Journal sources.
• #103: ISBN not hyphenated. Publisher location missing. Suggest using "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
• #105: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #106: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #107: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #108: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #109: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #110: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #111: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #112: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #113: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #114: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #115: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #116: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #117: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #118: Editor, date, and publisher missing.
• #122: Looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal"
• #127: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
• #128: looks like it's "Apollo Flight Journal", not "Apollo 16 Flight Journal". Editors could be added.
• #129: What makes this reliable? It looks like it might be, would just like your reasoning.

LePage is widely published and credentialed. See for example.

• General comment: The various flight/surface journals are mostly missing their publisher (NASA) information. Just realized this now, so commenting on it here rather than going back and adding it for each one.
• #130: Date, editor, and publisher missing.
• #131: Date missing
• #133: Date missing.
• #134: Editors, date, and publisher missing.
• #139: Publisher missing.
• #140: Publisher missing.
• #141 and #142 are missing the page, volume, and issue numbers. I would combine these into one cite, and style the page range "1–2"
• #143: The Sydney Morning Herald can be linked. Page and issue number missing.
• #144: Should be National Air and Space Museum (and linked), not Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Compare with #19, which doesn't say "Smithsonian".
• #146: Should be Space.com (and linked), not Space.
• General comment: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors and/or editors.

Can I ask what the advantage is of that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It makes the demarcation between authors/edits a bit more clear, and ampersands look nice. Just a suggestion—it's by no means a requirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• #147: Why is the picture being linked directly? Is there not a landing page that has the details of the image, plus a link to the full-resolution version?

Bibliography

• Brooks et al. 1979: The publisher is given as "Scientific and Technical Information Branch, NASA", which is the same for at least one of the others (Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, possibly others also), except that one is just given as "NASA".
• Phinney 2015: Publisher location missing.
• Wilhelms 1993: This is the only publisher location that is linked. Should be consistent throughout.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've got most things here. It's a lot (I relied too heavily on earlier work on the article) so forgive me if something slips through the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've dealt with the further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Usernameunique, how is this one looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good, Wehwalt and Gog the Mild. I've left minor comments above under "Bibliography", but those will be easy to address. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've addressed those. Thanks for a very thorough source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – Late to the table on this one – just didn't clock it. After reading through twice I have no quibbles and am happy to support the elevation of this comprehensive, readable and well sourced article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 21:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 26 September 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) 21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2021 [70].

---

Anthony Kohlmann

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

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

Comments Support from Modussiccandi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "successfully arrive" the adverb seems superfluous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "because": became

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

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

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

• "as an visitor": a visitor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinator note

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

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

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

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

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2021 [71].

---

Grey's Anatomy (season 17)

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the seventeenth season of Grey's Anatomy which had one of the largest coronavirus-centric plots throughout the 2020-21 television season. Throughout the last few months I have put in a ton of work expanding the article eventually leading to an extensive Good Article review. With this work I feel that the article could become a Featured Article and believe that it should be featured because of the notable topics that the subject covered. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

I have a question about the infobox image (File:Greys Anatomy season 17 dvd.png). Why use the DVD cover instead of the poster (here is a link to the post)? The DVD cover is presented at a slight angle, which somewhat obscures the image for the reader, and I would think the poster would just be clearer. Done, I wasn't the one who originally uploaded the image but I'm assuming it was just for consistency with previous seasons. If I ever find a straight version of the DVD cover I may swap it back out. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for addressing this. I do not have a preference for the DVD cover or poster. If you can find a straight version of the DVD cover, I do not see any issue with putting it back in to the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC) In the Casting section, there is slight WP:SANDWICH issues between File:Ellen Pompeo in 2019 cropped from her photo with Jimmy Kimmel.jpg and File:Patrick Dempsey SiriusXM.jpg. Done, used {{multiple images}} to solve the problem. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Looks very good to me. Good idea on how to handle this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I would remove this part, rated the season 3 out of 5, as I do not think the rating is particularly helpful or notable to include in the prose. Done. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) In the Critical response subsection, you sometimes just name the publication even if the writer's name is known (like with The A.V. Club) and other times you list both the publication and the writer (like with TVLine's Charlie Mason). Please be consistent with one way or the other. Added names to those without. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) The Awards and nominations section seems too small to stand on its own as it is a very small paragraph (i.e. two short sentences). I added an award, or more so certification that I found. Not sure if anything else will come later but thoughts on where it stands now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) It looks more substantial now so it should be fine. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Are these the only reviews for this season? If so, then I completely understand, but I am a little surprised as I would think that this show would still more attention than this. I searched for more reviews prior to the GAN and a lot of the reviews addressed individual episodes and were released periodically throughout the season rather than addressing the season in its entirety. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I see your point now. Thank you for the explanation. It is good that you are only including reviews for the season as a whole or multiple episodes/storylines rather than individual episodes. I have not considered this for some reason. That does answer my question about this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Unlink nostalgia as I believe a majority of readers are familiar with this concept. Done. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) The lead says that the season received "mixed ratings", but this is not clearly said in the Critical response subsection. I would also say "reviews" instead of "ratings" as I think that word choice sound odd in this context. Changed reviews to ratings. I personally thought that the mixed reviews were interpreted from the reviews themselves, some reviewers saying that the beach was confusing, Dempsey's return was a bad idea, and stories being ripped from memes; while others spoke about the new normal, nostalgia, and comfort in characters. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for addressing this. That seems like a fair assessment to me. In the past, I have seen some editors raise concerns about this kind of thing per WP:SYNTH, but I do not have any issue with it and it makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC) For this part, The season primarily received mixed ratings from critics and also remained ABC's most-watched scripted series, remove the "also" as it does not make sense in this context. The reviews and ratings are not tied together. Done. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I have a question about this sentence: Despite initial uncertainty from the cast, crew, and the network, the series was eventually renewed for an eighteenth season. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this uncertainty mostly came from whether or not Pompeo wanted to leave the show or not and it has been said in the past, once Pompeo leaves, the show would end. Is this accurate or was this uncertainty caused by more widespread things? I think Pompeo's contract expiring was one of the largest reasons for the concern but there were some sources ([72], [73]) where Vernoff blamed it on ABC executives but their specific reason remained unlisted. This one used in the article] does mention Pompeo's contract but also says that the pandemic made things uncertain and said that part of it depended on whether or not the production team was interested in creating more episodes post-17. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to research this and provide the links. That is greatly appreciated. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Shouldn't the lead have a brief sentence that provides an overview of the series (or at least an overview for the series for that season)? You briefly mention that the season centers around the COVID-19 pandemic, but I think a brief overview sentence about the show's basic premise would help unfamiliar readers. Done. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Shouldn't the characters be linked and have their full names used on their first mention in the episode summaries? Done. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I used to be a huge Grey Anatomy's fan, but I honestly stopped watching a while back as I was disappointed in the show's direction. I hope my comments so far are helpful, and I will do a more thorough review once everything has been addressed. I hope this will encourage other reviewers to look at this FAC and I look forward to reading the article more thoroughly in the near future. Have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47: I think I've addressed everything above. I left comments/questions on a few of the points but most of them were an easy fix. Thank you for taking the time to leave the comments you did and looking forward to addressing anything further ones from you or anyone else! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I am just glad that I can help. I still have a very strong sentimental/emotional attachment to this series so I look forward to reading this article in full and I am very happy that you have brought it to the FAC space. It does inspire me to work on a Grey's Anatomy article one day. I have collapsed my comments to save space. I have left some responses so feel free to look them over, but the gist of it is that I agree with your rationales. I will try my best to post a full review sometime in the next couple of days. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC) For this part, she sees a vision of herself on a beach, where she sees Derek Shepherd., I would avoid repeating "sees" twice in the same sentence. I think has a vision of herself would be a better alternative for this. I think it would be helpful to link Alzheimer's disease in the "Fight the Power" episode summary. For this sentence, Amid the Seattle protests following the killing of George Floyd, Richard and Hayes go to protest., would it be beneficial to link "the Seattle protests" to the George Floyd protests in Seattle article? It is is linked later in the article so I would think it should be linked here for consistency. I believe in "In My Life", Teddy sees Meredith while in her catatonic state. Would that be worth mentioning or is it too trivial to mention in a more broad overview/episode summary like this one? I would link OB/GYN in the "Tradition" episode summary. For this part, following Schmitt's acceptance into the COVID vaccine trial., would it be beneficial to link COVID-19 vaccine? The vaccine is linked later in the article so I would think it should be linked here for consistency. I would revise this part, It was later revealed by an ABC insider that the network was, to the active tense (i.e. An ABC insider later revealed...). The meaning of this part, with Dane's return kept secret until the appearance, is not immediately clear to me. I am assuming that these guest spots were kept secret from the public so I am guessing this is referring to the return being kept secret from the cast, but I am not sure if that is the right interpretation. I would clarify this further. I've been told in the past to not link Los Angeles as it is a very recognizable city so it is often seen as an example of overlinking. For this part, after being upped to a series regular, I would replace "being upped to" with "being promoted to" as the current wording seems too informal for a Wikipedia article. For this part, Robert Mesa was also cast in a recurring role for the season, I believe it should be Robert I. Mesa since the middle initial is included earlier in the article and in the citation title. I would use a different link in this part, James Chee, the first indigenous doctor on the series. The current link goes to an article which is more of an overview of every indigenous people and goes into different regions on different continents. I would think the more specific Indigenous peoples of the Americas article or the even more specific Native Americans in the United States article would be preferable since I am assuming this character is an American Indian and not an indigenous person from elsewhere. Please correct me if I am wrong (and if that is the case, the link would still need to be modified for clarify). Krista Vernoff is linked twice in the article. Fictional crossover is also linked twice. This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part, The storyline was finished by the death of DeLuca, I would say DeLuca's death to be more concise. The "child adoption" word choice in this part, and the struggles of child adoption, seems off to me. I would a majority of readers would assume an adoption is referring to a child as opposed to an adult adoption. I would just say adoption as I think adult adoption would the case that it would need to be further clarified. I would link DVD. I know this sounds silly, but there may be a day that some readers may be unfamiliar with DVDs since the way television is consumed is now different with streaming. For the Critical response subsection, I would see if there is a way to make the content flow more seamlessly from one point to the next. Right now, it jumps arounds a little too much. For instance, the first sentence is about NBC Think praising the show for its accuracy and portrayal of COVID-19 and then the next sentence is about TVLine's critiques of the beach scenes. WP:RECEPTION is a great resource. Apologies if you have already been linked to this in the past. The content in this subsection is very good. My concern is with the organization and structure. For the Showbuzz Daily citations, I would avoid having parts of the titles in all caps, even if the publication does this in their own titles. I would look through the other citations to avoid this (like for Exclusive in Citation 41 and Recap in Citation 49). Apologies for the amount of comments. The article is in very good shape, and I very much enjoyed reading it. You have put a lot of work and time into this and that is to be admired. I have focused my review on the prose with one stray comment on the citations at the end. I believe this should be all of my comments, but I read through the article one more time to make sure I have not read over anything. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Alright I think that I have addressed everything you mentioned. I removed the portion Dane's return being kept secret. Specifically in this context Dane's return was kept secret until the episode aired while Leigh's return was publicized in the week leading up to it (we were expecting to see Leigh but not Dane). When compared to the rest of the returning everything was mixed so since I didn't note the rest I feel its better to remove: Dempsey's return was kept secret from cast and crew (other than those on scene filming + McKidd), Drew's return was announced well before the episode aired, and I believe that Knight's return was also publicized the week leading. Other than that everything should be good; thanks for taking this time to review this article, I hope your upcoming Wikibreak helps you get some well-needed rest! TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC and thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

While this has attracted a general support the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I feel like this is a bad setup for the FAC process. This isn't an overwhelming series of opposes or even a lack of addressing comments of my part. It is solely a lack of people willing to review. I've done everything I can to move the process along, I can force myself to resolve any issues but I can't force other people to support or oppose the article. I'll leave a comment on the main FAC talk page and see if anyone else is willing to review it, but I feel like there should be a better system in place for situations like this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just an additional update really quick in case you or any other FAC Coordinator is looking at this, I'm working on addressing the below comments, I've addressed most everything aside from about four specific things, if I counted correctly. I should have a block of time either late tomorrow or early Thursday to address what's left. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Just kind of trying to not screw this up. I've never watched this series nor this specific season so forgive me for any mistakes.

• Cast members carried their own makeup bags to do their own last-minute touch-ups — I think the second instance of "their own" is redundant.
• the titular character; making a reported — is the semi-colon meant to be a comma?
• Krista Vernoff on writing for the season. — per MOS:CAPFRAG, I do not think the full stop is needed.
• previously worked for the Center for Disease Control said — shouldn't there be a comma after "Control"?
• Andrew DeLuca, that was — should "that" be "which"?
• stated before leaving "I want — should there be a colon or comma after "leaving"?
• I don't want a title, just let me help." and explaining — having "and" after the full stop looks a little weird to me. Perhaps turn and explaining that while he was in the hospital with the coronavirus that he had six roommates and was the only white person. into a complete sentence (if you get what I'm saying).
• May 2020 instead of November 2020," writing/was a "major mistake;" — per MOS:LQ, I think the comma/semi-colon should be outside of the quotation...
• averaged 1.02 in the 18-49 demographic/Live+7 ratings, the season averaged 1.9 in the 18-49 demographic — I have no idea what this means. Pamzeis (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright I believe I've addressed everything above, I used MOS:LQ to fix your point above that as well, but if you think it would be better in separate sentences let me know and I'll be glad to fix it. For the last points I've added explanatory footnotes that explain what the terms mean as well as two additional wikilinks. Let me know if there's anything else! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support — nice work! Pamzeis (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Review by JJE

Prose and image placement seem good to me. I have to ask if the reception section is good - currently it's a bit "A said B". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that citations are consistently formatted, although I can't speak of their reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As WP:RECEPTION points out this can't be avoided completely, I have however attempted to very it slightly from sentence to sentence, where possible. I'm currently in the process of working on any reliability issues from the source review that was left below. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Spot-check

• 1: OK.
• 115: I am not sure that the source is talking about an after the premiere?
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Don't quite understand what you're asking here. This source is here to verify the claim that "[...] in a two-hour back-to-back timeslot," the source states "an emotional two-hour season premiere of Grey’s Anatomy’s 17th season." TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear enough - I am unsure about what the "immediately following the first episode" is sourced to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the clarification! I bumped the source that was earlier in the sentence to the end. It verifies with the timeslots of both episodes and the term "double feature." Thanks, TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• 84: Vancouver is not mentioned.
  • It was in the source before, just moved that part up to the sentence before so that way the sources verify where they should. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 130: OK.
• 68: OK.
• 9: OK.
• 8: OK.
• 24: OK.
• 91: OK.
• 49: Can I have a copy of this?
  • I swapped all of these Hulu sources out to Netflix since Hulu's rights expired. Although the link goes to Netflix these sources are the episodes themselves where the credits are being used to verify the appearance. Unfortunately, unless you have Netflix or some other means of viewing the episode, (other streaming services outside of the U.S. or the DVD set) I can't actually provide you a copy of it without breaking Netflix terms of service and/or U.S. copyright laws. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • That makes it clearer, but I'll AGF on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• 14: OK.
• 77: OK.
• 16: OK.
• 148: OK.
• 55: OK.
• 11: OK.
• 71: OK.
• 41: OK.
• 86: Where is "all of me" mentioned?
  • Added additional source which verified the last appearance. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 136: OK.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this passes the spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This is my first FAC review, but I've gained a fair bit of experience with TV articles, so let's give this a whirl. "Richard Flood and Anthony Hill who both appeared in the sixteenth season" → "Richard Flood and Anthony Hill, who appeared in the sixteenth season" Not a source review, but source 1 is missing a website name Also, lots of sources seem to be from Showbiz Cheatsheet, which from my experience is very clickbaity and not a strong source. Past discussions have also expressed concerns over the site. "T.R. Knight" → "T. R. Knight" (multiple occurrences) "T.J. Thyne" → "T. J. Thyne" "One additional episode was ordered bringing the total episode count" → "One additional episode was ordered, bringing the total episode count" "last-minute touch-ups and different camera lenses" → "last-minute touch-ups, and different camera lenses" Add wikilink for COVID-19 testing to "testing for the virus" "A few days later ABC Signature President" → "A few days later, ABC Signature President" "making her the highest-paid actress currently on broadcast television" – citation needed "the eleventh season finale" → "the eleventh-season finale" "throughout the season appearing in four episodes total" → "throughout the season, appearing in four episodes total" "in Vancouver, Canada where she was filming Supergirl, a green screen" → "in Vancouver, Canada, where she was filming Supergirl; a green screen" "the fourteenth season episode" → "the fourteenth-season episode" "the seasons twelfth episode" → "the season's twelfth episode, "Sign O' the Times" " No need to cite "Krista Vernoff on writing for the season" at the end of the block quote, since the lead-in sentence attributes it to her "Center for Disease Control" → "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (update wikilink accordingly) "its previous timeslot of Thursday's" → "its previous timeslot of Thursdays" Review from Tell-Tale TV probably isn't notable enough for inclusion, as the website doesn't have an article. "three to for months earlier" → "three to four months earlier" Update "2020–21" to "2020–2021" for consistency Consider adding external link to IMDb Let me know if you have questions about any of this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Alright I've addressed all the comments you raised above, all the Cheatsheet sources have been replaced with other sources with the exception of one claim which was removed. Let me know if there's anything else! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I made a few small changes to grammar that had been missed earlier (that seemed easier than pointing them out again). The only remaining issue is that the IMDb link should go to the specific season, not the main series page. Also, add a bullet in front of the link, and write the link's title as "Grey's Anatomy (season 17)" instead of "Grey's Anatomy (season 17)". RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC) I changed the link directly to the season instead. As for the formatting the template defaults in italics so without any additional formatting you get: "Grey's Anatomy (season 17) at IMDb." By adding the typical italic formatting to eliminate it it leaves a spare apostrophe that shouldn't be there: "Grey's Anatomy (season 17)' at IMDb" and also makes the any subsequent text bold apparently... If you reduce what would be the closing italic code to only one: "Grey's Anatomy (season 17) at IMDb" it does it successfully but still leaves any subsequent text bold. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Is it possible to add the link and bullet without the template? RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Done, can't believe I forgot to add the bullet last time around when it was right there in front of me. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – it's nice to see more TV articles getting promoted. Good work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "Filming on the series began in September 2020 while the season did not premiere until November 12, 2020, both delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic" - source for the delay claim?
• "Ellen Pompeo signed a one-year contract to return for the season, making her the highest-paid actress currently on broadcast television" - source?
• What makes Futon Critic a high-quality reliable source? Showbuzz Daily? Showbiz Cheatsheet? US Weekly? Pajiba? Tell-Tale TV? Jezebel? FanSided? HowStuffWorks?
• FN114: publication is incorrectly presented. Ditto 140, check for others
• FN122 is incomplete

• This is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Just to clarify, incomplete as in there being no author listed? There's not one listed on the article so I can attempt to replace it if that's the problem but everything else is complete I believe. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, if there's no author credited there's no author to list, that's fine. But there is a publication date that should be listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Added, thanks for pointing that out. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN128: is there no better sourcing for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourced the first two, fixed the next to last two. No better sourcing for the DVDs, in the age of streaming I believe that it's pretty rare for full DVD reviews to be released now days. It feels odd not to include the information though but if the sources aren't up to standards I understand if it needs removed. Here's some discussions on the use of The Futon Critic where the overall consensus is that its reliable: 2008 discussion and 2015 discussion. The Cheatsheet, Fansided, and Tell-Tale TV sources have been removed per above comments. US Weekly and Jezebel have no consensus results from discussions (see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; however considering that the US Weekly uses are primarily based around interviews and since the Jezebel source isn't being used for a BLP claim (which is the primary issue addressed in the discussions) I feel that their uses are acceptable here. Disucssion here on Jezebel where it seems to be fine in its use in the critical response section since its attributed and not being used to support a claim. HowStuffWorks seems to be fine for "basic facts" only because it sometimes "oversimplifies things". Showbuzz Daily is widely used for viewing figures, it clearly lists its data sources and authors who have broad and extensive experience in the area. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The requirement in the FA criteria is "high-quality reliable sources" (my emphasis), not simple reliability; sources that lack consensus on basic reliability are always going to be questioned. With that in mind, could you elaborate on why you feel these sources meet that higher bar? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure my answer would change much on the surface. In simplest terms I believe that they are high-quality reliable sources because they are reliable and widely used. Getting slightly more into specifics in my experience these sources aren't biased and as far as I'm aware have independent editorial oversight. On the other end sources like TFC oftentimes uses press releases from the networks but is used as a compliment to the other sources making them just as high-quality. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Being widely used doesn't in itself make something reliable. Can you give more information about the editorial oversight in these sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best here just to provide a more in-detail analysis of the sources you mentioned and why I think that they are high-quality sources (as well as any editorial oversight):

• The Futon Critic: Often publishes press releases from networks, in these cases any editing resides at the network. When this information isn't available to the general public it can be used to verify information that resides in these releases. [74]
• Showbuzz Daily: Primarily used for viewing figure information. This information isn't usually released from Nielsen to the general public so other sources are frequently used for the information. The website clearly lists their authors, experience, credentials, and their sources on their website which provides transparency. [75].
• Showbiz Cheatsheet: Removed per other comments.
• US Weekly: Owned by A360media which discloses their editorial mission statement for US Weekly . [76]

• Have to say this statement doesn't provide much in the way of concrete reassurance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Have to say I don't think I've ever seen someone question the quality of a US Weekly source so much but I replaced the three of them that were used if that works for you? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pajiba: Also provides transparency by listing authors and editors, their experience, mailing addresses, etc. I feel that there's not as much to say here since its being used as a review source and not to verify information but I think what I said is a large part of what pushes the quality of this source. [77].

• The info provided there about the author in question doesn't support that the review is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Replaced.... TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tell-Tale TV: Removed per other comments.
• Jezebel: Again clearly lists their authors and editors along with contact information. Also, the website is owned by G/O Media which has an in-detail description of their editorial policy, information on sources, and a host of other information. [78] and [79].
• FanSided: Removed per other comments.
• HowStuffWorks: mainly relies on primary sources for their information, where primary sources aren't available they analyze secondary sources for quality. In writing they aim to eliminate personal biases. They also clearly list their authors and editors with credentials on their website, most of them holding at minimum a bachelors degree and having significant experience in their field. [80] and [81].

• It doesn't appear that the author cited here is listed there? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Could be a former writer, freelance writer, not sure. Either way, its been replaced. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope that this provided more of the information that you were looking for? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – pass

I'll do the image review for this. Moisejp (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would remove "link1 = Ellen Pompeo" and "link2 = Patrick Dempsey". I've never seen these kind of links on pictures in articles, and with them I'm not sure how readers can access the licensing info about the pictures. As a reviewer, I had to go into the code, copy the file name, and search for each image manually. Also, the image of Gianniotti does not have such a link, so already there is inconsistency for images that do.
• Add periods to the captions of the images of Pompeo, Dempsey, and Gianniotti because they are full sentences. Otherwise the captions are good.
• I believe the non-infobox images should be configured as "thumb" per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size.
• The FUR on the infobox image seems fine. Moisejp (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Addressed 1, 2, and 4. I know that the image of Gianniotti is configured as thumb. Pompeo and Dempsey uses {{multiple images}} which as far as I was aware automatically configured as thumb? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi DoctorWho, OK, sounds good then. I looked at Template:Multiple_image and didn't see anything specific about automatically rendering the image as "thumb" but the size of the other two does seem to be approximately the same as the Gianniotti, so in any case, the image size seems to be reasonable. I'm satisfied. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "pandemic,[1][2] for the" why just the two citations in the lead? These could/should be moved to the main part of the article where these matters are revisited in more detail.
• "the lowest of any" the fewest of any
• "the transfer of" isn't "transmission" a more apt word?
• If Anthony Hill is a "star" of Grey's Anatomy, is he not notable enough for an article?
• "the COVID-19 pandemic" could link to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States?
• "James Pickens, Jr. " we don't put commas in these kinds of names any longer.
• "Original air date [4]" no space before reference. I know this is probably a template issue but it needs to be fixed.
• "the COVID-19 pandemic, the doctors" this should also link to the US article.
• "find themselves in uncharted territory as they work to save lives without any end in sight" this is lacking in encyclopedic tone and reads like the back of a DVD.
• "continue dying from" continue to die.
• "for his mania" which is?
• "gets his stress relieved by him" clumsy writing.
• "Bailey's mom", "her mom" etc mother.
• "a COVID room" a treatment room?
• "a run for their money " tone issues again.
• Two notable guests don't have articles. What is the inclusion criteria for this set of "notable" individuals?

That takes me to production. Ping me when we're good to continue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed nearly everything you mentioned. From what I can gather this series, and more specifically this season, is Hill's first "starring" role. Just from a quick look at his IMDb page everything before this appears to just be minor guest roles dating back to only about 2011. With this so far one off starring role this is probably why he doesn't have his own article. I left a message at Template talk:Episode table leaving a message about the space, I'm not knowledgeable in Lua modules to fix it myself, but even if I was this specific template is protected. I'll monitor that discussion and can keep you updated on any developments

I'm gonna go ahead and address the entirety of the guest list just in case anyone else has questions about what makes them notable. A number of them are made of former starring cast members (Knight, Dane, Leigh, and Drew), a number of them are starring cast members on spin-off series Station 19 (Doss, Hayden, Damon, Savre, and Onaodowan), family members of cast/crew members (Rashad), guest stars who have appeared in multiple seasons (not necessarily recurring in any singular season but who could be considered recurring when looking at the series as a whole) (Faison, Taylor, Saum, Armstrong, Roberts, Mooney). Looking at Boulware and Ames, the two without articles that you mentioned, they don't actually appear to meet any of these categories. I didn't actually create the list but if I had to guess someone added them because their characters are family members of main characters. As far as I can remember I don't think either of these character impacted the storyline in any significant way, even that though wouldn't prove notability. I'll go ahead and remove the two of them unless someone else can provide a source that proves any notability. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Just an additional update, I received a response from the discussion, the spacing in the template has to do with accessability requirements and falls within the guidelines of MOS:REFPUNCT. You can read a more in-detail response there. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the COVID-19 pandemic, finishing" could be more specific, i.e. the "in the United States" COVID article?
• " star Ellen Pompeo announced" not sure you need "star" but in any case, link her here, or don't bother with the first name. That linking/first name thing applies throughout the remainder on your first non-list mention of each notable actor.
• "since conditions were uncertain" what does this add? And what "conditions"? Is it COVID again?
• "lower episode count tied with the fourth season for the second-lowest episode count of any season, only having more episodes " episode and season overdose, each one used three times in a single sentence...
• "the coronavirus, cast" could link the actual virus.
• "to prevent large crowds from gathering" do you really mean "for social distancing"?
• "receiving over $575,000 per episode.[73]" the source does not say "over".
• "around $20 million total" non-breaking space before million.
• "continued to recur" this reads very odd to me, wouldn't "made recurring appearances" be more natural?
• "in a nursing home.[99][100] Wilson stated that nursing homes" bit repetitive.
• "Williams' and "Williams's"

Just refs to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Everything has been addressed. I believe that the "since conditions were uncertain" was necessary because it explained why the episode count wasn't locked in place; in my experience, once an episode count is given they don't change for no reason, if a series is popular additional episodes might be ordered or a writers strike may cause less episodes to be produced, I felt the explanation added in context. It was however, uncertain because of COVID, and I attached that reason to the end. Thanks for catching the "over $575,000", the first article I read about her contract stated "north of $550,000" so I believe that I had "over $550,000" written, later finding a source which explicitly gave the number 575, so I updated that but forgot to remove the "over". I slightly adjusted the statement about recurring to read "continued to make recurring appearances" only because I felt is was important to point out that the actor did continue to make appearances despite becoming a series regular in the spin-off. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• From previous sections, "that Jesse Williams, who " that's a dab link.
• "pm ET.[120][8] The" ref order.
• Ref 2, both hyphens should be en-dash.
• Ref 41, SHOUTING.
• Ref 93, Sun-Times is hyphenated.
• Ref 147, age range needs en-dash.
• Ref 149, same.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: All taken care of. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Great, I'm happy with the changes made in response to my concerns. Good work, support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

References: Could the titles of articles be in - a consistent - title case please. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"articles"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe @Gog the Mild: was referring to the fact that a lot of the references didn't use a similar title case (some only capitalized the first word and proper nouns, others capitalized every word, others used a standard title case of capitalizing most but leaving the standard "a, an, the, in, by", etc. lowercase). It's just a result of copying and pasting the title off the website and each website having their own standard. I've attempted to make it more uniform ([82]), but I will admit my eyes started getting a bit blurry halfway through. Hopefully its better than it originally was though. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It it, but not quite there yet. Eg, "Another Beloved Character Makes A Return to the Beach", there are others. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I fixed the one that you mentioned, and made another pass over finding a few more, actually found a few duplicate refs as well and fixed those. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I did a Cnrl-F search for "title=" and found about 40% of a sample needed correcting. Have a look at this diff [83] and see if you can do the same for the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologize for the delay, had a few midterms over the last two weeks. I should be able to get back to this tomorrow. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I do need to ask, are there specific Wikipedia guidelines that you're following on which words to capitalize and which to leave lowercase? One of the edits I made involved capitalizing the word "is" in most uses but in the edit you made was that you decapitalized that word. Per this, the word should be capitalized. Same with they, be, it (especially since this one is capitalized in references to the episode within prose), and in. Are all of these counting towards the 40% that you mentioined? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to that number. The rules are at MOS:5LETTER. If you are happy that they are met, ping me. (I suspect that I didn't stick to these when I was copy editing. If so, apologies.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thank you, I'll take a look at that tomorrow. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Alright, I went through yesterday and once more today, I found quite a few more and fixed them. How does it look now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with the reference formatting changes here? If so, I will go ahead and promote this. Hog Farm _Talk 13:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 1 November 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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:59, 1 November 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) 9 October 2021 [84].

---

El Tatio

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to Mars. In the past it was also prospected for geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Is there a reason to {{clear}} Climate and biology, rather than just moving the image up?
• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria:I think I got both issues? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1

• Suggest swapping 2nd and 3rd sentences as size more important than meaning of name

  Done, seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• "The vents are sites of populations of extremophile microorganisms and have been studied as analogs for the early Earth and possible past life on Mars." implies that there were/are similar vents on Mars - if that is right could you say a bit more in the body - if wrong suggest splitting into 2 sentences to clarify

  Went with the second option as I couldn't find anything readily usable to source an expanded description of the Mars analogy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• "As of 2010, about 10.9 gigawatt geothermal energy are produced on Earth, not all of it linked to active volcanism." could be deleted unless you are comparing it with the potential of this field in which case it should be updated and might be better to be put closer to the potential for this field.

  Deleted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete "(130,000–540,000 hp)"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 hereChidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Aye, they were useful. I'll see about that FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

While this has passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Put some notices on the FAC talk page and my own, as well as on the two wikiprojects. I am wondering if Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy may also be interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: The internet for my PC has been out for two days and I was busy prior to that so I haven't been able to take a good look at this article. I will try to review it in a bit. Volcanoguy 15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo Eumerus, this is liable to be archived very soon. Perhaps you could contact some of the editors you have recently done source reviews for with a neutrally phrased request for a review here? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'll see, pinging @ZKang123, Wtfiv, Serendipodous, Kusma, Ippantekina, Mr rnddude, Lee Vilenski, and Ceoil: to see if they want to review this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Will review. No knowledge of geology, I'll probably ask some naive questions for clarification. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  I just got back to a stable place where I can usefully help out. Like Kusma, I'm not sure how much I can contribute in terms of the topic. But I'll certainly try and review to the best of my abilities in the next couple of days. Wtfiv (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Volcanoguy

Geomorphology and geography

• "The field is located 89 kilometres (55 mi)-80 kilometres (50 mi) north". Should probably use 80–89 kilometres (50–55 mi).

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "From north to south the andesitic stratovolcanoes include the 5,651-metre 18,540 ft)[20][7][21] or 5,696 metres (18,688 ft) high". 5,696 metres should be 5,696-metre. Also citation error.

  I think I got it, but I don't see a citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, and they collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group.[20][7][21][b]" should be "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, which collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group." Also citation error.

  Done, but I don't see the citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Geothermal field

• "and is the largest geyser field in the southern hemisphere". Shouldn't southern hemisphere be capitalized?

  Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the highest geyser field in the world.[45][13]" Citation error.

• "and their geysers are taller than these at El Tatio". Replace these with those.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents known as soffioni and steaming soil" would read better as "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents and steaming soil" with "steam vents" piped to the soffioni article.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Stronger geothermal activity is located within three discrete areas covering a total of 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi) surface, and includes boiling water fountains, hot springs, geysers, mudpots, mud volcanoes and sinter terraces;[47][13]" Citation error.

• "Many vents are linked to fractures that run northwest-southeast or southwest-northeast across the field." En dashes.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Small scale features include cones, crusts, mollusc-shaped formations, waterfall-like surfaces and very small terraces." Small-scale.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Geysers and also water fountains discharge from up to 3-metre (9.8 ft) high cones[70][66]" Citation error.

• "The activity of geysers is not stable over time, changes in water supply or in the properties of the conduit that supplies them can cause changes in their eruptive activity." A semicolon would probably be better than a comma.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Geology

• "The region was dominated by andesitic volcanism producing lava flows until the late Miocene, then large scale ignimbrite activity took place between 10 and 1 million years ago." Large-scale.

• "The APVC is underpinned by a large magma chamber with the shape of a sill, the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body; a number of volcanoes and geothermal system including El Tatio are geographically associated with the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body." Geothermal systems.

• "The terrain at El Tatio is formed by Jurassic–Cretaceous sediments of marine and volcanic origin, Tertiary–Holocene volcanic formations that were emplaced in various episodes, and recent sediments formed by glaciers, alluvium, colluvium and material formed by the geothermal field, such as sinter.[78][21]" Citation error.

• "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock has occurred at El Tatio, it has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite." would probably read better as "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock at El Tatio has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The summit parts of several volcanoes of the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity." I would reword this to "The summits of several volcanoes comprising the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity."

  Hmm, I think that that reads a little odd - a summit is an one-dimensional point not a three-dimensional structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "summit parts"? I understood that as parts of a summit. Volcanoguy 05:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hydrology

• "The source of heat of the whole complex appears to be the Laguna Colorada caldera,[84][21][85] the El Tatio volcanic group,[41][47] the Cerro Guacha and Pastos Grandes calderas[86][15] or the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body.[87]" Citation errors.

• "The water travels through a number of aquifers that correspond to permeable rock formations, such as the Salado and Puripicar ignimbrites,[92][90] as well as through faults and fractures in the rock." Citation error.

• "Arsenic concentrations in waters at El Tatio can reach 40 milligrams per litre (2.3×10⁻⁵ oz/cu in)[99]-50 milligrams per litre (2.9×10⁻⁵ oz/cu in)". I would use 40–50 milligrams per litre (2.3×10⁻⁵–2.9×10⁻⁵ oz/cu in).

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Fumaroles

• "Carbon dioxide is the most important fumarole gas, followed by hydrogen sulfide.[107][85][53]" Citation errors.

Composition of spring deposits

• "Volcanic rock fragments such as plagioclase and quartz are found within cavities of the sinter." Plagioclase and quartz are minerals, not rock fragments.

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Microorganisms

• "Biofilms and microbial mats are omnipresent at El Tatio,[133] including Calothrix,[70][65] Leptolyngbya,[134] Lyngbya and Phormidium[e] cyanobacteria, which form mats within the hot springs covering the solid surfaces, including oncoids and the sinter.[70][65]" Citation errors.

Geological history

• "The intersection between northwest-southeast trending and northnorthwest-southsoutheast-trending lineaments at El Tatio has been correlated with the occurrence of geothermal activity." Northwest–southwest trending, north-northwest–south-southeast trending.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The first was the 10.5–9.3 million years old[f] Rio Salado ignimbrite". Grammar.

• "It was followed by the 8.3 million years old voluminous Sifon ignimbrite". Grammar.

  I think I got both? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced dacite dominated large volume ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene." I would reword this to "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced large volume dacite ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene."

  Yeah, that's better; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Petrological data suggest that over time the erupted lavas of the El Tatio volcanic group have become more mafic, with older products being andesitic and later ones basaltic-andesitic." Is this implying the later lavas are both basaltic and andesitic or is it referring to basaltic andesite?

  Both basaltic and andesitic, not basaltic andesite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "There is no recorded historical volcanism in the El Tatio area[47] and volcanism has not directly affected it since about 27,000 years." I'm thinking "for about 27,000 years" might be better wording.

  Yes, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Research published in 2020 suggests that the geothermal activity commenced in the southern part of the field about 27,000 - 20,000 years ago and spread northwards, reaching the western part of the field last less than 4,900 years ago." Is "last" an extra word? Seems out of place.

  It wasn't an extra word, but it doesn't add anything so it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Human exploitation

• "Feasibility studies in northern Chile identified El Tatio as a potential site for geothermal power generation, with large scale prospecting taking place in the 1960s and 1970s." Large-scale.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1973 and 1974, wells were drilled and it was estimated that if the geothermal resources were fully exploited, about 100–400 megawatts electric power could be produced." 100–400 megawatts of electric power.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversy

• "the incident triggered a major controversy about geothermal power, with ramifications beyond Chile." I would replace "about" with "over".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

All this from my first pass. Volcanoguy 00:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy:Done so far but I don't see what the "citation error"s are about? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I always thought citations had to be in order. Volcanoguy 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy:Hmm, yeah. I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This article has my support. Volcanoguy 16:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• FN20: why no retrieval date?

  I just forgot it; now it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN50: page formatting. Ditto FN119, check for others

  I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Still issues here, eg 151. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Aye, I missed some of them. Now they should be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Why do some journals include ISSN and others not?

  I don't think that the tools always include ISSN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean by that - are you suggesting the works without it don't have one? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. I've been checking some and I can't find the ISSN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN178 is missing italics on work title. Ditto 184, check for others

  Remind me, "work" here is the title of the article, or of the newspaper? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Newspaper. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think I got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN179 is missing language

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN185 is a broken link - what kind of source is this?. Ditto 186, 187

  It's a newspaper which I guess decided to go for paywalls. Added archives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when location is included

  Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering multiples Sources entries with the same first author?

  Went for "last names, then year". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, is this up to scratch now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like there have been substantial formatting changes since my review... would be good to have the new short footnotes be spaced normally, as the existing ones were. Alphabetization of Sources is off now as well. Some of the works missing ISSNs definitely have them, eg Geochemical Journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria:I admit I am not sure what "spaced normally" means. I've handled the alphabetization with a first author>work/title>year priority rule. Got all the ISSNs I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you look at the previous set of short cites, they all have spaces between authors and dates (and so are easier to scan), whereas the newer set have no spaces. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria:Ah, these ones. I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

• Lead: three short paragraphs all starting with "El Tatio", looks a bit odd.

  Changed the first word, but I am not sure that they should be made longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  I was more wondering whether they could be combined.

  I'd think that having one big block is a little less readable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Merging the first two paragraphs wouldn't lead to one big block yet.

  OK, tried something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is El Tatio a "geyser field" or a "geothermal field with many geysers"? This way of presenting it would be ok if a "geothermal field" is a special case of a "geyser field", not so much the other way around.

  Second; changed the first mention but I am not sure that the second mention can be changed without a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• El Tatio lies at the western foot of a series of stratovolcanoes, which run along the border between Chile and Bolivia. This series of volcanoes is I don't quite know what the "western foot" is. Also, shouldn't it be "the series runs"?

  "Western foot" means that the field lies at the western base of the mountains. I am concerned that "the series" might sound like TV series or something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant. I would prefer "series of stratovolcanoes, which runs" to "which run".

  Ah, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• supereruptions: when?

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Name: The term "tatio" is Kunza maybe explain that "Kunza" is a language, and who speaks it? Does "Copacoya" mean anything?

  Rewritten. I don't think there are any speakers left and I couldn't find any etymology for Copacoya. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  You could mention the mountain (you talk about it later). eswiki has "the grandfather who cries" as translation of "el tatio", but I can't comment on the reliability of their sources. —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I am unsure on whether these sources are good for a toponym etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Geomorphology and geography: You start with geography?

  Swapped terms around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• The worker's camp is not a town. Better to split it into its own sentence.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• all parts of the field are easily accessible walking? by road? with a wheelchair?

  Good question. I did look for an official website or something and all I got was a rock. The Rough Guide and Lonely Planet could be used but I am not sure that they would qualify as "high-quality reliable sources". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  "easily accessible" still doesn't work without context. While we're at this point, is Siloli the same as Silala River? (es:Silala makes me think so).

  From the source it seems like "on foot" is correct so that's in. Regarding Siloli, the source isn't clear if it's meant to be the river or a town of the same name, but the maps indicate that the places coincide, so that's in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Inka sanctuary: any information when that was?

  Only that it exists and (presumably) that it was operated during the Inka time, i.e 12-14th century. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• who and how far away is "Lascar"? (Apparently a volcano, but a gloss would help). Why is this relevant here?

  Glossed; it's the most active volcano in the region and 1993 its largest eruption during the past 20,000+ years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• East of the field andesitic stratovolcanoes reach A comma would help to explain whether this is "east of the field andesitic, stratovolcanoes ..." or "east of the field, andesitic stratovolcanoes..." This is probably easier for those who know what "andesitic" means without clicking the link. Next sentence would also be easier to parse with a comma after "south".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• the 4,570–4,690-metre Alto Ojo del Cablor: what do these numbers mean? Is the height variable or unknown? As we don't have a link for the mountain, maybe footnote?

  Elevation, it's a mountain range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps gloss it "Alto Ojo del Cablor range"? Also, some of this description would be much aided by a map. The one at es:El Tatio isn't great, but helps me understand this better (and has the Copacoya). (BTW the only entries on a Wikipedia about many of these mountains seems to be the Lsjbot articles, compare ceb:Cerro Copacoya and ceb:Alto Ojo de Cáblor. Not sure they are worth an {{ill}}).

  Glossed, and made a crop at File:03-tocopilla-calama (El Tatio).jpg; how does it look? I don't see any ILLs, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think including the map could be helpful. ILL: I meant that I'm not sure whether adding {{ill}}'s to the Cebuano bot articles is worth doing, but that's probably my anti-robot prejudice speaking. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Checking Nikkimaria whether File:03-tocopilla-calama (El Tatio).jpg is fine for inclusion. I wouldn't bother adding the ill's in this case for the same reasons as you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  What's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Risopatrón died in 1930, I can't find the dates for the other two mapmakers involved. Either way in the US they are public domain as the 1910 publication, corrected in 1913, is no longer copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  US status is fine, but the image also has a life+70 tag - if we can't confirm that to be the case, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, yeah, and upon checking this would create problems for Commons. I've nominated the maps for deletion here but since we only care about US copyrights on enwiki I think we could upload local copies and add them to the wiki here. What say you, Nikkimaria? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is done. I am wondering if there is a way to mass-transfer Commons images to enwiki in cases such as these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Dacitic volcanism: is this volcanism from the Dacitic Age, or volcanism producing dacite stones?

  Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• this volcanism was known as the "liparitic formation" and it covers large areas in the region I have difficulties parsing this sentence.

  I see but I am not sure how to reword it. It means that there are volcanic rocks which form a group called the "liparitic formation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Will continue later. Interesting article, but not so easy to read. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Geothermal field: About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. This sentence seems a bit out of place here; doesn't this work much better together with the 67 geysers and 300 hot springs and their names? (Or am I misunderstanding something here?) It is odd that some of the names are in English.

  Hmm, yeah. Moved it down. I think the English names are informal terms used by researchers, English being the most common language in science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  It is unclear here whether these are the local names used by tourists, scientists' nicknames, or a mixture of both.

  Probably mostly scientists' nicknames but the problem is that in the absence of a dedicated discussion we only have probablyies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Some geyser fountains reached heights greater than 10 metres tense? Do you mean "have occasionally reached" or "have in the past reached"?

  The latter; rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't like the bulleted list of features much. The subsection "Geothermal field" is very long compared to others; any chance of splitting it?

  I am kind of uneasy with the list too but I don't think that leaving them as paragraphs would be better; we are discussing them in list style after all. I don't think the section is too much longer nor that it could easily be split. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Do we need three examples of "geyser cone" with identical caption?

  I think that, since we don't have many reliable sources that discuss the tourism aspects of what is after all a major tourist attraction, the images fill in some of that information. So I am tempted to say yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Geology section: first sentence kind of explains why this was called "central volcanic zone" a few sections up?

  If you are asking why we need to discuss it twice, it's because here it's only as geological background while the details are discussed in the section before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hydrology: The water is precipitation originally, but no water from precipitation is mixed into it? This is confusing.

  Specified that it's local precipitation that doesn't matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Three separate geothermal reservoirs sentence is a bit long and may suffer from a stray comma at the end. The names "A", "B", "C" do not seem to add much.

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fumaroles: don't use "particularly" twice in one sentence. Split the final sentence?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Climate and biology: has led to scientists treat El Tatio as "has led scientists to treat" or "has led to scientists treating".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• You could generally consider illustrating the part of the article between "Geology" and "Human exploitation" more. eswiki has a few plants and animals that could be in the Biology section, for example.

  I'll add File:Vicuñas near el Tatio geysers - panoramio.jpg and File:Yareta near el Tatio geysers - panoramio.jpg, I think. Nikkimaria for the customary check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be happy with those. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Those are both appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  And they are added, in gallery form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• biogenix typo

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• eswiki has quite a few birds living in the area.

  It does not have sources, however, and from searching I don't find any discussion on birds at El Tatio even though discussions of other waterbodies in the region (e.g Laguna Miscanti) mention plenty of them. So I am not sure how much of this is applicable to El Tatio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• You could mention which of the microorganisms are considered to be the extremophiles mentioned in the lead.

  In the lead itself or in the body? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  The issue is that the lead promises extremophiles, and then ctrl-f extremo doesn't find them in the body if you are too lazy to actually read. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Geological history: later this volcano was reinterpreted to be of Pleistocene age I'm a bit confused here. What was it previously interpreted at, who did the reinterpretation and why do you mention that it was reinterpreted?

  The source does not go in much detail, but I know that many "Holocene" volcanoes in the central Andes were later reinterpreted as actually being of Pleistocene age. And even more recently of the opposite such as Purupuruni and Taapaca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  So, previous scholarly consensus was Holocene, now it is Pleistocene? Or do some scholars (who?) say the one thing, some the other? Or is the consensus Holocene, but some people now think it is Pleistocene? —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know if I would call this a "consensus" as there is very little research done on these volcanoes but I think the first is the most appropriate interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Human exploitation: do we really need all the possible reported yields? It is curious that source 179 has two very different numbers.

  No, I've cut some. 179 is collating other people's research, which has come to differential conclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• 100 UTM: would prefer use of {{ill}} to a direct eswiki link and/or an explanation what the acronym means without having to read Spanish.

  Ill cannot handle plurals as far as I can see. Added a parenthetical

  UTM ?

  That seems to work; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tourism: It seems likely that there is information from pre-2009 (what's the history of tourism in this area?) and from post-2010. eswiki has some discussion of security measures and accidents. There also has apparently been some back and forth in declaring it a zona de interés turístico nacional.

  I couldn't find any good source on the tourism history, sorry. I'll see about whether this has more information on tourism but I am kind of dubious about whether most of the eswiki article sources meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Am I correct to assume that most tourists stay in San Pedro de Atacama and take day trips to El Tatio?

  Probably yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like it from Lonely Planet. [85]

• Sources: It is not obvious which sources use {{sfn}} and which sources use references directly, and it looks messy. For some citations, like the frog reference 149, a page number would be nice, and moving it ti {{sfn}} would make that easier.

  The rule is that sfn is for sources where I use more than one page, and direct when only one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the article is thoroughly researched, especially the science parts, which are great if a bit technical. I think the tourism/administration/protection part looks short compared to the rest of the article, given that it seems to be a major tourist attraction. I'd love to have some more maps/schematics/illustrations to aid my understanding. If Zeil 1959 is really CC-BY as claimed, it might be possible to use/adapt the maps? (At least mention that there are useful maps in that reference?) I'd probably use more commas and/or try to use shorter sentences overall, but I'll leave discussing that to the native speakers. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'll see to get some images from the Zeil source. I'll check about expanding the non-technical aspects but I don't promise anything - it seems like much of the tourism information is on private websites and such and thus doesn't meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Did a mini expansion and I've listed and annotated some additional sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  And here's a map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think that map would be very helpful. For the tourism information, I don't think we need the same level of scholarly sources as for the other information. I tried to look for sources by G-searching site:gob.cl for "El Tatio", which gives some candidates, but then remembered that I don't actually know enough Spanish. (The Yellowstone FA does cite US government pages extensively). —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  That's where I looked as well but it's pretty sparse overall. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly close to supporting now (especially if the Zeil map drawing goes in that is more clear about where the geysers are than the larger map), there's just a few layout/style issues: the bulleted list really doesn't fit in well with the rest, the images could be more evenly distributed in the article (and the two galleries behave differently on resizing, especially noticeable on wide screens). I'd prefer the APVC abbreviation to be introduced in the body instead of the lead, but that's minor and I won't insist on that. I'd still like more about tourism but I see your point about high quality sources. Thank you for switching to uniform {{sfn}}: it looks much cleaner now. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Another choice for the maps would be to export a piece of the OpenStreetMap display. I didn't manage to get <mapframe> to produce a similarly nice interactive map (test at my sandbox has only roads and rivers), but perhaps there are some experts for Wikipedia:Maplink who know what to do. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's just my opinion, but that OSM map is a little too bare bones for my liking. As I've noted below regarding Doctor Who, I think the bulleted list is better than some other presentations that could be done. I've tried something about the galleries, I think that moving the images around may even their distribution but would reduce their pertinence to the sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap seems much better for human geography questions than for physical geography, I agree (and you already have the mapframe map at a different zoom level). The Zeil map doesn't look nearly as empty as the OSM one (mostly thanks to the contour lines). Either would be very useful in addition to the 1910 topographical map because they show the location and extent of the geyser field.

The bulleted list is kind of lacking a title telling us what is being listed, or an intro sentence ending in a colon. Without those, it just looks like you're suddenly changing from unbulleted paragraphs to bulleted paragraphs. (Compare examples at MOS:LIST).

The larger images look much better for the second gallery, thanks. I think we disagree on our image placement preferences, but that's fine. You could consider linking vicuña and yareta in the captions. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Added the Zeil map. Added an intro for the list. Also linked the terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Brill. Supporting. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from wtfiv

Knowing next to nothing about the topic, I found this article to be well-written with the links quite informative in explaining the geology. Most of my comments are minor.

Also, I'd like to note that I very much appreciate that there appeared to be an effort in this article to use a good number of accessible articles that didn't require a paywall to verify. (Though I didn't spot-check references, I clicked to a number to get more information about a point.)

• Moraine needs a link.

  I see that the first mention is linked? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes...missed this one too. Started heading into the weeds of the article at that point.

• Sheetflow is red linked, but take a look at sheet erosion and see if that can be meaningfully linked (reducing one red link).

  Checked it, but I don't think it would work - that article only discusses the consequences of sheet flow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• It then leaves the article with a dangling, undefined term. Anything to help a less technical reader would be good.

• Would "sheet-like flow" be clearer? I think people know what "sheet" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Text around FN38 mentions Western Cordilla. This confused me, as Wikipedia articles point toward the North American Western Cordilla. Citation at FN38 mentions Eastern Cordilla drainage, but not Western.

  I think a better term would be Cordillera Occidental but would that be less clear? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Western Cordilla is unclear, so anything to disambiguate the term would be useful. At least the use of Spanish differentiates it from Western Cordilla in North America. And again, the reference mentions the Eastern drainage. Can these elements be brought into line?

• Well, the source is just wrong if it mentions the Eastern Cordillera - that one's hundred of kilometres east of El Tatio. I've rewritten this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Does sinster terrace need to be redlinked? Sinster is defined via a link, and a reader who looks up sinster the first time should be able to understand that a terrace is a terrace of sinster. If there are interesting and unusual aspects to sinster terraces that are notable and need to be explored, then maybe an article is needed?

  I think one could write an interesting topic about sinter terraces, so yes. But I don't think I have the stamina to do so at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is an unnecessary redlink. My own feeling is that featured articles minimize redlinks to a handful of necessary terms , and when a term is missing defines it in context. (Seeing a highway redlinked was also odd, but maybe its worthy of a historical review?) but I'm just trying help out here and I can see there is already a lot work in the article.

  I don't think we treat redlinks differently in FAs than in regular articles? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  No need to change anything with these. I just think too many redlinks just don't look good and leave the article with undefined terms. But it is clearly a matter of preference, so this is set.

• First two sentences beginning Geothermal field are a bit odd. Would it help to break sentences thematically? Sentence 1) Well known thermal field? 2) Largest and highest (mention in altitude). The comparison with Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov might be stronger reworded. "taller" initially seems synonymous with the previous sentences "higher", but higher is altitude, and "taller" could be incorporated into a dependent clause, as the "height" of geysers was not a topic in the previous two sentences. It's just a bit of additional information on Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov.

  I've done a rewrite but I'm afraid that I am not sure how to rewrite it further. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Edited the section and then reverted. Take a look, to see what I'm saying. The comparison of size betwee El Tatio, Yellostone and Dolina Geizerov, should adjacent. Height of geyser is not a directly relevant comparison, so subordinated, the world "altitude" added to remove confusion of high and tall. No need to keep edits, just illustrating the point and hopefully making clear the issue. Wtfiv (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, your rewrite is better than the current. I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)"

  Great! My main point for adding it was just to illustrate the issue I saw (very minor.) It's nice the edit will work.

• There's a great many duplicate links that could be reduced: (e.g., fumoroles, glaciers, Lake Tauca, Altiplano-Puna Magma body, to just name a few.) (In pruning my own, I found this script you may want to consider using, which helps immensely: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt)

  I'll take them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

*::Does that mean that they're not going to be addressed or they will be addressed? My thought is that they should be cleaned up, as that's part of the featured article process. Looks like they are addressed.

• In Geology: "recent" is linked to Holocene. Is there a non-awkward way to say "during the Holocene" rather than linking Holocene to recent? Again, I'll go either way, as I'm trying to just help shepherd the article to closure.

  Tried something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think the attempt to more precisely define what was intended by "recent" without relying on the link to do the work is helpful to the casual reader.

  "Recent" here is "last 11,700 years", would that need a source if we stated it in text? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• In Geology, the abbreviation APVC occurs without warning or definition. I saw in FN74 that it most likely stands for Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex, but this is not defined and the abbreviation is not forwarned (e.g., following full-name with abbreviation in parenthesis.) And Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex can be linked as well.

  Er, it is defined in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Now I see it. That's what I get for reading the article without the lead. Easy to miss as it pops up much later in the article, but it was defined early.

• In human exploitation, would it be worthwhile to slightly expand on the incident that caused the geothermic project to stall (i.e., uncontrolled well discharge)? (Following up, I think this does need to be mentioned in more detail in the article- maybe just a sentence or an expansion with a dependent clause- as you mention it in the introduction of the Featured Article Review as part of the article's notability.)

  See, my thinking is that currently it is adequately covered in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I see it. Following in the next section. The section break conceptually separated them for me, a more casual reader. So I didn't connect the "incident" with the following description of the other incident I'm sure a more technical reader wouldn't make that error, and reference to 2009 links them too, though it could still be mistaken for two different incidents.

  Thinking about this further, I think this would be just a bit clearer if the sentence It progressed until 2009, when an incident at the site along with environmental issues caused it to stall again. was slightly rewritten and integrated as the first sentence of the next subheading. The incident and its effect is, after all, the topic for this section. It's minor, but I think, helpful to the casual reader. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've been wondering about the structure here myself. The sequence is first research->trial drillings->2009 accident->resulting controversy. The sentence you quote was meant to be a lead-over to the focus change. Perhaps cutting that sentence would be better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think cutting it may work, as the subheading functions as its own lead over. Again, its very minor, but if it snagged me, I'm sure a handful of others would be snagged for it. But if the subheading jumps right into the incident and its subsequent stalling of the geothermal incident, that strikes me as a bit cleaner.

  I've cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• The biggest issue I see is the citations. The article remains a hybrid of ⟨ref⟩ and sfn. I wouldn't make support for this article conditional on this consistency, as it is a lot of work to fix. But isn't such consistency in citation style on of the hallmarks of a featured article? Does it seem like an issue from your perspective? Wtfiv (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I perhaps started off from a wrong premise, but back in the day I thought that this combination of sfn+ref was acceptable. Some of my more recent ones such as Lake Estancia are now standardized on only one, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  With respect to citation formatting, as I was under a different impression. During the citation spot check and image check, it seemed the FAR regulars did not address this issue, so it most likely it doesn't matter. But if we could, I'd like to get perhaps a word from one of people who monitor the FAR. Again, it's not something that stands or falls for me- I'm just trying to help out and beyond eventually give this article some support, as the responses make clear, there is really little of use I've had to offer except in terms of the misunderstandings a more casual reader may make. But perhaps this review can be useful for personal clarification: I thought a consistent citation style property of featured articles I thought was important- and one of the distinguishing characteristics of a GA from an FA. If not, that's good information to know. @Gog the Mild:, I know you've been helping the articles here move forward toward successfully completing the FAR process, are there any trends or guidelines one way or the other on this? (As mentioned, I'm not going to lay any support conditions on this article based on your- or any FA regulars- input, I just want to know the general guidelines.) Wtfiv (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've been thinking further on this. I think WP:CITE and WP:CITEVAR are clear that a consistent reference system should be in an article. Definitely, this is not as enforced in GAs (thank goodness), but I think FAs should aim reflect these values. My purpose for jumping into this particular review was mainly to answer the call for reviewers to support the hard work done on this article and help it get to FA, but I think this consistency is an important aspect of an FA article. For me to effectively support the it and to help the article with a bit more FA polish, it needs the consistency. Since my original goal was to help, I can offer this: If it does not disrupt the committed editors to the article, I'll gladly collaborate with others with the editing required out getting the remaining ref items in this article into sfn format. If you rather leave the article as is, I more than understand. It's a lot of work. Wtfiv (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, the main problem I see with changing the citation format from ref to sfn is that it'd be a lot of work. If someone wants to do it anyway, they can I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv and Jo-Jo Eumerus:, FAC criteria 2c requires "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you for replying. Last thing I want to do is hold up an article due to a personal preference, but I do want to help it meet FA criteria. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Where are you with the citations? Do you want some help making them consistent, or do you think you'll be able to get them done on your own? Wtfiv (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly, I was planning to pen up Salar Ignorado today and tomorrow, but I'll try. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Wtfiv: I've begun the transformation of ref to sfn, but feel free to add some help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nevermind, did this myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just checked in to see if I need to help, but its done and it looks great! Just the consistent formatting gives it that FA aura! I put "support" up in the header of this section.

Incidentally, not really important but I didn't make any effort at avoiding paywalls. It must have arisen by chance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's a good serendipity, as it allows the casual reader some opportunity to not take all the citations on faith alone. I certainly appreciated it when I could actually look at the citations to verify and understand.

Support from Femke

I'm leaning support, a few comments. Happy to see only few midsentence cites, and illustrations are beautiful. I'm editing from phone, so made prose suggestions directly. More to come. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've condensed some sentences for ease. Keep an eye out for more sentences that can be simplified.
• Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, it is not necessary to convert standard units to US units in purely scientific context. It clutters up the prose. As far as I'm aware, power production is never given in horsepower and irradiation never per square feet.

  I think I got these, are there any other units that need changing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  River discharge and (arsenic) concentrations are also (almost) entirely reported in metric. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  That's metricized now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• The article is full of Spanish words. If their pronunciations in English is meant to follow Spanish, use the lang template to help screen readers. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have to confess that I don't know about which pronunciation would be correct for any of them. Does it make a difference for the lang template? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Currently, everything is pronounced in English, so Taytio. I'm would guess the a in Tatio should rather be pronounced as the a in Chicago, not as in the a of the alphabet. If you wrap it in the lang template, the pronunciation would be Spanish. I do always underestimate how much English native speakers anglify pronunciation. Maybe a native speaker can enlighten us. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging @Heartfox:, who seems to have a lot of experience in accessibility reviewing. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The presence of microorganisms in sinter has been implicated in their tolerance to UV radiation, as sinter absorbs much of this incoming harmful radiation I don't understand this sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Reworded that completely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't quite make sense to me; the microorganism are protected against UV by sinter, but have nonetheless built up their own tolerance against it? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think such traits are ever mutually exclusive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  My understanding of the source (only read page 26), is that it's only about physical protection from sinter, not about tolerance from the microorganisms. I've reworded, do you agree? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The first two elements of see also are names that may be unfamiliar: could you put a short description after them per MOS:ALSO FemkeMilene (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• The section Human exploitation is only about geothermal. Arguably, tourism is also exploitation. You could rename to Geothermal potential, or geothermal energy potential.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Only the fields at Yellowstone in the United States and Dolina Geizerov, which also have taller geysers than at El Tatio,[43] where geyser fountains are on average only 75 centimetres (30 in) high,[44] are larger.[45] -> sentence needs to be split in two. Not quite clear that 75 cm refers to El Tatio, and the words "are larger" are too far away from the word "Geizerov".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. -> About 110 geothermal manifestations have been documented at El Tatio, but the total has been estimated at 400, seems to flow better.

  I've put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• to be preconditioned by smaller ones -> bit vague. occur more often after small ones? occur only after small ones?

  Attempted a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sinter is mentioned quite often. Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, could you add something like (mineral deposit with small cavities) after the first mention. Or something more accurate. I also do not know the word ignimbrite, but it seems less important. Maybe omit in the lede?

  Added a footnote, if ignimbrite is less important a link would suffice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  For me, the porousness was vital in understanding the sentences about microorganisms. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also in 1974 a desalination facility was built at El Tatio and can still be seen there today -> rm "and can still be seen there today" or find a newer source. A lot can happen in 18 years.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• during the Tatio controversy power generation[192] and relations between the Chilean government and native communities also gained prominence among the disputed issues -> I believe the and after 192 should be removed. the word also also not necessary.

  I think that would be quite misleading, "power generation relations" are not the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the sentence now. Added a comma instead. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• and the tourism industry of the region had been opposed to the project for a while -> Not quite clear if this is El Tatio's tourism industry of NZ/US. If the former, the phrase can be omitted, because it's already stated differently before. In the later cases, clarify. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Femkemilene, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'll support. I think the remaining open comment should be dealt with more generally, and it would be unfair to withhold a support for this we'll-researched article. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho

• I'm a little concerned about the bullet list, I see it was mentioned above; however, MOS:BULLETLIST states that "Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, [...]. They are not appropriate for large paragraphs." which is what it is being used for here. As that guideline states there are always exceptions but I'm not sure that this necessarily is one.

  I think that as a sequence it is more readable in list form than in separate paragraphs, which give no clear indication of a logical sequence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  I missed MOS:EMBED so this should actually be alright.TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not as concerned with this one but have you considered adding something like {{Infobox spring}} or {{Infobox landform}} to the article?

  Eh, I think that for such a complex topic infoboxes would be unduly reductive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Chile Route B-245 has been a red link for over two years now. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Chile Route's to know if this particular route is "notable and verifiable" but if its not it should [probably] be removed.
• Scrolling through the rest of the article there's actually quite a few red links so same goes for any of those, unless their particularly notable or they're going to be created soon they should all be removed.

  See, I am pretty sure that all of these redlinks can have articles created for them. I don't think we remove redlinks just because the article doesn't exist yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  WP:REDLINK specifically says that unless the subjects article is likely to be created soon OR unless its notable and verifiable to remove them. This isn't particularly a deal breaker for me, I'm just wanting your opinion on whether or not they meet those requirements. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think they all meet the "notable and verifiable", myself. Granted, being busy with other projects I don't intend to do a lot of work with these redlinks, but still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  In that case they're fine, just to clear up my comments you're not obligated to work on any of the red links if you don't want to, I was just trying to make sure the article followed appropriate guidelines, which according to you, they do. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't really have much to say other than this, with the comments above most people have addressed everything else. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that the above was addressed this article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 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) 19:29, 9 October 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 September 2021 [86].

---

Mauritius shelduck

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is another article in the series about extinct Mascarene birds. This one is a pretty obscure duck, which, like the rest, was exterminated by human activities. Not much has been written about it, so most if not all of it is summarised here. Some historical accounts are included for flavour, and because most of the sources give them in full. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Conditional support and minor comments from Chidgk1

Condition - I trust you to add/improve the alt text

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Any info why no DNA analysis?

Nothing yet. But will add if it ever happens, I suspect the DNA is too degraded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Any idea roughly when the Egyptian goose colonised the islands?

The sources don't say, but I elaborated a tiny bit, "stated in 2008 that the Mascarene shelducks were derived from Malagasy forms with African affinities, probably descended from the Egyptian goose after it had colonised the Mascarene islands". FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Could add trans-title to French source

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• File:Alopochen_mauritianus.jpg: what is the author's date of death?

No individual is credited, only Cambridge Engraving Company. So I've changed to PD UK anonymous, if that's sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

As per that tag, if you're going to use it you need to include information on what research was done to attempt to ascertain author. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Added that I have looked throughout the journal and only found the company attribution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Farm_at_Foul_Bay.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The image was produced in 1670 by an unknown author on Dutch Mauritius, and accompanied a letter to the Dutch East India Company, from where it ended up in the Dutch National Archives. It was included in a 1995 UK book, but whether this is the date of first publication, or the date it was produced and sent, I'm not sure. So I'm not sure what this means for the copyright, if we assume it was unpublished until 1995, it would at leats be PD US it seems?[87] Not sure for the rest of the world, but if it is only PD US, it could be uploaded locally on English Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The unpublished provision is typically only extended to works that were never published before 2003. If this was published by 1995 at the latest, we'd need to look for another appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

From these Commons guidelines[88][89], it would seem it is PD because just more than 25 years have passed since the publication in the EU (UK). But as far as I can see there is no appropriate tag for that? FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What would you believe the US status to be in that case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The closest I can find is still PD-US-unpublished:[90] I can't seem to find other policies regarding unpublished works in the US? And it doens't seem we have specific tags for either the EU or US situations... Maybe I should ask around on Commons? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure - as mentioned, the US unpublished tag applies only for works not published before 2003, so wouldn't apply here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I've raised the issue here:[91] FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Got some answers, and I've added tags accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I added a PD-Art-two enclosing template. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looks neat! FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Jim Comments from Jim

I'll have a look after the bank holiday here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I’m surprised that we don’t get to see what it may have looked like until the final image. Even if you would rather have the bones in the infobox, I’d still move the image up. If it falls to me to list this at WP:TFA, I definitely think the reconstruction would be a better hook in the blurb than the bones.

This might be as confusing as the issues below, but when I first found the free version of the image in a 1997 journal article, it was listed as showing the related Réunion sheldgoose. So I originally added it to the article to just show a similar relative. But I since recognised the same image in the 2008 book Lost Land of the Dodo (also used as a source here), where it is captioned as showing the Mauritius sheldgoose... So I noted the two different identities in the Commons description, and just changed the caption here to reflect the newer, 2008 source, which is co-written by the artist. I can only speculate why the image has been used to show both, but in reality, we have no idea what the difference between the two species were, or if there were any. The IOC list even says of the Réunion species "Treated as conspecific with A. mauritiana by R. Roe (pers. comm.)", but we can't really cite unpublished comments...

So that is one reason why I didn't place it more prominently, another reason is that all we know are the bones, so anything but them are pure speculation, and the next most reliable imagery would then be the contemporary drawing, which is now under description. And since the restoration also shows the environment and another species from the area, I thought it would be appropriate in the section about ecology. As for showing what the species looked like earlier, the Egyptian goose image early on aready does that, since as you can see, the painting looks almost identical to it. But I agree, if this goes to the front page, the restoration will be more eye-catching. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• OK, as long as it's a deliberate placement, that's fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• and placed in the shelduck genus Alopochen. — possibly misleading. The shelduck genus is Tadorna, and although it's in the same subfamily, Egyptian goose isn't normally described as a shelduck

Might be solved if the article is moved to sheldgoose, per below. But note that I brought the issue of shelducks/sheldgeese up here[92], and it seems to be a bit of a messy situation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Fine, I'll comment below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Réunion shelduck — redirects to Réunion sheldgoose, which hardly clarifies what counts as a shelduck

Yeah, this is is because many of our articles about these obscure species are not currently aligned with the IOC, and have to be moved. In the case of this article, checking the IOC list now[93], it may even have to be moved to Mauritius sheldgoose. I think I moved it to the current location because that was the IUCN name, which I thought would match the IOC name, but seems they're not aligned. But I know that it is preferred that articles are not moved during FAC... A bit of a messy situation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

One solution could perhaps be that I change all occurrences of "shelduck" to "sheldgoose in the article now, and then get the article title changed after the FAC? I'll ping Casliber, who might have some insight, being both an admin and a bird editor... FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm an admin and bird editor too, and I've just moved Margaretta Louisa Lemon to Etta Lemon in the middle of its ongoing FAC due to comments from a reviewer and my co-nominator, so it can be done, although it's less urgent here. However, pinging Cas will get a second opinion (and maybe another review...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, of course, Cas' adminship may have come to mind because he has also helped with some move issues at the dinosaur project I think. But yeah, if it's fine to move it now, I'll be all for it (maybe it's at GAN where they don't want moves during nominations). FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• carpometacarpus wing-bone (part of the hand, the holotype specimen) — I might be misunderstanding here, but should it be part of the hand, and the holotype specimen?

Added "and". FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• English sailor Marshall — I'd expect to see a first name or rank here

All I could find was a first name, John, which I added, but the sources just call him sailor or visitor, so I called him "traveller"... FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that the Mauritius shelduck and its extinct island relatives were flightless —Not quite the same as saying that they could fly. Do we know how they crossed the island in the dry season?

They most likely were just able to fly, but none of the sources state that outright, I guess it's assumed to be a given. The closest statement is the one given about them not being flightless. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This contemporary quoted text would indicate they could fly if they wanted to: "When they are being shot, the ones that are not hit by the hail stay put and do not fly away." But the sources don't comment or elaborate on it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I think, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, opened a can of worms, will respond to the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving the shelduck issue to after FAC, there are more things to change than you expect (like default sort), other wise happy to support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool, we'll return to it later then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now.....

The holotype carpometacarpus of the Mauritius shelduck has a very projecting alular metacarpal' - "very projecting" is an odd-sounding construction in English - needs rewording

Tried with "strongly", "very" is how the source put it. It's by French authors, so perhaps why they would write something non-English sounding... FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

...which showed agricultural practices, introduced animals, as well as birds and eels. - should be an "and" in here

Not sure if it's what you had in mind, but replaced "as well as" with "and". FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

...very edible - by "edible" here you mean "palatable", so I'd say "highly palatable"

Changed to your wording, "very edible" was how the source put it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks alright otherwise WRT comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• Great work as always, few nitpicks below:

Thanks, a few answers below, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Answered the rest, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• In 1893, a species of supposed comb duck was described – It was not initially clear to me that this is talking about the Mauritius shelduck (probably irritated by "a species of supposed comb duck"). Maybe make this clear.

Tried with "In 1893, a carpometacarpus wing-bone and a pelvis from the Mare aux Songes swamp were used to name a new species of comb duck, Sarcidiornis mauritianus. These bones were connected to the contemporary accounts of geese and later determined to belong to a species related to the Egyptian goose, and placed in the shelduck genus Alopochen." Is it any clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• It was probably driven to extinction due to overhunting and predation by introduced animals. – a bit frustratingly unspecific. Can we say "introduced mammals", possibly even adding "most likely cats"? That would give the reader a much better idea. An "introduced animal" can be anything.

I tried a combination, "It was probably driven to extinction due to overhunting and predation by introduced animals, particularly cats." I retained "animals" because that's all Cheke says, while Hume is more specific, and because it would be difficult to link (only link the word "introduce"?). FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "introduced animals" could point to Invasive species directly rather than the redirect.

You mean as a piped link? I did that, most sources say "introduced", so I prefer to stick to that in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Then, maybe linking to Introduced species instead is more correct? Because the definition of "Invasive species" is slightly different from an "introduced species". It is obvious that these species were invasive (=causing damage), but if the sources use the other term, we probably should as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, maybe introduced animals simply redirects to the wrong article? The redirect should be changed to introduced species instead? I didn't realise until now there were two different articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I just corrected the redirect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, guess who had made that redirect back in 2012 to begin with haha. I've redirected introduced animal too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Mauritius bird did not belong in Sarcidiornis – should it be present tense? Because it "is an extinct species". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the rest of the sentence is in past tense and he made the statement in 1987, I imagine it would make more sense in past tense? Not entirely sure, perhaps word wizard Gog the Mild has something to say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ho hum. I would change the last word of the sentence to 'belonged', but would not insist; the sentence is, IMO, technically correct as it stands, but may cause a reader double take. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, I changed to "to which the extant Egyptian goose (A. aegyptiaca) belonged". FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• radius (a lower arm bone) – not sure, but is "forelimb" or "wing" better than "arm"?

Said forelimb, wing is a bit vague, as I also used that for carpometacarpus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• but considerably smaller than that of the domestic goose (Anser anser domesticus). – Instead, I would have expected a comparison with the Egyptian goose here, as it seems more relevant? And isn't the size of the domestic goose very variable, since they have been bred for size, weighing up to 10 kilograms in extreme cases?

I've moved the comparison with the Egyptian goose further up, but the sources don't give any more details than are given here, sadly. The other size comparisons are between individual bone elements, not between the species overall, and many of them are from the original description, which doesn't compare with the Egyptian goose at all. As for the domesticated goose, it's a bit hard to be more specific, as the source just says "while it is considerably smaller than those of the common domesticated Anser cinereus". That name seems to be a synonym of the wild greylag goose, so what domesticated breed that is meant here is not certain, but I imagine one that is close to the wild form. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• os ischii – why not stick with the more standard and more accessible ischium? Using the Latin name here is also inconsistent, as you use femur instead of Os femoris.

Changed to ischium, the source mixed terminology, so I was unsure if it may be more common in ornithological literature to use that form. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• which would therefore make it the only known illustration of this bird in life – should "contemporaneous" be added?

Added, the source doesn't use the word, but should be obvious enough to add. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• The new identification also implied that the dodo was already extinct by this time – which time, 1677 or 1670?

Added 1670. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• ship's log of the President – the article does not give any indication that the ship is called the President instead of just President. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved "the" out of the italics. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support, but see one reply above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out further stuff! FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Coord note

Probably worth seek a source review for reliability and formatting now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Z1720 - pass

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

• Ref 2 is missing a location for publication

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 9 is missing a publisher (I assume its the Cambridge University Press)

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 12: Use the full name of Oxford University Press

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 13: If you are going to wikilink this publisher, the other publishers in the reference should also be wikilinked in the first instance they are mentioned, in order to be consistent.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• What makes avibase a high-quality source?

I thought it was more official than it apparently is. But it appears that the person who manages the site[94] has a good deal of research papers to his name:[95] So I'd think this would be acceptable per "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", at WP:Self-published sources? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with this, as the information does not seem too controversial. If a better source can be used, this should be swapped out. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a list of names, yeah, but I'll replace if I find anything. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 17: ISBN is missing some dashes

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, can't believe I missed all these inconsistencies, should be addressed now, Z1720. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

One more comment:

• Ref 1, Birdlife International is linked to a 2016 publication, so this ref needs to be checked to ensure it still verifies in the info in the article and the year updated. I also suggest archiving this website.

Also added some responses above. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I updated the year of the Birdlife citation, but it doesn't seem to archive well:[96] It seems to be generated in some non-html flash-like way that doesn't function as an archive. There isn't really anything in that source that would get outdated anytime soon, unless this species is combined with the one from a neighbouring island some day. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It might just be a source that has to be updated regularly, so I'm glad we got the latest version here. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, this source review is a pass. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 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) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2021 [97].

---

Soiscél Molaisse

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

An 11th century decorative Insular style cumdach (book-shaped shrine) added to a small 8th century wooden reliquary box that may have once contained parts of the remains of a saint, and/or an Early Medieval manuscript. Feedback as always most welcome. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

1. c:File:Case_of_Molaise's_Gospels.png needs a US tag
2. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET.jpg : not seeing that tag at the source given, and does the licensing cover only the image or the work as well? Ditto
3. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET_2.jpg
4. c:File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg needs a US tag, and the source link is dead
5. c:File:Book_or_Shrine,_Cumdach_of_the_Stowe_Missal_MET_tem12412s1_(cropped).jpg : as above, does the licensing cover the image, the work, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: #1 now has additional {{PD-US-expired}} tag. I don't know why the MET images were licensed incorrectly considering the MET source and their permission statement webpage. All the Met images are now licensed {{Cc-zero}} so I have changed 2 & 3, and 5 to that template. # 4 now has a direct image source link and the copyright template clearly states "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." Nikkimaria please comment if you disagree. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you Ww2censor Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Does the Met licensing cover the photos, the works pictured, or both? Re #4: the statement you reference covers the photographic reproduction, but the actual licensing tag for the work pictured states that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  The MET permission page that specifically mentions images and each one has a PD tag and link to the permission statement below the image, so there should be no issue there. Maybe you are suggesting the reproductions might be copyright even if the photo are PD?. I see what you mean about #4. I'll review and add the appropriate one. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes - if the reproductions are not covered by that licensing then we need tags for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Have fixed the external source link for :c:File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, are your qualms allayed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Still looking for confirmation as to whether the reproductions are or are not covered by the Met licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: I've reread deriviative works (especially see 5th casebook entry c:COM:DW#casebook) a couple of times and am entirely convinced that because these are reproduced copies of public domain works, no new copyright can have been created for the reproduced items, so the MET's own photographic permission is all we need.

Not that it makes any difference to my thinking, the items were sold in Dublin by Edward Johnson Ltd, Dublin silversmiths, in 1908-1912. Edmund Johnson (Edmund being a version of Edward often used in Ireland) listed in the 1908 Dublin directory, as manufacturing silversmiths and jewellers with a Royal Warrant. This entry implies they were defunct by 1926. According to the provenance the works the Mat have were created before 1912 and 1908, so must be well out of copyright even if they were not exact copies, though they claim to be copies. I cannot find anything else significant about "Edward Johnson Ltd" as listed in the provenance other than in the Mats own webpages. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If these are claimed to be PD because they are mechanical copies of PD works and not because of the Met licensing statement, then these will need separate tagging for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: The Met licence is for their photos not for the piece. How can we place such a PD statement in the files or is there a template for that? ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You can simply add another template with a note that this applies to the reproduction and that to the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Nikkimaria, I'm still not getting what needs to be done re license for the repro Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil and Nikkimaria: I've added an additional work specific PD licence with detailed reasons the works are PD. It's the only template that seems to suit the bill for such a circumstance. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2, you have gone above and beyond on this one. 22:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, is this now sorted? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1

Restoration "It underwent restoration in 2014, when layers of accumulated dirt and a wax coating were removed." may be an unreliable source and seems to refer to the copy not the original.

Any scientific study e.g. carbon dating of the wood?

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Will look re studies. Your copyedits were excellent. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Have removed the 2014 claim. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Moise

Hi Ceoil, I hope you've been well. Here, no big complaints. :-) This article seems pretty interesting and I am having a look. You'll notice I'm also making some mini-edits along the way. Here are the comments I have so far, probably more to come:

• Wiki-link "frontispiece"?
• "The figures are dressed in long tinics and cloaks, and depicted in a style that closely resemble those found on the cumdachs of the near contemporary Stowe Missal and slightly later Breac Maodhóg.[20]" I suggest something like "those of" before "Breac Maodhóg". I think you definitely need something here for flow. Moisejp (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Moise, fixed those two, and thanks for edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• "The shrine is in poor condition, especially the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are lost, as are some of its jewels." Here "especially" doesn't quite seem to work, I'd argue. I think it's trying to say that the main reason we can say the shrine is in poor condition is that some parts of it are missing. Nothing immediately jumps out at me as a good succinct way to say that, but there surely is one. (It's late here and my brain's not at 100%.) Well, see if you have any ideas for a good way to reword it, otherwise I'll try again to come up with something in my next read-through. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• tweaked this a bit. Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, great, I'm beginning my second read-through... Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The figures and other elements dated to this last phase can be identified as they are soldered to the plates." I admit I'm a little confused by this sentence. Maybe this just means that we know which components (figures and other elements) were added later (not in the 8th century) because there is evidence of soldering—and soldering suggests they were added after the fact, not in the original phase? But maybe what threw me was the next sentence talks about how we know the dating of the inner core (8th century), so I was kind of expecting it would be logical that this previous sentence was about how we likewise know this part dates from the 15th century. But then when I re-read it I saw the sentence was about something slightly different... I think. Is there information in the sources about how we can date it to the 15th century, and if so would it be worthwhile to add it? I'm not sure whether other people would get confused by the flow of this sentence, or if it was just me. Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• During a rewriting following Funk's demands below, this was removed, as agree it contained duplication. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Now I've got to the next sentence "The major elements date to the 11th century." So that's the 1001–1011 from the previous paragraph. But I see 1001–1011 is repeated again in this paragraph. Could I suggest it might be clearer to reorganize the two paragraphs to be totally chronological: (1) Everything we know about the 8th century phase; (2) Everything we know about the 11th century phase; (3) Everything we know about the 15th century phase. Moisejp (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think the manuscript that is mentioned in Dating is the same thing as the gospel book that is mentioned elsewhere? Oh yes, I see this is stated in the lead: "original object held a now-lost companion text, presumed to be a small illuminated gospel book". But since the lead is supposed to outside of the narrative of the main text, the mention of "its manuscript" in the main text seems kind of sudden, as though it's assumed there has already been mention of it—but the only mention so far has been in the lead.

Related to this, I notice the sentence "That book was, until the 19th century, believed to have been transcribed by Molaisse" in the lead is cited to Overbey, but under Description "until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself; one late medieval text describes how it was, as surmised by the art historian Raghnall Ó Floinn, "sent down to him from heaven while on a pilgrimage to Rome" " is cited to Ó Floinn. Maybe both Overbey and Ó Floinn said that until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself, I'm not sure. But it's unusual to have a citation in the lead, and I'd argue it would be more usual to put the citation just here in the main text. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• These points re the manuscript have been addressed. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "It was enshrined in the 11th century with a cumdach made up of plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver and mountings". This seems like a possible repeat of "the rather plain[3] 8th-century wooden core has bronze casing, that was heavily embellished and added to between 1001–1011 when silver plaques were fastened with nails and rivets". If so, it's a bit confusing to the reader to be presented the same info again, and they're not sure if it's meant to be different from what they already read. Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• And I'm just asking because the wording is so similar, but are the "panels on the front face are missing, and those that remain are in bronze and silver-gilt" the same as "plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver"? And regardless of whether they are, if the description should be kept in both places, should the wiki-link on "silver-gilt" be instead around "gilded silver"? Moisejp (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Condition and restorations: "The 15th-century additions seem to have consisted of embossed silver plates, but are now also mostly lost". This is stated as though it's the first time it's being mentioned, but this was already said in Dating. Maybe the sentence can be tweaked to subtly acknowledge that this has already been mentioned. One idea, something like: "The shrine is in poor condition; in addition to the lost silver plates from the 15th century additions, the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are also lost, as are some of its jewels."

  I went with your, better, phrasing. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Molaisse is introduced in the lead as "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse". In the 6th century, Molaisse founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh, which the cumdach is associated with." Then in the main text he is mentioned in passing "a successor of Molaisse..." as though Molaisse has already been introduced, but he hasn't yet in the main text, only in the lead. These details about "Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571)" and "founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh" don't seem to be in the main text at all, unless I missed them.

  Now expanded in the article body beyond what is in the lead. I could prob go more, hold on. Ceoil (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe those are all my comments. I really enjoyed this article, very interesting! Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mosie....working through these excellent points. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, wasn't sure if you are ready for me to look at your changes? (No rush if you're not!) Just ping me when you're done, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Moisejp, almost there but not quite. Will ping u shortly. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, will be pinging you tonight. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Moisejp, would appreciate if you could revisit now. As mentioned above, have rewritten and expanded since you comments, but got distracted. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverse, side and end panels: "The also contain triquetra". I would have quickly edited it for you, but I wasn't sure if this is supposed to be "They also contain" or "The (something plural) also contain" or possibly "The (something singular) also contains"? I will assume in good faith that you'll correct that small mistake, and announce my support now. Moisejp (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed that, and thanks so much :) Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Mr rnddude

• One side has depictions of figures with rounded facial features and disproportionally large heads, in panels decorated with highly ornate borders. - I'm not sure the comma here is necessary. The heads are in the panels after all, yes?
• However, analysis of the style and technique ... - Why 'however', I'm not detecting any contradiction with the preceding sentence. Unless the unknown 'nlan' is also a craftsman?
• However the art historian Mitchell Perette describes Baíthín's script as "remarkably uneven" - Again, I'm not noting a contradiction with the preceding statement. Baíthín's script might not be the finest, but that doesn't tell us that Insular craftsmen were not esteemed in Ireland.
• I leave this up to you, but regarding measurements it might be nice to provide conversions to inches for the Americans that may pass by the article. I don't know how others feel about this being necessary or not.

I don't really have more to comment on. I made a couple of corrections through edits as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

great, thanks. Got these and will add conversions shortly. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

conversions added. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• ... in the Insular style from an 8th-century wooden core ... - I think you meant to say 'made from an'.

  Reworded this. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• The shrine is oblong in shape and measures 14.75 cm (5.8 in) high, 11.70 cm (4.6 in) wide and 8.45 cm (3.3 in) thick, it is the smallest of the extant Irish pocket-book Gospels - comma splice.
• ... the 8th-century Book of Dimma <- Sometimes you hyphenate, sometimes you don't –> The 11th century inscriptions ...

  Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• The two long sides consists of a sliver plate divided into three compartments - Consist of rather than consists of, I think.

  eek, done. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase ... - You don't need both 'eventual's here.

  reworded Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• ... speculated that Petrie had heard about it from the antiquarian Roger Chambers Walker - As Walker has already been introduced earlier, you can cut it down to just Walker.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• It is today in the collection of ... - MOS:CURRENT says to avoid 'today', 'currently' etc. I'm not a MOS stickler, but you could just say 'It is in the collection of ...'

  Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase sometime during or after 1845 - I'm slightly confused by this statement given that later in the section you state that [i]ts last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan ... sold it ... in April 1859 for £45. Was the item sold more than once? If so, how did it return to the hands of the hereditary keepers? They bought it back?

Comments from my second read. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have any further comments. Moved to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. The look through was much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• Will have a look soon. At first glance, the drawings are extremely low res, but being from Archive.org, it should be really easy to get larger res versions if you just zoom in to about 100% before you download the page. You should also link to the exact page in the Commons source fields. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Got these, though hope to be able to photograph it in a dew weeks. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, could the full drawing in the infobox get the same treatment? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Done now, and looks much better. Thanks for the tip re zooming to 100% :) Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why it's not one of the photos that's in the infobox?
• "(d. 1025) (a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)" I wonder if it would look better to just keep all this in a single parenthesis? "(d. 1025, a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)".

• Done Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "(a type of ornamented metal reliquary box or case)" Give this explanation in the aticle body too?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• " 14.75cm high, 11.70cm wide" Give conversions? In any case, shouldn't there be space between the numbers and cm?

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• The intro could mention what language the inscriptions are in.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• You could restate at the beginning of the "Inscriptions" section what language they were in.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "View of one of the long sides, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side. New York replica" Could state earlier it is the replica as part of the sentence, for example "View of one of the long sides of the New York replica, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side."

Many thanks, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "St. Molaisse" ANyone to link to? Or can we state which church he was associated with?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and almost nothing of its content or style was recorded" What do we know of its contents?

• "founded the church on Devenish Island" Can we state where this is in the world? As you do in the intro.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "thick, it the smallest of the extant Irish pocket-book Gospels" Missing "making it the smallest"?

  reworded Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A ringed cross dominates the front face" Is this a Celtic cross?

• Was it normal to depict the Evangelists as animals at this time?

• "while many other aspects of the shrine resemble objects uncovered during 20th century archaeological digs" Could some examples be given? You give some under dating, but I wonder if they would fit better under description?

• Devenish Island is duplinked in the article body.

  fixed Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Irish objects kept hereditary collections" Kept in?

  yup, done. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link National Museum of Ireland in the article body.

  Linked Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "including the long, stringy bodies of the animals on the sides" Which animals? The zoomorphic humans? Otherwise it could be elaborated, don't seem to be described later.

• expanded on this a bit, but in general they are not any particular animal. from the zoomorphic article "...describes art that portrays one species of animal like another species of animal or art that uses animals as a visual motif, sometimes referred to as "animal style" Ceoil (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse"." Should also be stated in full in the article body.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Soiscél Molaisse is the earliest surviving cumdach, and with a height of just 14.75 cm (5.8 in), also the smallest." Also seems to be only stated in the intro, which should not contain unique info.

• "was in the possession of the hereditary keepers O'Meehan family of Ballaghameehan, County Leitrim until the 18th century" But the article body says "Its last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan of Latoon County Clare, sold it to the Bishop of Kilmore in April 1859".

  fixed Ceoil (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "on Kildare Street, Dublin." Why more location info in the intro than in the article body? There are also other locations that should either be copied or moved to the article body.

  That its in the National Museum of Ireland – Archaeology on Kildare st. now clarified further down. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks again for detailed points. Have most addressed now. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - nice with the elaborations, and the high res updates to the images look great. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks are not done. It seems like the references are consistently formatted and structured. I kind of question if this is a reliable source. I take that Limerick Leader is a reliable source? William Stokes (physician) seems like a mislink to me. Everything else looks like a reliable source to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, Gog, yes re "Limerick Leader" and has been removed. The William Stokes link is surprisingly correct. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I am still wondering about https://fermanaghastoryin100objects.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/conservation-of-the-st-molaise-shrine/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ach, thought I had fixed that...now sourced to Moss' overview. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this is all, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, should I take that as a pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• " (d. 564 or 571)," Recommend using Template:abbr for "d." There's a couple of places in the article with this, so if you decide to use this template it should probably apply to all instances.
• "Show are the Teampall Mór church and medieval round tower." -> shown are?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The ends have large chain-rings or knots that bear obvious influence from Viking art,[10] while many other aspects of the shrine resemble objects uncovered during 20th century archaeological digs of Viking Dublin, to the extent that Ó Floinn suggested in 2014 that Dublin may have been its place of origin.[10]" Not sure if you need the first [10] reference in this sentence, as a ref at the end of the sentence is generally assumed to apply to the whole sentence. I won't withhold my support if it stays, but I think removing unnecessary refs makes the article easier for readers to read.

  done Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "although neither are considered strong candidates." Who do not consider them strong candidates? The wider historical community? Mitchell?

  done Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the information in Condition should be given its own section, considering how short it is. Perhaps move it to Description? I think most of the information in this section is covered in Description anyways.

  Agree, doing...Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  done Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is "O'Buachalla, Brendan." referring to Breandán Ó Buachalla?

  done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is "De Paor, Marie" Referring to Máire de Paor?

  done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are my comments. Please ping when you respond. Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil, have you addressed all of Z1720's comments? If so, could you ping them as they requested? If not, could you do so? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

hi Z1720, got all of those, except for the d. Template which am still trying to figure out :o Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I added it myself, tell me what you think. Its inclusion is not necessary for my support. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Curious, I'll begin after the lead and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Dating

• Can the sentence beginning "The book is assumed ..." perhaps be broken? Many clauses.

Images

• Can we avoid that a left image displaces a header, perhaps by moving right pics left, and the left one right?

  yes, done Ceoil (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes

• Some "references" rather look like notes to me, - could they be separated in a note list?

Lead

• Can we have a link to St. Molaisse the first time, or - if not - an explanation right there?

All these are really minor questions, - I can support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 09:36, 15 October 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) 12:34, 16 October 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) 16 October 2021 [98].

---

2015 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 2015 edition of the World Snooker Championship. One of the more unlikely winners of the event (at the time), it was won by Stuart Bingham, who defeated 2005 champion Shaun Murphy in the final. With the scores tied at 15-15, Bingham won the next three to win his first (and to date only) world championship. Both players performed poorly at the event until 2021, when Bingham lost on a deciding frame to Mark Selby in the semi-finals, and Murphy lost to Selby in the final.

I've had a lot of fun times working on this article, I hope you enjoy reading it. Let me know your thoughts.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Girth Summit

Lead

• "...professional snooker tournament, that took place..." I don't think the comma is needed there (and GtM will attest that I am generally liberal with my commas), and I think it ought to be 'which' rather than 'that'.
  • Sure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "...at the Crucible and this was the final..." Is 'this' needed? Perhaps a comma before 'and'?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "...a total of 86 century breaks, a record for the championships and higher than 83 centuries set in 2009." I can see what you're doing here, but I don't think the reader needs to be told that 86 is higher than 83. Consider rewording.
  • I've reworded. I do think as the lede is a bit short, that it's not worth removing the amount of centuries in 2009 (it is important), but reworded to make it easier to read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Overview

• "...by defeating countryman Ronnie O'Sullivan..." Do you mean fellow countryman?
  • I mean I suppose. I have changed. I'm not sure why it needs to be both words though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Defending champion Mark Selby was seeded 1, while other seeded places were allocated based on the latest world rankings." This is repetitive - we were told this exact same information in the paragraph above the prize fund information.
  • Removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Summary

• "Mark Selby, who had led 6–3 and 8–4 against Maflin before his opponent won four consecutive frames narrowly escaped a first-round exit, recovering from 8–9 down to clinch a 10–9 win." I think that at the least you need a comma after 'consecutive' to close the parenthetical relative clause. I'll leave it to your judgment as to whether four X–Y scorelines in a single sentence is difficult for the reader to get their head around.
  • I have reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Ali Carter, back at the Crucible after extensive treatment for cancer," We were told about the cancer two paragraphs ago.
  • Indeed, I've reworded to say more info on this. Previously we mention the cancer to explain why he was playing in the competition, so now I've added that he had missed five months of the season, which explains why he might be rusty or w/e Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "...Selby succumbing to the Crucible curse. Selby was the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977." Do you think it might be better to reword this a bit, perhaps rearranging the order in which the information is presented? As phrased, it's not explicitly clear what the Crucible Curse is. I'm thinking of something like "McGill won the match 13–9, making Selby the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977, succumbing to what has become known as the 'Crucible curse'."
  • That is good wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "...and three from Hawkins, the match again equalled the record for the most centuries in..." Why 'again'?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "The final was refereed for the first time by Olivier Marteel..." Is 'for the first time' redundant? (You tell us in the next sentence that it made him the first Belgian to referee a final, so it's safe to assume it was a first for him too).
  • I don't think so. I think we start by saying that it's his first time, and then comment that he was also the first Belgian person to do so. People can also change nationality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Bingham came close to a maximum break," Being a bit picky, but the source says that he was on for a maximum break, not that he came close to it.
  • Reworded to "attempted". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes

• Shouldn't there be a 'notes' section, rather than having the footnotes appear in the References section?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• There's a space between the refs in the first footnote.

That's it from me. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I think I've covered all of the above Girth Summit, let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Looks good, happy to support. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

Hi The Rambling Man, sorry for the ping - did you have any comments for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries. And yes, of course, I'll bring comments. As you know, I'm working on other things to try to catch up on the 900-point deficit, so everything else is de-prioritised until then. There's a waaaaay to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Here we go, and apologies, this literally did fall off my to-do list.

• "referred to as the 2015 Betfred World Snooker Championship" for sponsorship reasons/purposes. A lot of people will never have heard of Betfred.
  • I've added an discription when we mention them fully in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "sponsored the event ... sponsored the tournament" repetitive.
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Qualifying for the event took place between..." I've never really noticed this before but this kind of implies that everyone who went into the event had to qualify there, and that's simply not the case. This needs a quick addition of the top 16 or whatever automatically qualified in here.
  • I have added it. Let me know what you think, it might be a bit off. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Mark Selby ... Selby ... Selby ..." repetitive.
  • I've removed one entry. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Shaun Murphy the 2005 winner met" commas around "the 2005 winner".
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "a 50–1 outsider" maybe expand a touch, like "who was given odds of 50–1 to win the tournament by bookmakers before the start of the tournament"? Some people may have no idea what 50–1 means nor its significance.
  • Good deal.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
• "for the championships" plural?
  • Removed, although arguably it is championships, as in there being many events, but this is probably better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "championships, the most previously being 83 centuries" ->" championship, beating the 83 scored in..."?
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "sport was played" perhaps "originally" played?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• " a single elimination format" another thing I may have missed, is there a reason that "single elimination" isn't hyphenated like our article?
  • Changed, although I wonder if our article is titled wrongly, I'm no English expert though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The event's 32 players" repetitive 32. Could be something like "The player participating in the championship are..."
  • Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "won by Joe Davis, the final being" maybe another thing, "who secured victory at ... defeating X by A-B frames" to give context to the nature of the game back in the day?
  • I'd probably go along with this, but I've had people tell me this is too much, see David Fuch's comments below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "which had previously sponsored" again, repetitive.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "in Sheffield, England" you mentioned Sheffield in the previous section but link it here?
  • Already fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "of 11 rankings events" link for "rankings events"?
  • We don't actually have an article for this. We do have snooker world rankings, but we already link it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "England's Mark Selby won" this implies some kind of allegiance with England. As we know the WSC is nationality-agnostic. Englishman would perhaps be less "team-oriented"?
  • Sure. Done, I only started using this when it was like Scotsman X beat Englishman Y, which is a bit repetitive to me.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "It featured a 32-player main draw " feels a bit repetitive, that we've said 32 players at least twice at this stage.
  • Actually once, and I've removed that version, as it's not always been 32. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "played at the 8 and 15 April 2015" lead said it was between those dates (implying a tournament that didn't take place on two separate days), so be consistent in the terminology.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "8 and 15 April 2015 at the Ponds Forge International Sports Centre" that has a slightly different target to the one in the lead.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "start of the main draw" do you mean the main tournament? Or did the actual draw take place on the same day as the start of the final tournament?
  • I did mean tournament. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "from a challenge match system" suggest this needs a footnote, not clear what a "challenge match" system is here, especially without a link.
  • Added a note. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "in the latest world rankings automatically" latest when, just before the start of the 2015 championship, not now.
  • agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Mark Selby was" any need to repeat his first name?
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "penultimate event of the season" well the lead said the WSC was the final "ranking" event, so was the China Open the penultimate "ranking" event too? Do we need to be explicit?
  • Well, the snooker world rankings don't always update after each event; the China open could have been the third from last event, so penultimate is suitable to comment on. It was both the penultimate ranking, but also the penultimate event in general, so no need to comment on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "ranked 17–32" English, so 17 to 32.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Despite losing 1–10 to Kurt Maflin, Davis ..." I'm not sure "Despite" is right here. Perhaps "Davis played his 100th match... losing..."?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• " to Ken Doherty in " no need for Ken.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That's got me to Summary. Again, I do apologise for the delay, I know I said I was working on catching up but this had completely dropped off my list. Ping me when we're done here and I'll do the next couple of sections. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Not an issue. Hope everything is ok. I'll take a look today. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments The Rambling Man, I got to these quicker than I thought. Looking forward to your comments on the summary Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the snooker world rankings were" is overlinked in the lead now.
  • Unlinked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• And at "the snooker world rankings prior to" too.
  • Unlinked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "at the chami were"?
  • Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Ali Carter, who had" is there another Carter?
  • Removed name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "led Selt" who is/was Selt?
  • Linked Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "4–10. Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked and no need for first name if not ambiguous.
  • It is a bit ambigious, as Jimmy Robertson took part in the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Shaun Murphy, who declared" likewise.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "winning the 2005 tournament" could link.
  • Linked Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Graeme Dott defeated" overlinked/first name issue.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "against Stuart Carrington with a " ditto. And "a 109 break" might be better as "a break of 109".
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "McGill were tied ... but McGill led 10–6 after ... McGill" three-peat.
  • Removed an entry. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Stuart Bingham reached" link/name issue.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "defeat Graeme Dott" is there another Dott?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "for Ronnie O'Sullivan" same.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Shaun Murphy over Joe Perry, and" Murphy over Perry
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Neil Robertson over Ali Carter." Robertson/Carter.
  • DOne Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Judd Trump defeated Hong Kong's Marco Fu 13" Trump defeated Fu.
• You've already mentioned Fu, so back there would be better to call him "Hong Kong's Fu".
  • DOne. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That's up to the QFs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, looks like mostly the same issues over and over again. I should have looked a bit closer at duplinks. I'll update for the rest of the article. Thanks for taking a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

QFs onward...

• (previous: "lost 4–10. Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked, can keep his first name however as it's ambiguous with Jimmy)
• "Trump defeated Ding 13–4 " etc, previous rounds have had at least some kind of "running commentary" on how each session went, this is straight in with the result?
  • I have added some extra colour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Same for "Murphy defeated the last remaining qualifier McGill 13–8 "
  • Also added some detail Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• There seems to be a lot more to say, e.g. Bingham in tears after beating Ronnie, where the highest (equal) break of the tourney happened etc?
  • Added some comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• "champion Ken Doherty and" no need for Ken.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• "and set a new record for a 25-frame match" for most centuries in a 25-frame match I assume you mean?
  • Reworded to avoid ambiguity. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• "longest frame in the tournament" that source is contemporary so it was the longest at that point in the specific tournament.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and 29 April as the" no comma, vs "and 2 May, as the " comma.

• Added comma after "29 April" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "All four world championship semi-finalists were English.[52] Murphy was the only former winner of the event to reach the last four" fact attack, I would merge these, e.g. "of whom Murphy was..."?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• "then extending it" extended.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Balance of the "semi-final" section seems off, the not-so-close encounter seems to have more than double the prose of the close encounter.
  • I have added some stuff. I'd forgotten about the kick. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• "was held on 3 and 4 May as the best of 35 frames, held over" held on, held over - variety please.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "won the title in 2005 with an" overlinked.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• (previous: "Stevens, who had been defeated.." should be full name and link, and then delink/de-first name next instance).
• "victory over Matthew Stevens and was" no need for Matthew.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to John Higgins" no Alex here so no need for John.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "by Olivier Marteel, from" that article referencing this gives some insight into his previous experience, worth bringing that in here, i.e. which tournaments he'd previously ref'd.
  • Added a comment. The source mentions the World Grand Prix, but it's hardly the most important event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• "session of the final, Murphy took a 3–0 lead, but Bingham fought back to end the session" session/session repeat.
  • removed first Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• I would think in the description of the final, century breaks would be worthy of note in the prose rather than just going in session-by-session scores.
• "had odds of 50–1 to win" link odds, and was it all bookies giving those odds or just one or two or...?
  • Source doesn't say, I'd assume the tournament sponsor's odds, but I don't know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Also probably worth some context, like how far down the list of likely winners did 50 to 1 make him? In a huge field, like golf or the Grand National, favourites can still be 10 to 1 etc, so how close was he to being favourite or was he a near-rank-outsider, or somewhere in between? Are there any odds stats for the final itself rather than just pre-tournament odds?
  • Not that I can find, (and we wouldn't cite the bookmakers themselves anyway) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The final was noted..." "break" appears in this sentence three times, along with the MOS conflict of comparable values in numbers and words.
  • Amended. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The 3 qualifying" three

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "as the best-of-19 frames" you haven't hyphenated this before in the prose above.
• Round 1 table seems to have an odd spare Player column in the middle??

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This was the highest in World Championship history, ahead of the 83 scored in 2009" you have already mentioned this.

• Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "was due to donate" do you mean "pledged to donate"?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "achieved.[79][39]" order.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and Stuart Bingham each" -Stuart.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Might be worth adding in parentheses how many century breaks each player got to save us counting them all up? I mean Neil Robertson scored loads and went out in the QFs. Will also help with cross-referencing that you covered all centuries in the total.
  • Outside of someone scoring a significant amount, it's rare for the amount to really matter - we just list the total and who scored them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• You have this link declaring when the "modern era" is considered to have started. That is someone's blog and is hosted by a sports equipment shop. Is there something more "solid" on which you can base this claim of a modern era starting?
  • I know we do somewhere. I'll have a look and see if I can find that Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Replaced with a piece from the Telegraph. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Just the references left before a re-start. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, looks like we've covered the above The Rambling Man Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lee, I'll do my best to get to finish this first viewing tomorrow morning after I've dropped the kids at school. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The remainder

• (from earlier: "Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked)
• "30 April 1 & 2 May" probably needs a comma after April here.
• "Referee: Olivier Marteel.[62" he was linked earlier (albeit red) so why not here?

• Amended for the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• In the table, there are several rows called "Players" which are actually sessions, why are they called players?

Any thoughts on this one? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It was a fault with {{32TeamBracket-WSC2-v2}}, which I've changed now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Our article on Lü Chenwei has a diacritic on the u of Lu.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• " Ford, Craig Steadman and David Morris each..." this is the first time their names appear in prose so should be linked here.

• Linked (except Steadman, who gets a mention in the first round section). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The 1964–68" per MOS, 1964–1968.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "title at 43 in" do you mean aged 43? Standalone this note makes not much sense!

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Refs

• Ref 4 has publisher in the title.
• So does ref 5.
• And 6.

• Fixed the three above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Why is worldsnooker.com in italics but snooker.org not? Consistent approach to website formats please.
• Ref 21 has publisher in the title.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 22 has World Snooker not in italics.
• Ref 22 also has worldsnooker.com in italics as a website but that's not consistently used across all World Snooker refs.
• If Eurosport and ESPN don't use italics, why does BBC Sport?
• Ref 42 is missing author and publication date.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 48 is missing author, as is 49, 50, 52, 61, 65 etc... best to check all the BBC Sport refs as they usually do.
• Ref 58 needs en-dash in scoreline.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 68 has publisher in the title, but then again, the publisher of World Snooker is suddenly WPBSA here, and nowhere else? And that's the only wikilink in the references.
• Snooker.org appears to be formatted differently in different places.

• Hopefully all the ref issues from this section have now been resolved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that's all I have for the moment, you'll be glad to know! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've had another look and I can't see anything that's standing out as needing resolution now, so I'm happy to support the candidate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from GhostRiver

• "and the final ranking event" → "and was the final ranking event"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Some punctuation needed in the lede after "a total of 86 century breaks"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "2014-15 snooker season" needs an en dash – these get missed by the script, I run into the same issue with NHL articles
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps the most pedantic point I plan to make, the reference to "Yahoo News" should be to "Yahoo! News"
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like GS did a thorough comb-through, so only a few comments from me! — GhostRiver 23:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have made the changes you mentioned GhostRiver. Thanks for the review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks good now, moving to support! — GhostRiver 15:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Comments as follows:

• General:
  • As a non-snooker person, there were a few places I stumbled where I think it would more accessible to a layperson if things were explained rather than purely relying in wikilinks, for example:
    • What a century break actually is
    • what frames are
      • I get the need for these two, but they are particularly simple terms, and we do link them. A century break, being a break of over 100 seems quite logical, maybe there is a need for understanding what a break is. I can't really think of a better phrase than "points in one one attempt at the table", which is a bit wordy and doesn't really explain the term either. Frames are simply individual games, but a "frames (games)" is a little bit like telling someone to suck eggs Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Yeah, but if someone has to link away to learn what a term is, they're not coming back in all likelihood. You've got popups for hovering desktop users, but they're a distinct minority of readers these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I get that, but it's such a basic term, I'd be really reticent to have "frames (games)" or similar on these articles, it would feel like saying "goals (points)" in football, or explaining what a touchdown is in American Football. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    • There's some tense changes that I think should just be past tense (ie. "The breakdown of prize money for this year is show below" reads weird coming after "the prized fund [was] raised".
      • Sure, but this is saying that the breakdown of the prize money is listed in the article below. If you said "prize money from the event was shown below, it wouldn't be correct, and wouldn't read correct. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Prose:
  • Selby fell to the Crucible curse, It may just be me, but the phrasing here feels like it lends too much credence to the curse actually existing, and I think reads more plainly if you cut it in the lead and just say Selby lost 9-13 [...] to McGill, becoming the 16th first time champion" etc. (It works fine in the body IMO.)
    • I agree. I've never liked the wording Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Contrary to my considerations about accessibility above, I think the overview could be shortened a bit. Having an explanation of what snooker is is good, but I don't think the next two bits about its background are that relevant. Likewise the second paragraph talking about the championship structure is directly relevant, as is where it's currently held, and the previous year's titleholder, but I don't think the date of the first world championship or Hendry's record is that useful.
    • I'd disagree - and I generally ask for more background information in FACs. Having a good understanding of the event overall, such as how long it has been held for, and who has won it the most times gives prestige to the event. If you remove that, we could be talking about an event that is a year old, rather than one that's run for nearly 100 years. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I think some of the background information is useful, but adding random names of people who aren't going to come up again and don't directly relate to this year's final I think are more confusing rather than more edifying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Sheffield is not linked in its first use, but in its second.
    • Good catch. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • First-round debutants at the Crucible were England's Craig Steadman,[34] and Stuart Carrington,[35] Scotland's Anthony McGill,[36] and Norway's Kurt Maflin.[37] McGill and Carrington had both played at the Crucible before, in the Junior Pot Black in 2006.[38] I might be misunderstanding, but it seems like if McGill and Carrington had already played at the Crucible before they couldn't be first-round debutants there?
    • I have changed this, as it doesn't read well (some users say "The Crucible" as if that has some special meaning). Basically they reached the main stages of the event for the first time, which is played at the Crucible. Very few other events take place there, but one event is the Junior pot black (and senior world championships). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Stevens had been defeated in the 2000 final by Williams, eliminated him at the 2015 event, completing a 10–2 victory comma splice
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • after Reardon who was 45 in 1978—we've heard how old Reardon was just before this so it doesn't seem relevant to restate it.
    • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Media:
• Images appear appropriately licensed and free.
• References:
  • What makes Global Snooker Centre, Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, Inside Snooker, Global-Snooker.com, Snooker Scene, and Snooker.org high-quality reliable sources?
    • Global Snooker was run by Global Cue Sports Ltd and had an editorial roll. Chris Turner is a snooker historian who did work for both the BBC and Eurosport. Inside-Snooker is run and edited by Hector Nunns, who is still the BBC correspondant for snooker, Global-snooker.com I'm having some issues finding out who ran the site, but I know we generally consider it reliable for match/tournament results. I can replace as it's only used once if there's an issue, Snooker Scene is the longest running cue sports magazine in the world, ran by snooker journalist and author Clive Everton and snooker.org is a multi-award winning statistical site. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the one source that definitely cannot be claimed to be high-quality reliable in this instance is Global-Snooker.com and it should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I have swapped this one out for a lovely snooker.org ref. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems to be inconsistency in the ref formatting regarding whether web sites are italicized/capitalized or whether they have the TLD appended or not.
    • Sorry, I'm not sure, I'm probably being dense, what's TLD? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry, meant Top-level domain. Some have the .org/.com etc appended, others don't (I recommend stripping them out.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        • These should now all be sorted. Snooker.org being the exception, as that is the name of the website. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Did a spot-check and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or verification failures.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi David Fuchs, thanks for taking a look, I've done some replies to the above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi David Fuchs - was there anything else for us to look at? Sorry for the second ping. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size
• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have made the suitable changes on the items. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Without spot-checks. Sources are consistently formatted. Are WorldSnooker, StubHub, snooker.org reliable sources? Ditto for Grimsby Telegraph and Leicester Mercury. Not much else to say, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, World Snooker are the organisers, and in charge of professional snooker, so as reliable as it gets. Snooker.org is an award winning statistical site with an editorial roll. I'd probably agree about StubHub, so I've removed it. The last two are local newspapers, so will have editorial rolls, so I don't see an issue with these Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator request

• Ian Rose, any chance me and benny can put another article into the list? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Now I'm not knowledgable on this subject whatsoever, but just doing quick spotchecks on refs, prose, and images it looks more than ready to me. Happy to support. – zmbro _(talk) 15:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been prmoted, 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) 11:59, 16 October 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) 16 October 2021 [99].

---

Second Battle of Independence

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably around the time that Sterling Price realized his 1864 Missouri Raid was in big trouble, as the Union managed to get sizable bodies of troops to the east and west of the Confederates, with a river to the north. Second Independence represents the Confederates' attempt to hold a rear guard long enough for the main body of the army fought a way across Byram's Ford. This article was listed as a GA in April and passed an A-class review earlier this month. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest scaling up the maps and providing a legend for Price's_Raid.png
  • Done in the same manner as for the 13th Mo. Cavalry FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't duplicate caption in alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Corrected (I think) Hog Farm _Talk 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891

• Can comment, shortly Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• " who supported ending the war" I mean, they both presumably wanted the war to end... I think you could be a little clearer that mcclellan wanted an immediate peace
  • Done
• "was ordered to send his infantry across the river to more important areas of the war" by who?
  • Braxton Bragg, Jeff Davis's military advisor at the time. Added
• With the situation east of the Mississippi River collapsing" I think you could give a little more context , though this is background.
  • Added a little bit - is this better?
• "This movement proved to be impossible, as a large-scale crossing of the Mississippi was prevented by Union Navy control of the river." might be more concisely expressed along the lines of "Union Navy control of the river made this movement impossible"?
  • Done
• "political forces in Kansas prevented the militiamen" could you expand on this a bit?
  • I've added a single sentence. This is a bit too complex of a situation to get into here, but I think it suffices to say that there was a gubernatorial election going on in Kansas, a lot of the militia officers were politicians on competing sides, and there were many accusations of conspiracy. Hog Farm _Talk 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• only a single regiment suggest" contextualizing the size of a regiment
  • I've added the strength of the rear guard force
• Who are the people referenced in "The Unionists also charged "-- you only mention 'unionist' once before in the context of a citizen
  • Rephrased. Not sure why that word was used there
• Suggest a date for "File:HedrickiteTempleLotWithCofChristBuildingsNearby" rather than 'modern', because it could go out of date at any moment.
  • Done. Thank goodness it was in the file description page
• "modern historian" is an interesting title because it could suggest that he's a historian of modern times or a historian of the era in modern times; the same way contemporary could be read two ways, imo.
  • Removed. I think I had it in mind to contrast it with Paul Burrill Jenkins, who wrote a dated account of this part of Price's Raid before 1910, but since Jenkins isn't used or mentioned it isn't necessary
• Any idea why Kennedy would attribute so many fewer losses to price than Price himself admitted?
  • Unfortunately, no.
• "beyond hope of meaningful landscape preservation" Do both studies use that exact phrasing?
  • Rephrased, as the 1993 report does not use that exact phrasing
• Not seeing "influencing the 1864 United States Presidential Election." Supported in the body
  • I think it's covered by the statements that McClellan and Lincoln were squaring off in the election and that it was thought that it might help McClelland (both mentioned in the second paragraph of the background section). Do I need to make the connection a bit clearer in the body?

I think that's if from me Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • @Eddie891: - I've made a first pass at responding to these above. Are the changes satisfactory? Hog Farm _Talk 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

    Yeah, it looks good, happy to Support. I missed "improve McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln" in the body, which led to my last comment. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

2nd para of lead is hard to follow unless you already know where the rivers are

As a reader who does not know the geography of the area I found I could not understand the second para of the lead by just reading the lead. Perhaps a diagram of the battle showing the rivers more clearly would help.

Working on this. Hog Farm _Talk 06:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: - I don't think there's a freely licensed map of the battle beyond what already exists in the article, but I have tracked down some distances between Independence and the rivers and added them to the article body and the lead. Does this help with comprehensibility? Hog Farm _Talk 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a little clearer but as it seems the rivers were important militarily I think the article would greatly benefit from a better plan of the battle. The guys at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab have done really great diagrams for me in the past. I am sure if you give them a rough sketch they will produce a plan worthy of a featured article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Display name 99

• Why is Pleasonton's command the only Union unit mentioned in the infobox, despite Curtis' Union Army troops and the Kansas militia both being spoken of in the lead? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've tried to clarify in the lead that Curtis's troops fought in the Battle of Byram's Ford, which was concurrent with this one

The lead looks fine now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• For the lead, I think "1864 United States Presidential Election" should be "United States presidential election." It's minor, but it's in line with how I've seen the names of elections written out, both on and off Wikipedia, including in the "Background" section of this article. It's better also not to have "Redirected from" when one clicks on a link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Done
• "By September 1864, the Confederacy had essentially no chance of a military victory..." A little too strong for my taste. True, Atlanta had just been captured, but Hood's army was not yet destroyed and the Siege of Petersburg was still in a stalemate. Only 1-2 months before in the East, the Confederacy had nearly captured Washington D.C. and had bloodily repulsed a Union infiltration attempt at the Battle of the Crater. I suggest changing "essentially no chance" to "little chance." Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Good point. Changed.
• Are there any details about the general outline of the plan that you can add to the end of the "Background" section? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've added some direct quotes from Smith's orders. Price had a decent amount of leeway in what to do.
• Is it possible to mention the unit(s) and commander of the infantrymen at Saint Louis? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Smith and the XVI Corps. Clarified.
• Who were the troops who reinforced Jefferson City? Where did they come from? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Militia and a couple cavalry brigades. Added
• Was the Army of the Border part of the Department of Missouri under Rosecrans? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've clarified that Curtis was the Department of Kansas
• Where was Lexington in relation to Glasgow and Sedalia? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Display name 99: - I can cite this into a map in Collins - Lexington was west of Glasgow and northwest of Sedalia. I'm not sure where to put this though without it being awkward. Glasgow and Sedalia are only mentioned once each, and not in the same context as Lexington. Where do you think this would work in the best? Hog Farm _Talk 05:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about it then. Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That takes us to the end of "Prelude." It's a solid article, but as you can see I think it would benefit from more detail in some areas. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far! I'll keep trying to address this in chunks. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sounds good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• " Knowing that Price would eventually have to turn south to return to Confederate territory..." Would he if he was successful? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This should be better clarified in the background now. Smith had tasked Price with trying to take St. Louis and to retreat through Kansas and the Indian Territory if Missouri could not be held. After Jefferson City, Price realized Missouri could not be held, so he started the movement towards KC. Hog Farm _Talk 06:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• "40 of Blunt's men who had been captured during the Battle of Little Blue River were rescued" Can you say exactly where and when this happened? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The source I used for this (Monnett) was borrowed from a relative who lives a couple hours away and has since been returned. While I have library cards for three county libraries (despite technically only meeting eligibility for one), two of them don't have the book, and the third lists it as "unavailable". I'll have to hunt to see if other sources mention further details about this. Hog Farm _Talk 05:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Doesn't seem to be in Sinisi, Lause, or Collins, and I can't get a preview on Amazon or Google books. Will likely get a chance to consult this work when I visit family for Labor Day (if I don't forget). Hog Farm _Talk 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• "both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become tired and disorganized" Can you say how exactly? Moving too slowly, units mixing together, etc? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • is "as both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become disorganized through exhaustion and confusion" better? Sinisi isn't much more specific than basically saying they got tuckered out.

That's it until Aftermath. This is a great explanation of the battle. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Continuing...

• Is there any reliable estimate of overall Union casualties? Any idea why not? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't found anything. Best I've found is one source is 600 Union losses on October 22 but that includes the much heavier fighting on the first day of the Battle of Byram's Ford. Sources indicate that losses at the Battle of Westport on October 22 and at the Battle of Little Blue River on October 21 are underreported, but don't say much specifically for Second Independence. I did some digging in the Official Records and found reports on the campaign by Brown, Sanborn, and McNeil, but none break down casualties for this battle. My guess is that there wasn't a good chance for reporting - Winslow fought well into the night, McNeil and Sanborn were both on the move early the next morning, and Brown was arrested on October 23. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Who is Frances Kennedy? Can you briefly introduce her and explain why she is notable? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I was asked to attribute the figure to the author at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Battle of Independence, as it is an estimate. She's apparently led or directed two nonprofits that probably aren't notable and has written several books about battlefield preservation. I generally agree with the ACR that the estimate needs attributed. As Kennedy is fairly nondescript, I have just introduced her as a "preservationist"
• Which Confederate brigade commander? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Added, it was Clark. I had to dig this out of Collins's referencing
• In the final sentence, can you restate the total number of men that Price had with him at the start of the campaign so that the reader can understand the scale of the losses without having to refer to earlier in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Added

That should be all. Hog Farm, your changes look good so far. Just address the last couple and I'll be happy to support. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It was a long day at work so I couldn't get to this tonight, but hopefully I can finish off all except for the Monnett query, which hopefully can be done over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 05:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Display name 99: - Thanks for this review! I've tried to reply as best as I can to the remaining points. Unfortunately, it's looking like I won't be visiting home over Labor Day due to the sudden and unexpected need for COVID test results, so the Monnett item is still up in the air. Hog Farm _Talk 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• No worries. Get to that when you can. I'm pleased to support this article. However, please fix the error that you made when stating Price's losses in the penultimate paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I have corrected the error. Hog Farm _Talk 14:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Display name 99: Test came back negative, and I have been able to address the Monnett item. Hog Farm _Talk 01:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I'll take a look at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• suggest stating the location in the first sentence
  • Done
• suggest "Price's men made contact with Curtis's Union troops"
  • Done
• "6 miles (9.7 km) from Independence" in what direction?
  • Added
• a bit more context is needed for "while Pleasonton drove back Confederate defenders from the Little Blue." ie he was actually pursuing Price at the this stage, or at least closing up on his rear.
  • Added
• suggest "The expansion of the town then city of Independence into areas that were rural at the time of the battle has resulted in urban development over much of the battlefield, and it has been concluded that it is beyond hope of meaningful preservation."
  • Done
• where does the 7,000 Confederates infobox figure come from?
  • "Fagan's division with 4,500 men was left at Independence as a rear guard, and Marmaduke's division with 2,500 men was between Fagan and Shelby". Should this be made clearer?

Body

• "but were confined to the southwestern Missouri"
  • Fixed
• suggest "With the dire situation for the Confederacy east of the Mississippi River in the Atlanta campaign and Siege of Petersburg,"
  • Done
• "threats to the Union flank" which one?
  • Added

Down to Battle. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "were already almost to Price's line" was this actually Fagan's line, as his division was the rearguard?
  • I've rephrased this to "the Confederate line"
• "to allow Pleasonton to pursue Price directly" but wasn't he already doing this? Perhaps this could be tweaked to reflect that?
  • This is in reference to Rosecrans wanted Smith and Pleasonton to move south and cut off the path the Confederates would have to take in a retreat. two sentences earlier, where Pleasonton was briefly intended to swing to the south
• "The 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment and 17th Illinois Cavalry Regiment of McNeil's brigade forced back Confederate pickets,[37][38] from Slemons's brigade and under the command of Colonel John C. Wright,[39] at the river crossing, but were delayed because of a burned bridge. " is unclear, perhaps it needs to be split up into two or more sentences with greater focus on the subjects of the sentences. For example, which force was commanded by Wright? Were the pickets at the river crossing?
  • I've split this into three sentences and have tried to clarify everything
• "Clark's and Freeman's brigades" - isn't this just Marmaduke's division?
  • Pretty much, but the source specifically identifies the two brigades separately rather than just the division. I'm inclined to keep it this way, as Marmaduke also had a couple scouting companies and Harris's Missouri Battery (1864) that I haven't seen mentioned in sources about the battle
• "After falling all the way back to Independence, Cabell was joined by Clark's and Freeman's brigades" and "Despite support from Hughey's battery which lasted until 15:00, Cabell's brigade was forced back to Independence itself. " seems duplicative
  • Good catch. It is duplicative - I've moved the first mention down towards the second one
• "While coordination between the charging unit was intended" between 2nd Arkansas Cavalry and which other unit?
  • Will need to consult the local library's copy of Kirkman for this.
    • Rephrased - between Sanborn and McNeil
• "the right wing of Sanborn's brigade instead moved in front of the rest of the Union line,[44] as part of the 2nd Arkansas Cavalry was already halfway to Independence when the rest of the units began advancing" isn't clear. Were only troops from Sanborn's brigade advancing? If so, perhaps reflect that and maybe be more specific about how far units had advanced.
  • As above, will need to hit the library for this.
    • I've tried to rephrase this to make it clearer. Sanborn and McNeil were both advancing, but part of Sanborn's brigade got in front of everyone else. Source (Kirkman) doesn't say how far
      • Perhaps this would be better as "While coordination between McNeil and Sanborn was intended, the 2nd Arkansas Cavalry – on the right of Sanborn's brigade – had commenced their advance earlier than the rest of the attacking force, and were halfway to Independence when the rest began advancing towards the town."? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @Peacemaker67: - Thanks for the suggestion! This is done now. Hog Farm _Talk 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• suggest Union Arkansas regiment→2nd Arkansas Cavalry
  • Done
• suggest "The attack drove the Confederates away to the west and southwest, but the Union forces did not pursue them due to fatigue."
  • Done
• "McNeil's brigade was ordered to charge again" again? And towards whom, the Confederates to the west or southwest? Perhaps "continue the assault and charge the Confederates west (or southwest) of Independence."
  • This was very poorly worded. I've tried to rephrase this
• can I suggest "1st, the 4th, and the 7th Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiments"?
  • Done
• also "3rd and 4th Iowa Cavalry Regiments, and the 4th and 10th Missouri Cavalry Regiments"
  • Done

That's all I could find. Nice job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: - Sorry this took almost a week. I've made an initial reply to everything above. Hog Farm _Talk 04:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff, well done on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

References

• #58 — Could be styled "pp. 91, 114 n.41", but that's up to you.
  • Done, as I was mainly just guessing on how it should be formatted with the other way

Sources

• Collins 2016: Looks like the second comma in the name isn't needed.
  • Removed, it's pulling from {{Cite Collins 2016}} so it might take awhile for the cache to purge and the change to show in the transclusion
• Houghton Mifflin can take a link.
  • Linked. Likewise this is pulling from {{Cite Kennedy 1998}} so it'll probably take a little while for the change to become visible with the cache.
• Ditto The History Press.
  • Linked
• Kansas State Historical Society, or Kansas Historical Society? The Kansas Historical Quarterly can take a link. Publisher location missing. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • I've removed the accessdate, and linked the journal. Worldcat suggests that KSHS is the proper publisher. I imagine the society probably changed the name at some point after the journal became defunct in the 70s.
• University of Missouri Press can take a link (twice).
  • Done both times
• University Press of Colorado also.
  • Linked
• And Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Linked
• American Battlefield Protection Program can as well. And as printed matter, the retrieval date isn't needed.
  • Removed |accessdate= and linked the publisher

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• • @Usernameunique: - Thanks for the review! I've implemented all of the suggested changes. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    • No problem, Hog Farm. Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose - With this one looking in pretty good shape (3 supports, ir + sr), may I have a second one? Hog Farm _Talk 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Reviewing this to clear the FAC backlog, non-expert prose review.

• In the infobox, did "Pleasonton's division" have a name? Should it be wikilinked or redlinked?
  • It doesn't really have a widely used name other than "Pleasonton's division". Divisions in the American Civil War were generally pretty ad hoc formations like this one, and don't really have anything to base an article on.
• "that it is beyond hope" I know beyond hope is reflects the language in the quote further down the article, but I think it's too much of an idiom to have in Wikivoice without quotations. Maybe rephrase to "that it would not be possible to preserve." or something similar?
  • How does "meaningful preservation is no longer possible" sound?
• "by part of the XVI Corps," Wikilink XVI Corps?
  • It's already linked two paragraphs above in the Prelude section, so I'm not sure that that's necessary
• "Independence to finish mopping things up." Mopping things up feels too much like an idiom. Perhaps be more specific on what they were doing during this "mopping up" time.
  • @Z1720: - Kinda stuck on this one for now. Monnett is the only source I can't easily access (borrowed it from a relative who lives two hours away when I wrote the article, and it's unavailable at the local library or either of the two university libraries I can access). Collins, Lause, and Sinisi don't discuss what McNeil and Sanborn did during Winslow and Brown's attacks. Will try and find a copy of Monnett somewhere. Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I don't have online access to the book, either. If you struggle to get a copy I might be able to get it from a local university library. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Z1720: - I've placed a request at WP:RSX. Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Winslow's men attacked, and quickly drove back Cabell's and Freeman's brigades." Recommend removing the comma for flow, although it's an oxford comma so I won't oppose if it's kept.
  • Removed
• "Concerned about the safety of his wagon train, Price ordered it to move at daylight for Little Santa Fe, via Hickman Mills." Since there is no wikilink for Little Santa Fe, I recommend giving a short explainer about where Little Santa Fe is.
  • Glossed
• "The Union troops broke through the line, and hit the flank of the Westport line." Also recommend removing this oxford comma for flow.
  • Removed

Those are my comments. Great job as always. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Z1720, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for this delayed response. I was hoping there would be a response to HogFarm's RSX, but it doesn't look like there will be. Perhaps the following phrase can be removed to alleviate my idiom concerns: "to finish mopping things up. As part of this process," When the source is found, I think we can change "mopping up" to more precise words. @Hog Farm: thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Z1720: - I have removed these phrases. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    • My concerns are addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - RSX came through in the clutch. The source states Sanborn and McNeil were left to clean up the town, take care of the dead and wounded, and to bring up the Federal wagon train before describing the rescued men, and the hotel/bank as hospitals. "clean up the town" may well be an idiom itself, as I doubt Sanborn and McNeil's men were on janitorial duty. What would be your preferred phrasing here? Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, "Sanborn and McNeil were left to manage various tasks related to the town's post-battle condition: they..." and then describe the rescued men, conversion of buildings into hospitals, etc. I'm not thrilled with this sentence, so feel free to change it up. Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Z: - How about Brown and Winslow were to move against the Confederates while McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades remained behind in Independence to manage post-battle cleanup tasks. A local bank and hotel were taken over by McNeil and Sanborn's men [...]? I'm not super thrilled with that suggestion, either. It's kind hard to avoid being idiomatic when the source itself is idiomatic and there's not really a good clear English phrase to describe this. Hog Farm _Talk 05:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Hog Farm: Sorry, I missed this ping. This suggestion works for me. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 15 October 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) 11:17, 16 October 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 September 2021 [100].

---

Etta Lemon

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak, Shyamal 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC),

Enter the Dragon! Etta Lemon's authoritarian leadership of the RSPB, an organisation she helped to found, led to this nickname. Awarded the MBE for her war work and a pioneering bird conservationist, she was strongly opposed to the campaign for women's right to vote. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

What a delightfully unexpected article! Not much by way of comment from me, but these are my few quibbles:

• She was born into an evangelical Christian family in Kent, but after her father's death she became a campaigner against the use of plumage… – the "but" seems to imply some connection or contrast between the first and second parts of the sentence, but I don't think there really is one.
• Frank Lemon, who became its legal advisor – for such a venerable British institution it would be nice to use the traditional English "adviser" rather than the American "advisor".
• did not prevent them being sold – I think this would be better as either "did not prevent their being sold" (gerund, and all that) or "did not prevent them from being sold".
• captain of muskettry – spelling? You have "musketry" later, which looks more convincing to me.
• Together with the twice-widowed Eliza Phillips – I'm a little doubtful that Mrs P's twice-widowed status is all that relevant, but I do not press the point.
• at Phillips' home – unexpected form of the possessive: wouldn't Philips's be the usual form?
• outstripped by the SPB due to the latter organisation's extensive network – in my book "due to" is not accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to" in formal BrE. "Because of" always strikes me as better than either.

That's my lot. I greatly enjoyed this article, and look forward confidently to supporting on my next visit to this page. Tim riley talk 13:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley, many thanks for the review, that was quite painless! I can't believe that after all the times I've read this article that silly errors like "muskettry" still survive. I've kept twice-widowed if only to encourage people to read that article too, otherwise I've followed your excellent advice, including replacing "but" by "and". Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've just spotted one extra small quibble: Sir Edward Grey but Sir Auckland Geddes – one has his Sir in the link and the other doesn't. I strongly prefer the former style, but whichever you prefer (the MoS is silent on the matter) you should be consistent. I do not propose to wait for that to be addressed before adding my support, which I now do. The article is well balanced, judiciously proportioned, sensibly illustrated and, I don't doubt, as widely sourced as possible. Tessa Boase's book crops up a lot, but I can't imagine there are many alternatives, if any, and the twelve references to the ODNB – two different articles therein – give comfort that we are OK so far as FAC criterion 1c goes. A most pleasing article, which I much enjoyed reading and am pleased to support for FA. – Tim riley talk 16:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley Thanks again for the kind words and support. I've sorted out the knights as you suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

I had a quick look and made a few edits already (I believe them to be minor, but please revert if I was mistaken). Before I comment in full a question: is Margaretta Louisa Lemon really the right title for this article? From your use of Etta Lemon within the article, and even in your little nomination blurb, I get the impression that Etta Lemon is the more common way to refer to her. Just a question, I have not looked into it in depth. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Edwininlondon, it's always a bit tricky with formal/informal names. There is a redirect from Etta Lemon, and my earlier Emma Louisa Turner had the formal title despite her most frequently being referred to informally as "E L Turner", so at least it's consistent. I don't think it's like a stage name where the birth name would clearly be inappropriate. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Edwininlondon, and on the original of the new image, she is "Mrs Frank Lemon"... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's tricky indeed. Reading WP:COMMONNAME it seems to me that "Etta Lemon" scores high on the naturalness criterion, higher than her birthname, am I right? Or is it just Tessa Boase who uses Etta Lemon? What about the other criteria? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

• Edwininlondon The commonest usage is Mrs Lemon in all sources. Where a first name is given, ONDB uses Etta Smith while she is unmarried, but Margaretta Lemon exclusively after her marriage. ZLS ref uses Margaretta, others just have initials Mrs M. Lemon or Mrs F. E. Lemon. Boase only occasionally uses Margaretta, overwhelmingly Etta, but then she also refers to the Duchess of Portland as "Winnie" more than once, and I doubt that we are going down that route. If you look at the RSPB site or publications, it's always Etta, but the articles are always written by Boase as her biographer. Boase definitely does informal, and is pretty well ubiquitous on the web, but that isn't reflected in the other sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• OK, so that seems not to favour Etta as article title. But would Margaretta Lemon not be a better article title than Margaretta Louisa Lemon? And would it not be better to use Margaretta in the article text instead of Etta?

• Shyamal Any view on this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess the encyclopaedic formal option would be (with or without Mrs.) Lemon but Etta does give it a warmer touch. Shyamal (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, changed to Etta Lemon now, can someone check that i've not missed anything? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

My comments:

• nee should be linked, as per MOS:NEE

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• A few more links perhaps (Kent, Evangelisation Society, Cambridge, Teetotal, Brighton, infirmary)?

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• She founded the Fur, Fin and Feather Folk --> is "the" correct here?

• I can't see why not, it's what Boase uses and it seems natural to me anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Etta married Frank Lemon on 25 May 1892 --> by giving the exact date I got the impression this day was significant, but I don't think that is the case. I think just using the year only might be better, avoiding a possible distraction

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• During her tenure, the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act 1921 --> this way of phrasing suggests to me that her role in this was minimal or non-existant. Should it be written perhaps with a bit more (of a hint) of causality? Or would that be inaccurate?

• I think it's hard to show direct causality, she wasn't a politician, and it's men that pull the levers of power then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• William Elisha Smith and Louisa --> William Elisha Smith and Louisa Smith I would say

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Etta was the oldest --> I'd like to see something about her short name here, rather than later in footnote a

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Society aimed to promote --> The society aimed to promote

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• leading to the trade term "aigrette" --> what was this a term for? For the trade of hatmaking?

• For the feathers, clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since shooting breeding --> Repetition of since

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Members pledged not to wear --> Perhaps merge this with the previous paragraph

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• which did not itself wish to take up the plumage cause --> that's curious. Is there anything on the reason why not?

• It kept more "extreme" animal causes at arms length, added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• The SPB had its own offic --> bit of a short paragraph. Can it be merged?

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• was associated with Etta Smith and Eliza Phillips --> should that be Lemon and Phillips?

• I think not, Hudson Margaretta before her marriage, and I've said right from the start in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• and its single-issue focus--> going by the name Plumage League, I would expect it to be a single-issue campaign as well. Was it not?

• It was, but was quickly subsumed into the Selbourne Society Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• publishers and watchers committees. --> later on Watchers is consistently speeled with a capital. Or is this something different?

• lc throughout now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mrs Lemon soon came --> Just Lemon will do. See MOS:MRS. There are a few more Mrs Lemons in the article

• done, Frank was dead then, so no ambiguity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blanche Atkinson (1847–1911) --> why the years? Not given for other people

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Etta Lemon became a committee member --> Lemon became a committee member (it's quite clear we're not talking about Frank here)

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• In 1917, during World War I --> earlier it is First World War. Better to be consistent

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• £13,770 5s 5d --> the 5s 5d need explanation (for anyone not British)

• Linked to the currency units now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• admitted in 1909,[39] The others were --> I think a full stop or a semicolon is needed

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• and since much BOU --> the acronym needs to be introduced first, a few lines back

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)That's it from me. Interesting read. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Edwininlondon thank you for your review and comments, much appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. All looks fine. I checked your change from Margaretta to Etta and could not see anything you missed. I did change one more stray Mrs Lemon into Etta Lemon. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for review, changes and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• File:Margaretta_Louisa_Lemon_died_1953.jpg needs a stronger FUR

• Nikkimaria, thanks for reviewing. Could you clarify what needs to be done for the FUR? I didn't add the image myself, and I'm unclear what the problem is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the lines in the current FUR are very short and non-descript - for example, not replaceable with fair use because "copyright". I would suggest expanding the FUR and making it more specific to the circumstances of this image. Also, what has been done to attempt to track down the original creator/source of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, thanks. The copyright is claimed by the Lemon Family Archive, I've added that. It seems likely that this photo was taken on behalf of her or Frank Lemon, but I can't verify that. She's obviously a young woman here, but no clue to actual date, and her biographer, who had access to the family records, doesn't give a date either. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, good to know. Suggest expanding the other lines as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, Shyamal has found an image dated 1913 which appears to be free-to-use so I've replaced the FU with that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

UK - not sure about the definition of publication - according to the available metadata on the Surrey History Centre, Woking site it was collated as an album "Borough of Reigate Jubilee year of incorporation: some portraits" (1913) with the photographer identified as most likely "Ralph Winwood Robinson" (1862-1942). Shyamal (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

So in any case more than 70 years after his death Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• c:File:Lillian_Russell_with_plumed_hat_cph.3a44402.jpg: where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?

William McKenzie Morrison (1857 – 1921) - according to the source, this may have been processed from a negative in the archives - Reproduction Number: LC-DIG-ppmsca-72874 (digital file from original) LC-USZ62-44168 (b&w film copy neg.)

If the author died in 1921 then the life+100 tag won't apply until 2022 (it turns over at year-end). The LOC page says 1927 though? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Have removed the pd-old-100, it now only has the pd-old-70 claim. 1927 seems to be in error - possibly via worldcat - see http://pic.nypl.org/constituents/2502 Shyamal (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This will need a US tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Added - also image swapped to this version - c:File:Lillian_Russell-ppmsca-72874u.jpg Shyamal (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a remastered positive from the negative of the same image as above. Unable to see any usage online, may be unpublished - there is one in the same dress published as a postcard in the 1890s (attributed to Pach Brothers). Shyamal (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay - if this particular image was unpublished the current tagging will need amendment. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, can you please advise on what tag we should be useing? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Shyamal has added a PD-unpublished tag, which would be appropriate if this was never published before 2003 - is that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

What would be the option if we did not know for sure? I am assuming the protection for unpublished is greater and so if that has expired then it also handles the other situation where it was published somewhere in the 1890s. Shyamal (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If it were published somewhere in the 1890s it would also be PD - we'd just run into issues if it were published in the intervening period. We go by the earliest publication that can be confirmed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nikki, Jim, Shyamal, is this resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ian Rose, unless Nikki says something different, i think we were assuming it was Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just looking for confirmation re: first known publication for File:Lillian_Russell-ppmsca-72874u.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria, Ian Rose, and Shyamal:, the image isn't essential, I've removed it now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've added a new image found by Shyamal and also in the Boase book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The subject Lillian Russell died in 1922, the photographer died in 1921. I would imagine that any published usage of that photograph was made before that, if at all. I cannot find evidence that the image was first "published" at any date - but that certainly is not proof of absence of publication. The LOC note "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication" is as much as we can get. Shyamal (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• c:File:Laszlo_-_Winifred_Anna_Cavendish-Bentinck_(née_Dallas-Yorke),_6th_Duchess_of_Portland,_1912.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This was reproduced in "Some Recent Works by Mr. P. A. de László," The Studio, Vol. 86, No. 366 (Sept. 14, 1923), pp. 128-134. (not sure if that was the first publication though).

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....

• I'd use descriptors to describe Brightwen, Eliza Philips and Emily Williamson

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• .. although Etta's conservatism, authoritarian management and opposition to scientific ornithology increasingly led to clashes with the organisation's committee. - is in lead but I can't see where this is expanded on in text

• I think it's all in the final section, which I've retitled to make it clearer that it's a summary of her strengths and weaknesses. Please feel free to tweak the heading if you don't like the new one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking okay on comprehensiveness and prose otherwise

• @Casliber: many thanks for your review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Casliber:, and thanks for supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "after her father's death she became a campaigner" - is this correct? The text says the father died 1899 but certainly mentions campaigning activities before that

• Changed to increased Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Source for Note f?

• I didn't put that in and I have no idea how to format it, so I've recalculated with measuringworth, which gives a reasonably similar outcome Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Which comparator was used? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, when I've used Measuringworth in previous FACs I've formatted it just as a link to the tool, so I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but I've added (relative value £ UK purchasing power) to the ref. Is that what you meant? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - the tool provides several different means of assessing relative value, so if linking simply to the homepage we need to identify which is being used. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the Brightwen edition statement to the Cited texts section rather than having it in short cites

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how ODNB cites are formatted

• Added missing publisher and doi Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Several Clarke refs are missing closing parenthesis

• duh... done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• London Gazette should be italicized

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN26 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Added missing parameters Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, as always I'm grateful for anyone who undertakes the tedious task of a source review, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Z1720

Non-expert prose review. I made some small edits to the article that can be reviewed. If something is reverted, please note it below.

• "She was finally ousted from her leadership role in 1938, aged 79." Delete finally as redundant.

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• The article calls the subject of the article by Etta before explaining that it was her nickname. Either explain that Margaretta was Etta earlier in the paragraph or use general pronouns until the Etta name is explained.

• We start the article with Margaretta "Etta" Louisa Lemon, I think that's adequate indication it's a nickname, and it's self-evident it's a shortening of Margarette Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• On the one hand, we can't guarentee that readers will read the lede, but on the other hand I think I need to put some faith in the readers to be competent about who the article is talking about. I won't let this prevent my support unless another editor has this concern. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough, no other reviewer has mentioned it as an issue yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Etta and Mercy (the sisters preferred to be called Etta and Mercy rather than by their first names)" perhaps "Etta and Mercy (the names that the sisters preferred to be called)"?

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to meet just the British demand" -> "to meet the British demand alone."

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Shooting breeding birds effectively led to the failure of their eggs and chicks to survive, actual losses will have been much higher." -> "Shooting breeding birds effectively led to the failure of their eggs and chicks to survive, causing actual losses to be much higher."

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "At its peak, the British trade was worth £20 million annually, around £204 million at 2021 prices." I suggest using Template:Inflation as this will prevent the need for this article to need constant updating as it gets older.

• I replaced Template:Inflation because the sources reviewer required a proper source, which a Wikipedia template is not. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• That surprises me: in other FACs I have seen other editors add this to the article prevent the article becoming outdated. I'm going to ping @Nikkimaria: and ask for their thoughts on using the inflation template, as they conducted the source review. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not terribly familiar with that template - is there a way for it to display the source it uses for the conversion? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at Template:Inflation, although my understanding of templates is probably lower than yours. To calculate UK inflation, the template sources Measuring Worth, the same source used in the Etta Lemon article. I do not think the template can add a citation that would be updated if the template's UK inflation calculation is updated in the future, possibly causing it to fail the FAC verification requirement. If the template is not used, then the article's 2020 inflation number would need to be updated every few years, which by itself would not be a big deal but when multiplied over several articles this can take up a lot of time. Does the inflation calculation need to be cited if the template is used? Should this template's use be discussed by the wider FAC community? I first discovered this template when a frequent FAC nominator added it to my first FAC article. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the citation would need to be updated dynamically - it could simply link to the base site and specify which calculation is being used. But I do think that there would need to be a citation displayed for the calculation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've used Measuringworth in other FACs without problems, and I don't think it's mandatory to use a particular source/template. I have no idea how to reference the template, but if you have a solution, please feel free to change to the template Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like this is creating more problems than is worth including. I will keep this conversation in mind for future reviews (specifically to ensure uses of Template:Inflation in FACs include a citation) and I won't let the template's exclusion prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "At church she would note women who were wearing feathered hats, and send them a note explaining how birds were killed to make them." Too much note, change one to a different word.

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Together with the twice-widowed wildlife activist Eliza Phillips," Is it important in this biography for the reader to know that Phillips was twice widowed? If not, remove it as trivia.

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Other early members included the wealthy, unmarried Catherine Hall, and the 15-year-old Hannah Poland, a fish merchant's daughter." Is it important for this biography to know about other early members? If not, this info might be better placed in the article about the organisation.

• they were amongst the earliest of members and both were, or became influential, so in an section about the founding of the SPB/RSPB i think they rate with Lemon and Phillips Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• My opinion is that this article is about Lemon, not the SRB/RSPB so this information would probably be better placed in SPB's article (when it is created. However, I will not let this prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• The article will often use the full "Etta Lemon" name. I suggest only using one name, as that will make the article shorter.

• I've also had suggestions to use the full form more, and there is no length limit on an FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SURNAME articles generally refer to a person by their surname after the initial mention. Except for the first mention, and instances where her first name is used to distinguish from Frank Lemon, I do not think her full name is necessary. Was there a specific reason to use the full name more often in the article? Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I've done that where confusion with Frank seems unlikely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A bill to control the trade in feathers was unsuccessfully introduced in parliament in 1908,[23] but during the First World War, feathers were among the luxury items whose import was banned from February 1917 for the duration of the hostilities." Is there a connection between these two events? If not, they should be separate sentences

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• The lede says, "She was finally ousted from her leadership role in 1938, aged 79." But the article says, "She bowed to the inevitable and submitted her resignation from the committee to the Duchess of Portland in the same year." Ousted to me implies that there was a vote to remove her, rather than her resignation. I think the phrasing needs to be changed somewhere to ensure these align.

• Changed lead to "pressured to resign" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• " L. J. Rintoul and E. V. Baxter joined them in 1911." I do not know if this information is important for Lemon's biography and can probably be deleted as trivia.

• I don't think the admission of women to all-male societies would be trivial now, and it certainly wasn't a century ago, I think all the six first female members are worth mentioning, even if there was a year's delay, otherwise I might as well just mention Lemon and none of the others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of these women, but I am unsure if their mention is important in Lemon's article. It might be worth deleting the other people inducted with her, as they were inducted at the same time. However, the 1911 inductees especially stood out to me as I was unsure how their induction was connected to Lemon. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• removed as requested, although my FA for Emma Louisa Turner has all six, so a bit inconsistent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "she faded into the background" -> "recognition of her work decreased"? I think faded into the background is an MOS:IDIOM

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "but from 2018 she began to be rehabilitated." -> "but from 2018 her reputation began to be rehabilitated."

• doneJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Z1720 many thanks for review and comments, all done I think. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Some comments above. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Z1720 All done now, i think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• My concerns have been addressed. I now support. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Z1720, many thanks for your help and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:41, 24 September 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) 01:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [101].

---

Uroš Drenović

Nominator(s): Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

Drenović (pronounced Drenovich) was a Bosnian Serb Chetnik leader during World War II. He started off as part of the general rebellion against the extreme nationalist Ustaše and their genocidal policies against the Serbs, but soon turned against the Communist-led Yugoslav Partisans who wanted to fight the Axis occupiers. He despised Muslims and Croats, and as a Chetnik he collaborated with first the Ustaše, then the Italians and the Germans. Aged 33, he was killed in an Allied bombing raid on Banja Luka in May 1944. Despite his extensive collaboration with the Axis Powers during the war, a street in Banja Luka is named after him, and within the Serb entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, the actions of his Chetniks are celebrated and equated with those of the Partisans. AB and I have worked on several successful FACs before, one of our previous efforts being Kragujevac massacre. This article passed GAN in 2015 and Milhist ACR in January this year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• File:Order_of_the_Karađorđe's_Star_with_Swords_rib.png needs tagging and details for the original design.

Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• File:Grob_Uroša_Drenovića_i_crkva_Klisina.jpg: as Bosnia does not have freedom of panorama this will need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

G'day Nikkimaria, if I cropped it in to the grave only, and given the grave and gravestone is simple and lacks originality, an utilitarian work rather than an architectural one, I suspect it would be ok. Thoughts?

The gravestone has a portrait on it - any idea what the status of that would be? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. It is drawn from a photograph taken during the war. If I found a publication prior to 1966 (under Yugo copyright) would that help, or would the gravestone be a new version? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It would depend whether it is purely a copy, or whether it's just derived from the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems too problematic. I have replaced it with a different file. See what you think Nikkimaria? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to verify, this is believed to meet the requirement of an official text "disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public"? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely Nikkimaria. Proceedings of the NOR was huge series of official histories issued by the government to inform the public about the war. This document was published in that series to inform the public about Drenović's collaboration. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm finding myself a bit confused by the relationship between the various groups in the Bosanska Krajina uprising sections. The Ustase and the Axis worked together, and were opposed by the Partisans. But the role of the Chetniks is unclear - it reads like they were integral parts of the Partisans in places, but also at times outside of the Partisan organization. My guess is that the Partisans were anti Ustase/Axis, while the Chetniks were simply pro-Serb, but it wouldn't hurt to try to clarify this.

• The Chetniks essentially fought alongside the Partisans for most of 1941, but started fighting against them from late 1941 on, and in doing so, they began collaborating with the Axis and their local proxies (the Ustase). I've condensed much of the second and third paragraphs. Please let me know if it's any less confusing. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think it makes a lot more sense. I think "A Serbian nationalist with anti-Muslim and anti-Croat views, Drenović eventually betrayed the Partisans and sided with the royalist, Serbian nationalist Chetniks, whose ideology more closely aligned with his own." helps a lot

• That's good to hear. I always say if folks unacquainted with the subject find something overly confusing, then we haven't done a very good job explaining it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• "In recent years, the ceremony has not been attended by any officials of the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina" - I feel like this needs as "as of" date to indicate what exactly "recent years" means. (the two sources are from '14 and '17)

• You bring up a really good point. RS officials may not have attended when those particular articles were published, but what's to say they haven't done so in recent years? I'll leave this to my co-nom, though I will note that the sources used to cite this particular sentence don't meet my personal standards of reliability. But to each their own. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Have specified the years. I think it is worth pointing out that RS authorities haven't been wholeheartedly onboard in some past years. I have tried to locate sources for other years, but no dice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the ceremony has not been attended by any officials of the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina" - I queried about the significance of this in the ACR. I still feel like it might be useful to briefly state the significance of this in the text, as to people like me who aren't super familiar with the politics of this area, the significance isn't obvious

• The subject of this article collaborated with German forces during the war and yet has annual memorial ceremonies to commemorate him on the anniversary of his death. This is why its significant. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Can we get a translation for the title of Trikić, Savo; Repajić, Dušan (1982) like is done for the other non-English works?

• Done. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• "As of 2019 a street in Banja Luka was named after Drenović, and his actions and those of his Chetniks are celebrated in the official history of World War II used within Republika Srpska. Schools in Republika Srpska teach that the Chetniks were on the same anti-fascist footing as the Partisans, despite the Chetniks' extensive collaboration with the Axis during World War II" - This is more of a query than an actual comment - is this news source good for views of historical events? Just asking, as I'd be loathe to cite a number of the major US news sources for American Civil War stuff.

• Good point, especially since this is an opinion piece. I can replace it with a straightforward news article by the Serbo-Croatian branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which mostly says the same things. Is US state-backed media OK in your book? I personally don't have any issues with it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'll trust your judgment on this - you know more about what is potentially problematic sourcing-wise and what is likely fine for this subject than I do.

• Done.

That's it from me. Good work; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm. I hope I've addressed some of your concerns. If you could go into more detail regarding your confusion over the lead, that would be great. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I anticipate supporting once I see what PM has to say about the ceremony attendance bit and the sources there. Hog Farm _Talk 01:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to do the review. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Hog Farm. I have responded to the outstanding query. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support. Hog Farm _Talk 02:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1

Consider adding a sound file with the pronunciation of his name

I have to say I could not understand by just reading the lead without clicking links or reading on. I think because 1) I did not know the word "Ustaše", 2) "uprising against the NDH" confused me as NDH had earlier been defined as a place. So would it make sense to say "the puppet state known as the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), led by the fascist Ustaše" and "uprising against the Ustaše"?

• (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Chidgk1! I have reworded that part of the lead along the lines you suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Iazyges

• Looks like y'all are in need of reviews. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Bosanska Krajina uprising

• In an area where the KPJ did not have a strong presence, but which was under the sway of the sectarian Serb elite of Mrkonjić Grad, Drenović arrested Muslim communists, even confronting senior members of the Partisan leadership in the Bosanska Krajina suggest Mrkonjić Grad did not have a strong presence of the KPJ, but was under the sway of sectarian Serb elite, allowing Drenović to arrest Muslim communists, even confronting senior members of the Partisan leadership in the Bosanska Krajina.

Alliance with the NDH

• His was the only Chetnik band that the Ustaše trusted fully during the war. Drenović was a Chetnik vojvoda (warlord). this seems awkward, perhaps Drenović was a Chetnik vojvoda (warlord), and his Chetnik band was the only one that the Ustaše trusted fully during the war.
• That is all of my suggestions. A neat article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Iazyges. Both done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Source for Cyrillic name?

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering News? Books?

Books fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

News fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• What is "G-2 (PB) "

G-2 was the designation for the intelligence branch of the headquarters. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Christia: is the location given correct?

No, not sure what happened there. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sadkovich is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, also publisher was not right for some reason. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Nikkimaria. See what you think of my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "After initially distinguishing himself in resisting the Ustaše alongside communist-led rebels," Not sure if initially is necessary, could be removed as redundant.

Fair enough, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Soon after the German-led invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, largely spontaneous uprisings began to occur throughout the newly created Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH),[7] which was governed by the fascist Ustaše." Two thoughts are in this sentence that should be broken up: one is the uprisings, and the other is the creation of the NDH. Perhaps, "After their invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the Germans created a puppet state called the Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH), governed by the fascist Ustaše. Shortly after its creation, largely spontaneous uprisings occurred throughout the state, caused by the genocidal policies implemented by the Ustaše against Serbs, Jews and Romani people."

Reworded as suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• "On 29 May 1944, Drenović was killed in an Allied bombing raid on Banja Luka,[41] and his grave is at the Serbian Orthodox Church of Klisina in Stričići outside Banja Luka.[2]" I think these are two separate thoughts and should get their own sentences.

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2014 and 2017, the ceremony was not attended by any officials of the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Why not? Why is this important to note? Expand upon it in the article.

This has been raised several times, and I concede that it isn't that useful. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm surprised at how short the legacy section is. My impression of the article is that this is a controversial historical figure due to his changing allegiances. Is there more information about his legacy in other parts of the nations formerly part of Yugoslavia? Any opinions on what his legacy should be? (As a hero, a villain, a traitor, or something else?)

It is complicated. He is remembered mainly in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, although their view of him is based on a pretty selective reading. Clearly he saved Bosnian Serb lives in the initial uprising against the Ustaše, but this reputation was tarnished by his collaboration. This is the case with quite a few Chetnik leaders. Perhaps there would have been more written about him if he had lived longer and had been captured and tried after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Drenovic's complicated legacy is not conveyed in the death and legacy part of the article at the moment. Instead, the article gives me the impression that he is generally well-received today as a celebrated figure. Some sentences about his complicated legacy might be helpful. Are there high-quality sources that speak about this? I conducted a search, but many sources are in foreign languages so I am unsure if they speak about that subject. Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Z1720. I've expanded on what the Helsinki Committee says about this phenomenon. See what you think of my additions/tweaks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. I did a copyedit for phrasing. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Z1720. Let me know what you think of my responses and edits. It is always good to have non-Milhist eyes on FACs covered by the project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I now support. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 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) 22:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [102].

---

NASA Astronaut Group 2

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Next Nine, the nine astronauts selected for Projects Gemini and Apollo in 1962. They were the next most famous group after the Mercury Seven, although few astronauts are much remembered today. They are also widely regarded as the best group ever chosen. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice), and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it as well. Seven of the nine were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor (one posthumously). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ProcrastinatingReader

Fascinating article! Some comments; take them with a grain of salt, as I don't usually review FAs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• I think it's worth introducing what this group was being "selected" for more clearly in the lead. More generally, I think the "Background" section (which is pretty

clearly worded) could be more clearly summarised in the lead.

• Added a bit more; let me know if you think it is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Original Seven is used without being introduced. Per Mercury Seven this seems to be another name for them, but this is not obvious as worded in the lead. I'd go further and say it's worth just sticking to the same name in the lead.

  Standardised on Mercury Seven. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• with the announcement of the Gemini program leading to the Apollo program; neither are introduced? I guess a reader can click the articles to make sense of what's being said, but I think the relevant portions of the events should be summarised.

  Added a bit more; let me know if you think it is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, that's good.

Selection process

• Neil Armstrong submitted his application a week after the deadline, but Walter C. Williams, the associate director of the Space Task Group, wanted the NASA test pilot, ... I read around the relevant pages of the source; is the choice of phrasing in the bolded part trying to emphasise the whole 'have at least one civilian' idea? If so, worth making that more clear. Or is there another reason it's distinctive?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  That reads better. I read in the source about the speculation that NASA wanted at least one civilian in this group; maybe it's worth writing about that a bit?

• recommended by employer -> "were recommended by their employer"?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Group members table

• Any reason some terms are dupe linked and others not? eg Armstrong and Borman's rows both link "Bachelor of Science", but Lovell's doesn't.

  Linked. Normally only the first occurance is linked, but with lists they can appear in any order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Similar in the "Elliot M. See, Jr" row ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Moved this link up above, so now unlinked in each of the bios. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Link "USAF Experimental Test Pilot School" to U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Training

• The deals with Field and Time Life earned each of the nine $16,250 (equivalent to $139,000 in 2020) per annum over the next four years I'm guessing Time-Life was then the same entity as the Life magazine used in the preceding sentences? If so, worth using the same name perhaps, or at least clarifying the relationship in prose if this was a totally separate/unrelated deal.

  Time Life is the corporation that owned Life magazine. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

General

• Shouldn't there be consistency in the usage of "New Nine and the Next Nine"? eg: Lead has them in that order, infobox uses the first ("New Nine"), the "Group members" table uses "Next Nine", the "Training" section introduces them the opposite way to the lead.

  Next Nine is used preferentially. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Alternative ideas for lead

NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the Next Nine and the New Nine, were astronauts selected by the United States space agency NASA in 1962: Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young. The group included the first civilians, but like the original Mercury Seven astronauts were all white men. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice); and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it.

The next nine augmented the Mercury Seven, who had all been military test pilots and selected to accomplish only the simpler task of orbiting the Earth in Mercury spacecraft. President John F. Kennedy had announced Project Apollo, on May 25, 1961, with the ambitious goal to put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. More astronauts were required to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development. Whilst test pilot experience was still mandatory, the new challenges of space rendezvous and lunar landing led to the selection of four who also had advanced engineering degrees. The next nine were announced on September 17, 1962. Lovell and Conrad had been candidates for the Mercury Seven. The two civilian test pilots selected were See, who had flown for General Electric, and Armstrong, who had flown the X-15 research plane for NASA. All of the nine went on to illustrious careers as astronauts, and seven were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.

• (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've incorporated your ideas into the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• As a formatting suggestion, the block quote from Grissom might do better as a quote box, since it would sop up the white space left as you recount the selection criteria.

  That's a great idea! Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• " more capacious" suggest "roomier"

  It's all relative of course. In Mercury an astronaut sat in a form-fitting seat with the control panel right in front of him. In Gemini, two astronauts sat in something approximating the front seat of a sedan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• " but the mission was aborted after Armstrong used some of his re-entry control fuel to remove a dangerous roll caused by a stuck thruster" I might change "used" to "was compelled to use".

  Changed as suggested. When I'm asked about Neil and Buzz I point out that Buzz shot down a MiG in Korea; Neil crashed his plane in Korea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• "commander of Apollo 12" vs. "Commander of Apollo 10" inconsistent.

  De-capped. I found out that CDR is pronounced See Dee Ah. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

More soon. Doesn't look like there will be much.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• "as well as the first member of his Naval Academy class to pin on the first, second, and third stars of a general officer." Did others get their stars as admirals before him? Or were generals in the Marines? Can we refer to flag rank if not?

  The words are those of the source. I'm pretty sure that he was, but do not have a source for it. Stafford retired as a three star in 1979, and the only member of the class to reach four-star rank was Ace Lyons, who was not promoted to vice admiral until 1981. The only vice admiral I know of in the class was William H. Rowden, but there may have been more. Stafford was not the only astronaut in the class; there was also Jim Lovell. One thing I did discover was that of the 783 graduates in the class, 53 died during service. One marine died in ground combat in Korea, six Navy and USAF aviators were killed in action in Vietnam, and one died in an accident on the submarine USS Pomodon. The other 45 died in air crashes. Statistically that's still better than being one of the Next Nine but still pretty appalling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That's it. I know the subject matter pretty well and reviewed the Mercury Seven article and this seems thorough, well-sourced and accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Neopeius

I got your message and I'm happy, as always, to lend a hand! Thank you for taking on this article. I'd seen it was at FAC, but I hadn't noted the author. :)

• May I suggest the following rearrangement of the lead? Right now, it sort of tails off, and related information is scattered between the two paragraphs. (note -- I have neither added nor revised text, merely moved around. It should be easy to implement.)

NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the Next Nine and the New Nine, was the second group of astronauts selected by NASA. The group was selected to augment the Mercury Seven. President John F. Kennedy had announced Project Apollo, on May 25, 1961, with the ambitious goal of putting a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, and more astronauts were required to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development. The Mercury Seven had been selected to accomplish the simpler task of orbital flight, but the new challenges of space rendezvous and lunar landing led to the selection of candidates with advanced engineering degrees (for four of the nine) in addition to test pilot experience. Their selection was announced on September 17, 1962.

The nine astronauts were Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young. Lovell and Conrad had been candidates for the Mercury Seven, but had not been selected then. Although test pilot experience was still mandatory, the Next Nine were the first group that included civilian test pilots: See had flown for General Electric, and Armstrong had flown the X-15 research plane for NASA. Like the Mercury Seven who had been selected before them, all were married white men with children, and all but one were Protestant. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice), and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it as well. Seven of the nine were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.

Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

• "By 1961, although it was yet to launch a person into space, the STG was confident that Project Mercury had overcome its initial setbacks, and the United States had overtaken the Soviet Union as the most advanced nation in space technology. "

  Suggest: "and 'that the United States..." (otherwise, it suggests the US had overtaken the USSR rather than this was the belief of STG)

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Selection Criteria

• "were experienced test pilots, with 1,500 hours test pilot flying time, who had graduated from a military test pilot school, or had test pilot experience with NASA or the aircraft industry;

  were a U.S. citizen, under 35 years of age, and 6 feet 0 inches (1.83 m) or less in height..."

  You'll want to have an agreement in number, either "was an experienced test pilot" or "was a U.S. citizen..."

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "At this time Jerrie Cobb was pressing for women to be allowed to become astronauts, "

  Suggest comma after "At this time"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• " NASA Administrator James E. Webb told the media that "I do not think we shall be anxious to put a woman or any other person of particular race or creed into orbit just for the purpose of putting them there."[15]"

  Based on the cited source, and to add context, I would say, "NASA Administrator James E. Webb conceded this in a statement to the press in spring 1962, adding "I do not think we shall be anxious to put a woman or any other person of particular race or creed into orbit just for the purpose of putting them there."[15]"

  Very well. Unfortunately, the reader doesn't really get the full context here. There are more details in the articles on subsequent groups.

Selection Process

• "the U.S. Air Force (USAF) conducted its own internal selection process, and only submitted the names of eleven candidates."

  delete comma before and or rephrase "only submitting..."

  Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Curtis LeMay

  I always get dinged when I put two links together. I know there's an MOS page on that.

  MOS:SEAOFBLUE: When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, but it recognises that it is hard to avoid sometimes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Air Force's pre-selection process seems to have been successful; nine of the eleven were chosen as finalists, and one of those rejected, Joe Engle, was selected in a later intake in 1966."

  This is only notable if the Army and Navy had a lower rate of candidates advancing to the finalist stage. Do you have numbers?

  I only have the total number of candidates, 253, which includes civilians. Of the 32 finalists, 13 were USN, 4 were USMC, 9 were USAF and 6 were civilians. It is therefore certain that the Navy and Marine Corps had a much lower rate of candidates advancing to the finalist stage, but more overall, which is as ypou would expect. It's notable though either way, as it shows an important difference in selection between the services.

• "Lovell was not selected for the Mercury Seven due to a high bilirubin blood count.[23]"

  "Lovell had not been selected..."

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "As with those who had been passed over in the Mercury Seven selection, most of the rejected finalists went on to have distinguished careers. William E. Ramsey became a vice admiral in the Navy, and Kenneth Weir, a major general in the Marine Corps.[22] Four would become NASA astronauts in later selections: Alan Bean, Michael Collins and Richard Gordon in 1963, and Jack Swigert in 1966.[31]"

  There were 32 finalists. Only 6 have careers noted here. What were the careers of the other 26 like?

  Nine became astronauts with Group 2, so that leaves 17. Burgess has researched them all; see Moonbound, pp. 68-142. I've singled out the ones that are notable ie have Wikipedia biographies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

• "The nine astronauts were Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young."

  I'd put this line in the previous section before the paragraph beginning "As with those..."

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll have more, but for now, I have to hit the beach. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick on the ball, @Hawkeye7:! Moving forward:

Neil Armstrong

• I think I'd link X-15 -- I know it's linked in the lead, but this is far away.

  Oversight. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to remove a dangerous roll caused by a stuck thruster"

  "address"? "negate"? I don't think "remove" is the right word.

  Changed to "address". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "During training for his second and last spaceflight as commander of Apollo 11"

  comma after "spaceflight"

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "became the first people to land on the Moon, and spent two and a half hours outside the spacecraft. "

  Change "and spent" to "spending"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He earned a Master of Science degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California in 1970."

  Starting to get pronoun fatigue at this point. Suggest "Armstrong" for "he" here. :)

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Frank Borman

• "He was initially selected for Gemini 5 with Gus Grissom, but Grissom was moved to Gemini 3, with Young as his pilot."

  I'd add "Mercury astronaut" before Gus Grissom for context.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "On this mission he and Lovell spent two weeks in space, and performed the first space rendezvous with Gemini 6A."

  delete comma or change to "performing"

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He retired from NASA and the USAF in 1970, and joined Eastern Airlines, eventually becoming its Chairman of the Board in December 1976, eventually retiring in 1986."

  delete comma or change to "joining"

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "After the Apollo 1 fire he was the astronaut representative on the accident investigation board."

  "After the Apollo 1 fire, the January 1967 launch pad test incident that killed astronauts Grissom, White, and Roger Chaffee, Borman was the astronaut representative on the accident investigation board.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Conrad

• "He set an eight-day space endurance record along with his command pilot Gordon Cooper on his first spaceflight, the Gemini 5 mission in August 1965."

  "He set an eight-day space endurance record along with his command pilot, Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper, on his first spaceflight, the Gemini 5 mission in August 1965.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Lovell

• "Lovell graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland with the Class of 1952, and became a naval aviator. "

  Add comma after Maryland; delete comma after 1952.

  Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1958, he graduated from the United States Naval Test Pilot School with Class 20. He flew as the pilot of the Gemini 7 mission in December 1965 during which he and Borman spent two weeks in space, and conducted the first rendezvous in space, with Gemini 6A."

  Add comma after 1965, delete comma after "two weeks in space"

  Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In April 1970 he became the first person to fly in space four times, and the first to travel to the Moon twice, on the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission."

  Comma after 1970.

  Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

McDivitt

• "McDivitt joined the USAF in 1951, and flew 145 combat missions in the Korean War. "

  delete comma after 1951

  Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He commanded the Gemini 4 mission during which White performed the first U.S. spacewalk. "

  comma after mission.

• " In February 1972 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier general, the first astronaut to reach that rank. "

  comma after 1972

  Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• ", and became a senior vice president at Rockwell International. "

  becoming

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

See

• " See graduated from the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) in 1949 with a Bachelor of Science degree in marine engineering, and a commission in the United States Naval Reserve. "

  delete comma after engineering

  Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Stafford

• " Stafford graduated with a Bachelor of Science from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland with the Class of 1952, and joined the USAF."

  Delete comma after 1952.

  Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• " as well as the first member of his Naval Academy class to pin on the first, second, and third stars of a general officer. "

  That's cute phrasing, but I think it's a bit too colloquial. Is this meant to indicate he was the first member of his Naval Academy class to make Vice Admiral?

  No. That's why it is phrased that way; he became a lieutenant general, but before any other member of the class became a three-star officer (lieutenant general or vice admiral). He was later outranked by one who made it to four-star rank. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

White

• "In June 1965, he flew on Gemini 4 as its pilot, and conducted the first American spacewalk. "

  delete comma or change to "conducting"

  Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Young

• "He joined the Navy, and set world time-to-climb records for 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and 25,000 metres (82,000 ft). "

  delete command before and or change to setting

  Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He returned to the Moon as commander of Apollo 16 in April 1972, making the fifth crewed lunar landing. He became the ninth person to walk on the Moon, and the second to fly to it twice"

  delete comma after Moon

  Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In April 1981, he commanded the STS-1 mission, the maiden flight of Columbia."

  "In April 1981, he commanded the STS-1 mission, the maiden flight of space shuttle Columbia."

  Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Next time, you'll definitely want to do a sweep for commas before dependent clauses. :)

Off to dinner. Back to finish things off, hopefully tonight. --Neopeius (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Training

• "organized an Astronauts' Wives Club,[54] along the lines of the Officers' Wives Clubs that were a feature of military bases."

  delete comma after Club

  Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A lawyer, Henry Batten, agreed to negotiate a deal for their personal stories with Field Enterprises along the lines of the Life magazine deal enjoyed by the Mercury Seven, for no fee."

  "A lawyer, Henry Batten, agreed to negotiate a deal with Field Enterprises for personal stories of the Next Nine astronauts, along the lines of the Life magazine deal enjoyed by the Mercury Seven, for no fee."

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "but Mercury Seven astronaut John Glenn intervened, and personally raised the matter with Kennedy, who approved the deal."

  delete comma after intervened. Add "President" before "Kennedy" (I know you've only brought up one Kennedy, but he is the President...)

  Already mentioned above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The deals with Field and Time-Life (which owned Life magazine) earned each of the nine $16,250"

  "The deals with Field and Time-Life (which owned Life magazine) earned each of the nine astronauts $16,250"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Armstrong was responsible for trainers and simulators; Borman for boosters; Conrad for cockpit layout and systems integration; Lovell for recovery systems; McDivitt for guidance systems; See for electrical systems and mission planning; Stafford for communications systems; White for flight control systems; and Young for environmental control systems and space suits.[63]"

  Semicolons replace commas when there are comma-connected phrases in between. As there are none here, I'd replace the semicolons with commas.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• " he did not want a shortage of astronauts to be the reason the schedule could not be met, and therefore proposed that there be another round of recruiting.[66]"

  "and he therefore proposed"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pictures

• The first Background and Selection criteria photo captions are missing final periods.

  Add full stop to the second one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's it for copyedits. I have not checked the sources. Many are offline, so that may be a little tricky. I can check the ones I have, though. Not tonight, but perhaps Thursday. If someone else beats me to it, that's fine, too.

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Neopeius, how's this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Balon Greyjoy

Glad to review this Hawkeye7! Currently on hotel WiFi for the next few days; please forgive any delays in responses

• I would reduce the discussion of the Mercury Seven. While their role is obviously important as the group that was selected prior to the Next Nine, I think that linking to their page is enough.

I strongly disagree. The amount of Mercury Seven discussion is limited, contextual, and in my opinion, necessary. Articles should stand alone where possible. My cent and a half. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

My thought it that the establishment of NASA and the Sputnik launch are outside the scope of the second class of astronauts. All of this was done by the time that the second class was selected. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I really like the succinct history of the Space Race to date there. I did something similar with Mariner 1. --Neopeius (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with adding extra backstory for the Space Race, but it doesn't change my decision to support the FAC. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The two-person Mercury II spacecraft concept did not die" It's not really clear why this is pointed out, as there's no previous mention in the article that the 2-crew Mercury capsule was on the chopping block

  I thought it might have been implied by the reference to Project Apollo. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Perhaps the most important change was lowering the age limit from 40 to 35." Is the "most important" part from the sources (I can't find it in the Grissom article, don't have "Deke!" on me, and don't have "The Real Stuff")? That seems like a subjective claim to deem one change more important than the others.

  It's from Deke, p. 119, but this just explains why the age was lowered from 40 to 35. Removed the "most important". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "submitted the names of all their pilots who met the selection criteria" This makes it seem like it was ALL USMC/USN pilots who met the selection criteria; I'm assuming it was still only the pilots who applied?

  Yes. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• How many USMC/USN applicants were there? There's no good comparison for when it says that the Air Force only submitted 11 names.

  No breakdown is available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The candidates called it a "charm school"." I don't think this sentence is necessary, as it's already clear what the school is teaching.

  It tells you what they thought of it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to a more manageable 32 finalists" I would remove "more manageable" since it is clear that the number of finalists are from a larger pool of applicants.

  Very well, Delated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "later intake" Why not just say that Engle was selected in Group 5?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would remove the name of Birdwell for not being selected, as none of the other non-selects get a specific mention on why they weren't selected

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Their average age was 32.5" I would round this to 33. I'm not sure what date is being used to determine selection, but using September 17, 1962, I found the average age to be 33.1.

  At the time of selection. Made this explicit. The source says 32.5 and the Mercury Seven were 34.5. It appears that they took their age in years and averaged that. With the aid of computers, I too came up with a more exact figure of 33.1, which is accurate to the day. Although we could argue that it's not OR; WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I'm reluctant to substitute our figure for the one in the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, and think that using "33" is more appropriate. As only whole years were used to determine the 32.5 average, the result has more significant figures than the data that went in. This makes it seem like the average was 32 years\ 180 days, when the calculations would consider someone 32 years 1 day and 32 years 364 days as the same age. Not a dealbreaker as far as supporting this FAC, but I think it makes it seem like the average is more exact than it actually is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have substituted the calculations. I just wanted to have it documented that the matter was discussed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The nine were deficient in only one respect: there were too few of them." I would remove this. It's not the class's fault there were only nine astronauts. Additionally, it comes across as romanticizing/subjective to say they only had one flaw in the entire class; they were obviously all high caliber individuals, but they still made mistakes and bad decisions.

  Fair enough. Removed that sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

All I have for now! Article is in good shape! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Made some comments above, but I support this nomination. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

For disclosure Hawkeye approached me on my talk page to ask that I review here. I have no intention on going easy on the article though!

I also posted a request for reviewers at WP:SPACEFLIGHT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the lead should include the date the astronauts were selected/annouced

  I've made it the second sentence of the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• What's the context for the Gus Grissom quote in the selection criteria section? He's not identified as being involved in the selection process.

  Deleted. The point was about the restriction to test pilots, which had the effect of excluding women and minorities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "At this time, Jerrie Cobb was pressing for women to be allowed to become astronauts" - please say who she was

  The source says "award-winning pilot", so went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and the Mercury 13 had passed the same medical tests" - please also explain who the Mercury 13 were

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• " Paul Bikle, the director of the NASA's Flight Research Center, declined to recommend Armstrong" - I think a bit more context is needed here (e.g. was Bikle part of the selection panel, or a potential referee at the start of the process?)

  Added a bit. You were supposed to be recommended by your employer, and he was the head of the NASA center where Armstrong worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and Armstrong and See were civilians" - I'd suggest noting that they had both previously served in the military

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The bio for Armstrong should note he was the first to step foot on the moon (well known, of course, but it looks funny to not see it)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The bio for Lovell should note that he commanded Apollo 13

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are eleven people in the photo of the Next Nine during desert training - can the other two be identified?

  The one on the left is Ray Zedehar, the Astronaut Training Officer. Deke Slayton is in the center of the back row. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The 'Legacy' section notes the views of other astronauts on this group, but can the views of historians also be noted? From memory, the book A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts notes criticisms from scientists that the Apollo astronauts had too narrow a skillset due to the pilot-related requirements, but I'm not sure it applied at this stage of recruitment for the Apollo project. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Putting the Mercury Seven in charge of the astronauts was definitely putting the astronauts in charge of the asylum, but NASA was an organisation of pilots and engineers, so they fitted in well there. Scientists would remain outsiders for many years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, but have historians discussed this? Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, they have. I had noted this in the article on Group 4, where it came to the fore. It wasn't an issue at the time of the Next Nine selection like the admission of women was, but I have added a couple of sentences about it with respect to their training. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support My comments above are now addressed - nice work. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Lead:

• NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the Next Nine and the New Nine, was the second group of astronauts selected by NASA.

  Suggest spelling out the second NASA - regardless of the link

• MOS:ABBREVIATIONS: Acronyms in this table do not need to be written out in full upon first use, except in their own articles or where not doing so would cause ambiguity. The list includes NASA. But okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

<>Point taken - but why distract a reader when NASA is so easily spelled out? Pendright (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• President John F. Kennedy had announced Project Apollo, on May 25, 1961, with the ambitious goal of putting a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, and more astronauts were required to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development.

  The date is treated as nonessential information - but it seems more like essential information?

  The date is germane as it goes to that of the selection process. Had there been no Apollo, NASA might have made do with the Mercury Seven for longer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

<>I agree and it's what I ponted out. Pendright (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Background:

• In response to the Sputnik crisis, the President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, created a new civilian agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to oversee an American space program.[2]

  The U.S. Congress enacted the legislation that created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). National Aeronautics and Space Act

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Space Task Group (STG) at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia created an American crewed spaceflight project called Project Mercury.[3][4]

• Need a comma after Virginia

• Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• The two-person Mercury II spacecraft concept did not die; the STG head Robert R. Gilruth formally announced it on December 7, 1961, and on January 3, 1962 it was officially named Project Gemini.[9]

  Need a comma after 1962.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Selection:

• Civilian test pilots were now eligible, but the requirement for experience in high-performance jets favoured those with recent experience, and fighter pilots over those with multi-engine experience such as Scott Carpenter of the Mercury Seven.

  favoured - sp?

• Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Training:

• Other than the first two sentences of the first pragraph, the first two pragraphs of this section are, for the most part, incidental to the accepted meaning of the word training. So if training is the intended subject of this section, then Consider swapping the first two paragraphs with the last two paragraphs - and weaving into the text at some point the dates when the training began and ended

  Changed the heading to "Assimilation and training". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Most bought lots and built houses in Nassau Bay, a new development to the east of the MSC.[54]

• Who is the subject of this sentence - who bought lots?

  I thought the subject was understood, but added "of them". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Jungle survival training was conducted at the USAF Tropic Survival School at Albrook Air Force Station in Panama, desert survival training at Stead Air Force Base in Nevada, and water survival training on the Dilbert Dunker at the USN school at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and on Galveston Bay.[63]

• Could you embellish a bit by showing how the survival training took place?

• Sure. Expanded the section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Following the precedent set by the Mercury Seven, each of the Next Nine was assigned a special area in which to develop expertise that could be shared with the others, and to provide astronaut input [for[ to designers and engineers.[55] Armstrong was responsible for trainers and simulators, Borman for boosters, Conrad for cockpit layout and systems integration, Lovell for recovery systems, McDivitt for guidance systems, See for electrical systems and mission planning, Stafford for communications systems, White for flight control systems, and Young for environmental control systems and space suits.

  Could this be enhanced a bit by describing how or in what way or manner it took place?

• Not much. Added some more information. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Finished - Pendright (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

Notes

• #6 — NASA could be linked.
• #14 — Ditto.
• #15 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #34 — Time could be linked.
• #36 — Not sure the title is correct. Is this The Advocate? If so, it can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #39 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #48 — BBC could be linked.
• #50 — United States Naval Academy could be linked.
• #62 — NASA could be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #65 — NASA could be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
• #71 — National Air and Space Museum could be linked.
• #72 — NASA could be linked.
• #74 — NASA could be linked.
• #76 — Space.com could be linked.

References

• For works with multiple authors, suggest the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter
• Praeger could probably be linked Praeger.
• University of Nebraska Press could take a link.
• Ditto Simon & Schuster.
• And Pocket Books.
• Grand Central Publishing, too.
• Also Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. And is the second comma included in the version you used? The Wikipedia article on the publishing house doesn't include it.
• Hacker & Grimwood 2010, and Morse & Bays 1973, don't need the retrieval date.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review.

• For consistency, the publishers are not linked.
• The |name-list-style=amp parameter doesn't do anything, because an ampersand is already inserted by the template
  • This is true in the Notes section, but not in the References section. Look at the first three books there as examples. Atkinson & Shafritz 1985, for instance, displays as "Atkinson, Joseph D.; Shafritz, Jay M. (1985)" rather than as "Atkinson, Joseph D. & Shafritz, Jay M. (1985)". It would display as the latter with the template.

    Sure. Added the parameter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comma removed from Farrer, Straus and Giroux
• Removed the retrieval dates from the books. Kept for the newspapers, because we may need the Wayback machine in the future.
• The Catholic Advocate is not the The Advocate; the title is correct: it is the name of the newspaper of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark.
• The title of The Catholic Advocate article is correct. Added the subtitle.
  • Perhaps the title changed at some point, but page 1 of the newspaper terms it The Advocate, not The Catholic Advocate. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

    It must have. I had not looked at page 1. Changed the title. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Linked Time

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Article changed to address these. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

File:Astronaut Group 2 - S62-6759.jpg - checks out

File:JFK at Rice University.jpg - both source links are dead for me

File:Astronaut Groups 1 and 2 - S63-01419.jpg - checks out

File:Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong (1964).jpg - checks out

File:Frank Borman NASA Portrait (S64-31455).jpg - checks out

File:Conrad-c.jpg - both source links are dead for me

File:Jim Lovell official 1964 portrait.jpg - checks out

File:James A. McDivitt portrait.jpg - source link is dead for me

File:Elliot See - S64-29933.jpg - checks out

File:Thomas Stafford.jpg - all three source links appear to be nonfunctional

File:Edward H. White II portrait.jpg - source link is giving me an xml error

File:John Young in a business suit.jpg - checks out

File:Next Nine Desert Survival Training.jpg - checks out

File:President Reagan Presents Medals - GPN-2000-001679.jpg - source links are dead

The images all appear to be properly licensed as PD via creation by US gov't, although several of them don't have functioning source links, which should be corrected if possible. Hog Farm _Talk 04:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Repaired File:JFK at Rice University.jpg,
• Recovered File:Conrad-c.jpg, File:James A. McDivitt portrait.jpg, File:Thomas Stafford.jpg, File:Edward H. White II portrait.jpg , File:President Reagan Presents Medals - GPN-2000-001679.jpg from Wayback archive.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:15, 23 September 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) 00:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2021 [103].

---

Tyler Skaggs

Nominator(s): — GhostRiver 13:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an American baseball player who tragically died two years ago from fentanyl poisoning. This article underwent the good article process back in March. After that, I did a large-scale expansion in order to reach the "comprehensive" criterion, and I tightened the prose in several places as well based on how my writing skills improved between the GA process and preparation for FAC. Once this expansion was complete, this article underwent a thorough copyedit from a member of the GOCE, and I performed several other small tweaks, mostly to the references. All feedback is appreciated, and I hope that this is an enjoyable reading experience about a man's too-short life. — GhostRiver 13:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Famous Hobo

Two initial comments:

1) Some more information has come out about the investigation of Eric Kay, here's one of the sources I found. I'm not sure how much information will directly relate to Skaggs, but I think it's important to comb over anyway.

Famous Hobo I've looked over some of the recent information relating to the investigation. Most of it appears to be tangential and is primarily related to Kay, but I added some information about how MLB instituted a new opioid policy, and how the DEA later determined that fentanyl was the primary driver of Skaggs' death. — GhostRiver 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

2) This is more of an aesthetic choice, but I'm not a big fan of the lede image. It doesn't show Skaggs' face. I think either [File:Tyler Skaggs (28995932598) (cropped).jpg this] or this would be better.

I have changed the lede image to one of the two that you suggested. I do like the other one, especially because it gives a good glimpse of his jersey number, so I moved it to the appropriate section. — GhostRiver 22:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll look over this article a bit more in depth in a day or so. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Famous Hobo, did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose, I don't want to overstep or feel like I'm pushing this FAC through, but it appears that Famous Hobo has only made a handful of sporadic edits in the past month (I count 13 since August 25, with a few gaps). — GhostRiver 22:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No that's fine GR, we like to courtesy ping people but we don't leave things open indefinitely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude - Support

• "but was optioned to the minor leagues in 2013" - what does "optioned" mean in this context? Is there an appropriate link?
  • Added a WL
• "As a junior in 2008" - what does "a junior" mean in this context? I am guessing it isn't just a synonym for child......
  • Reworded and added the appropriate WL
• "During his senior season" - what's a "senior season"?
  • Reworded and added the appropriate WL
• "a scoreless sixth inning of relief" - what's an "inning of relief"?
  • Reworded
• "and went 8–4" - what does that mean?
  • Clarified
• "where anchored the team's starting rotation" => "where he anchored the team's starting rotation"
  • Fixed
• There's a random gap between the refs after "where he pitched eight strikeouts"
  • Fixed
• "with a 4.34 ERA n his first 12 starts" - the random n should presumably be "in"
  • Fixed
• "Skaggs was a late scratch" - what does this mean? Sounds painful.......
  • Reworded/clarified
• "Skaggs continued to suffer from physical pain he managed" => "Skaggs continued to suffer from physical pain which he managed"
  • Fixed
• "while declaring his changeup "at least an average pitch" that sits between" => "while declaring his changeup "at least an average pitch" that sat between"
  • Fixed
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude Addressed all comments above. — GhostRiver 22:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....

• A native of Woodland Hills, California, and a graduate of Santa Monica High School, the Angels selected Skaggs in the first round of the 2009 Major League Baseball draft. - so the subject has changed between the clauses of this sentence, tweak to "A native of Woodland Hills, California, and a graduate of Santa Monica High School, Skaggs was selected by the Angels in the first round of the 2009 Major League Baseball draft."
  • Done
• Although he was a standout in the Angels' rotation between 2017 and 2019... - I'd say "standout" was a little too casual...."figured prominently" or somesuch
  • Done
• link hamstring
  • Done
• Avoid 1-2 sentence paragraphs where possible
  • Done

Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Casliber Comments addressed, thank you! — GhostRiver 12:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Support by Sanfranciscogiants17

I thought this was extremely high quality when I reviewed this as a GA. A few comments, but all minor stuff:

• ”His favorite sport was basketball, and he referred to himself as "not the greatest dribbler but I can shoot".” – “His favorite sport was basketball, about which he described himself as “not the greatest dribbler” but being able to shoot. - Better grammatically.
• ” In 2008, his junior year of high school, Skaggs had a 1.11 earned run average (ERA), with 89 strikeouts, 44 hits allowed, and 22 walks in 63+1⁄3 innings pitched, enough to receive Player of the Year honors from the Ocean League.” – “In 2008, his junior year of high school, Skaggs was named the Ocean League’s Player of the Year after posting a 1.11 earned run average (ERA) with 89 strikeouts, 44 hits allowed, and 22 walks in 63+1⁄3 innings pitched.”
• ”As a senior the following year” – “During Skaggs’s senior year” – The way it’s worded right now, it looks like the sentence is saying the scouts were a senior.
• ”He played 10 Rookie League” – “He pitched 10 Rookie League”
• ”started in 17 games” – Don’t need in.
• ”they named Skaggs” – “the league named Skaggs”
• Player of the Year is capitalized in the high school section, but pitcher of the year is not for 2011. Seems like both of these should be done the same way, for consistency.
• ”Futures game, but was selected” – “Futures game but was later selected”
• ”where he pitched eight strikeouts” – “where he recorded eight strikeouts”
• ”forearm tightness, and was” – No comma needed.
• ”After pitching the third out” – “After recording the third out”
• This is probably from a rearranging of the article, but Andrew Heaney needs to be linked in the personal life section and delinked later on. (Corbin is fine, linked on first mention earlier.)
• ” Skaggs had planned to represent Mexico at the World Baseball Classic before his death” – The next one he could’ve represented Mexico in would be the 2021 Classic, so I would say “Skaggs had planned to represent Mexico at the 2021 World Baseball Classic.” That way, the sentence doesn’t accidentally imply that he planned his death.

Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sanfranciscogiants17 All comments have been addressed, thank you! — GhostRiver 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Article looks good now! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do soon. Hog Farm _Talk 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• What makes The Samohi a high-quality RS? It's about us page says it's a high school newspaper written (at least largely) by high schoolers. It is a lot glossier than the high school newspaper I briefly wrote for, but I'm not sure it's enough to
• Zimmerman 2012 (SB Nation) - I'm not sure about this one. I'll give most pieces by the overall parent site reliability (especially when you get writers like Geoff Schwartz or Jon Bois involved), but as a reader of a couple of the team-specific sites, the quality is all over the place. This ref is one of those team-specific sites. I'd say there's probably a better source for him being called up as the extra player for the doubleheader
• While I personally read Bleacher Report and think it's fine for my sports news purposes, the scattered discussions in the WP:RSN archives don't look on it highly. I'd recommend removal or starting another RSN discussion about the source
• The link to the publisher in the Sportscasting source is wrong. Not familiar with that one, but it's only used to cite noncontroversial stats information, so that's probably fine

The breadth of sourcing used is what would be expected for the topic.

Spot checks:

• "At the end of the season, the Diamondbacks named Skaggs their minor league Pitcher of the Year." - checks out
• "Going into the 2013 season, Baseball America named Skaggs the 10th overall MLB prospect, and the highest-rated prospect in the Diamondbacks organization" - not seeing where that's stated to be Baseball America's ranking; it looks like MLB.com's ranking
• "He spent nearly a month on the disabled list before being activated on July 2 to start in a game against the White Sox" - checks out
• " He made his first major league start since undergoing surgery on July 26, 2016, pitching seven shutout innings in a 13–0 defeat of the Kansas City Royals. The only baserunner of the night was Alcides Escobar, who reached base on a walk" - Source says he also gave up three hits. I'm a Royals fan, and I think I vaguely remember this game
• "Skaggs went 8–10 for the year, with an overall ERA of 4.02" - checks out
• "That same year, Mike Newman of FanGraphs proclaimed Skaggs' 72–76 miles per hour (116–122 km/h) curveball the best in Minor League Baseball" - Source says 76-77 mph
• "He pitched 10 Rookie League innings that season, both in the Arizona League and with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League. Between the two teams, Skaggs posted a 1.80 ERA as a rookie" - checks out
• "Skaggs made his professional baseball debut on August 22, 2009, relieving starting pitcher Fabio Martinez with a scoreless sixth inning for the AZL Angels in a 2–1 win against the AZL Athletics" - checks out
• "On July 25, 2010, Skaggs was one of several players sent to the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for three-time All-Star pitcher Dan Haren. In exchange for Haren, the Diamondbacks received pitcher Joe Saunders, prospects Patrick Corbin and Rafael Rodríguez, and a player to be named later, speculated to be Skaggs."
• "On June 30, 2019, Skaggs texted Eric Kay, the communications director for the Angels, asking for painkillers. That night, Skaggs did not respond to his wife Carli's good-night text, which she typically sent when he was on the road." - checks out
• "Angels pitchers Taylor Cole and Félix Peña combined to throw a no-hitter against the Seattle Mariners, winning 13–0. It was the first combined no-hitter in California since July 13, 1991, the day of Skaggs' birth. After the game, the players removed their memorial jerseys and laid them on the mound to honor his memory" - checks out
• "On December 12, 2019, MLB and the players' union agreed to start regularly testing players for both opioids and cocaine, and to assign players and team staff to mandatory educational programs on the dangers of prescription painkillers" - checks out

The 3/12 rate of issues in the spots checks isn't enough for me to oppose on this, but I would recommend that you go through and check your citations to make sure everything matches, as it is high enough to be concerning. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm I have made a number of fixes.

• I replaced the Samohi source with one from Santa Monica Daily Press and have tweaked the wording accordingly to match the source
• I have replaced the SB Nation source with an Arizona Sports citation and have altered the wording accordingly; he ended up pitching in the first game of that doubleheader, and that source does not mention explicitly that the Diamondbacks needed another pitcher
• I have removed the WL on Sportscasting
• I have changed Baseball America to MLB.com on the one source
• I have changed the sentence regarding Escobar accordingly
• I have changed the speed of his curveball; I believe that was an issue with my dyscalculia more than anything else

Regarding Bleacher Report:

• I have replaced the source for the 2014 starting rotation with one from the Los Angeles Daily News
• Although I believe that the Baseball America report mentioned in the second BR reference is important, I have no easy means of accessing the original source due to paywalls and difficulty retrieving printed texts, so it has been removed.
• I have not removed the two references to the article "What Tyler Skaggs Left Behind." If there has ever been an RS on Bleacher Report, it is this one: the author, Mirin Fader, is a career sportswriter who wrote for The Orange County Register, Los Angeles Daily News, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN before joining the staff of Bleacher Report full-time. She now writes for The Ringer and has published a book through a mainstream publisher. Additionally, this is a longform piece that relies almost completely on interviews with Skaggs' widow and mother, not a sabrmetrics-based piece. That it was published on BR likely has to do with the details of her contract with them at the time, not a deficiency in reliability.

Let me know if there is anything else. — GhostRiver 15:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll do a couple more spot checks soon, and then this ought to be fine. Hog Farm _Talk 16:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "After MRI tests revealed a strain to the common flexor tendon of Skaggs' arm, the Angels placed the pitcher on the 15-day disabled list" - checks out
• "The injury kept him out of the lineup for 14 weeks after he suffered a recurrence of oblique pain shortly before a scheduled rehab assignment in July" - checks out
• " Santa Monica athletic director Norm Lacy once called Skaggs the school's best baseball player since Tim Leary" - checks out
• "Of Mexican descent on his mother's side, Skaggs had planned to represent Mexico at the 2021 World Baseball Classic" - checks out

No further issues detected in spot-checking, so pass on sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 22:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• I have a pathological dislike of single-sentence paras, the lead opens with one, can we merge?
  • I split it into two instead, which should make each sentence simpler to understand
• "the minor leagues" link?
  • Added.
• "Skaggs' " -> Skaggs's
  • I don't believe that this is correct, as multiple articles use "Skaggs'", but changed anyway.
    • I think MOS:'S would disagree with you. For what it's worth, I don't like it. But MOS compliance is required. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Multiple instances of that.
  • See above.
• "best baseball player since Tim Leary" for people like me, the comparison is meaningless, is there any context which could be added to demonstrate why that comparison is impressive?
  • Added that Leary was a World Series champion.
• Link outfielder.
  • Done.
• And pitcher, in the main body.
  • Done.
• "fastball speed, for instance, had dropped to 88 mph" you mentioned previously that his fastball speed had dropped before but I'm not sure I ever saw what it was at peak?
  • Added the highs and lows of the season, as provided in the article.
• "by Mike Morin. Morin broke" repetitive.
  • Fixed.
• "shutout innings " is there a link?
  • The article Shutout (baseball) refers to a complete game shutout, so I changed to "scoreless".
• "seemed less effective" according to whom?
  • Specified.
• "the passing of" don't use euphemisms.
  • Changed.
• "inspired MLB" maybe prompted.
  • Changed.
• Check refs for consistency, e.g. the use of ESPN or ESPN.com etc seems to vary.
  • They should all read "ESPN" now.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man comments have all been addressed. — GhostRiver 13:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

I'll review this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• first round <<<=== I think it's worth clarifying "supplemental first round"
  • Done.
• Ulnar collateral ligament goes to a disambiguation page. Maybe it should go to Ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint?
  • Done.
• Also related to that, I would write it with its abbreviation: "ulnar collateral ligament (UCL)" as that injury is better known by the abbreviation than the technical term.
  • Done.
• Skaggs opted not to pitch until the 2016 season <<<=== I think that's misleading. He missed the 2015 season because he had Tommy John surgery. Needing >14 months to recover and get back to the majors is typical; he didn't really have a choice. He only opted not to try to get back for the very end of the season.
  • Done.

Early life

• gridiron football <<<=== I think for an American you can just say "football" (and also link to American football rather than gridiron football)
  • Done.

Minors

• , Randal Grichuk and Mike Trout, ===>>> : Randal Grichuk and Mike Trout; (for consistency with the pitchers part)
  • Done.
• both in the Arizona League and with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League ===>>> playing in both the Arizona League and with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League
  • Done.

Dbacks

• minor league Pitcher of the Year <<<=== "Minor League" should be capitalized (or none of it should be capitalized)
  • Done.
• after he was called up ===>>> after Bauer was called up
  • Done.
• on September 28 <<<=== I think it was September 24 (Also, I think it's this link, but I can't get it to work. It's referenced here, and mentioned here)
  • Changed, although I do not know why the references aren't working. SB Nation is not being used for the reasons described in Hog Farm's source review above.
• and was ultimately optioned ===>>> , but was ultimately optioned
  • Done.

Angels

• Arizona received Mark Trumbo <<<=== start a new sentence (otherwise, it doesn't have parallelism.)
  • Done.
• developing the other pitches in his rotation <<<=== "rotation" isn't correct, "repertoire" or "arsenal" would work.
  • Done.
• mechanical tweak to his pitching method ===>>> tweak to his pitching mechanics
  • Done.
• serving alongside Santiago, Jered Weaver, C. J. Wilson, and Garrett Richards <<<=== What does "serving" mean? (This is just the starting rotation, right? If so, specify that he was named to the starting rotation.)
  • Changed.
• and that the pitcher had been placed ====>> and was placed
  • Done.
• who broke Skaggs's no-hit bid ===>>> who lost Skaggs's no-hit bid (Hitters break no-hit bids, not pitchers)
  • Done.
• pitch in a minor league game ===>>> start his rehabilitation in the minor leagues
  • Done.
• he had begun ===>>> he was able to begin
  • Done.
• 13–0 defeat of ===>>> 13–0 win against
  • Done.
• second and third benching ====>>> second and third instances
  • Done.
• Skaggs gave up 17 runs in 6+2⁄3 innings <<<=== clarify this is two starts
  • Done.
• Add a footnote that the disabled list was renamed the injured list.
  • Done.
• Skaggs dominated the Angels' rotation <<<=== "dominated" isn't the right word.
  • Changed.

Pitching

• Okay.

Personal life

• Okay.

Death

• On July 6, 2019, Andrew Heaney became the first Angels pitcher to start after the death of his fellow left-hander. <<<=== What do you mean by this? The Angels played a few games in-between.
  • First home game. Clarified.
• His first pitch against George Springer of the Houston Astros was Skaggs's signature overhand slow curveball, and it went unchallenged with no swing. <<<=== Re-word to clarify this was intentional, i.e. that Springer knew about the tribute.
  • Done.

Overall

• I think the section headers are a bit weird. The first LAA section specifies it's only the minors, but the Dbacks header doesn't indicate most of the section is just the minors or that only the shorter last two paragraphs cover the years in the header. I think it might be clearer to start his career with a minor league sub-section header (or just a regular section header?) and then sub-divide with sub-sub-section headers for the Angels and Dbacks. Then, wrap the Dbacks major league section (those last two paragraphs) and the Angels major league section in a major league sub-section (or section) header.
  • This is the part that gives me pause, because I have never seen a baseball article formatted in such a way and in fact have run into issues during GA reviews about splitting in such a way. I would be far more amenable to keeping the headers the way that they are and adding subheads within the Dbacks section for minor leagues/major, as well as potentially adding additional subheads in the second Angels section for before/during/after the Tommy John injury.

Looks like it's in good shape! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777 Addressed everything except for my comment above. — GhostRiver 12:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Just minor things,

For the lead, I was also suggesting to make a mention that he had Tommy John surgery (as that's probably more recognizable than just mentioning the UCL injury). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Added/clarified.

For Heaney, it wasn't a home game. I think it was just Heaney's first start since Skaggs's death. From the source, "Heaney considered Skaggs his best friend." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarified/fixed.

For the headers, splitting the Dbacks with minors/majors sub-section headers could work. But then, switch to 2010–13 for the header? Not having the years in the header match up with the years covered still seems strange to me (I can't find another baseball FA that does that). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. For consistency, I also renamed the first part "Los Angeles Angels organization", and then changed the years in "Return to the Angels" and added appropriate subheads. Let me know what you think.

Sportsfan77777 Additional comments addressed. — GhostRiver 19:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think these headers are much clearer, supporting! Good work!! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi GhostRiver, just a reminder that the comments above are awaiting your attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: Courtesy ping – this nomination is at five supports, image and source review have been passed, and it's been 7.5 weeks since nomination. Famous Hobo was pinged 2.5 weeks ago, to no response. — GhostRiver 16:00, 13 October 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, 13 October 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 September 2021 [104].

---

Jameson's mamba

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, have been cleaning up after an indefblocked user and decided to get this snek to a Stable Version. Less is known about it than other mambas. Have scoured the net for anything remotely of interest to lay readers as possible and feel it reads well prose-wise...so is in striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you guys think that the infobox image would be better with this [105] or [106]? DarwinClean (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Those two show its colours really badly with that dark orange tint. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The other problem is I don't know which subspecies it is - each image in article has been specified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Jameson's mamba (Dendroaspis jamesoni) is a highly venomous snake native to equatorial Africa. This slender species of mamba (genus Dendroaspis) reaches around 2.2 meters (7.2 ft) long and has dull green upperparts and cream underparts. Described by Scottish polymath Thomas Traill in 1843, ......"

I went with this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Needs more alt text, especially in box

added box alt Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please take a look and comment on my submission here Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I made a couple of minor tweaks to the lead, please check. Here are my toxic nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

edits are fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• it has a slender build with dull green upperparts and cream underparts— replace "with", which doesn't work, by a comma.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• contemporary of Traill's— contemporary of Traill or Traill's contemporary are grammatical

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• The average total length (including tail) of an adult snake is approximately 1.5–2.2 m (4.9–7.2 ft). — lose "average" if you are giving a range

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• combat with each other for mates for breeding (and then breed)— clunky, and "with each" is redundant, perhaps 'fight each other for access to females and then breed

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Smaller individuals of under 100 cm in length—convert

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• three-finger toxin agents—I have no idea what that means

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll come back with a fuller review once I'm done with some other reviews. At first glance, the imagery seems a bit underwhelming, nothing on Commons that could spice it up?[107][108] There is also a potentially interesting Flickr photo of a man handling a snake (perhaps for the venom section?):[109] FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

added images that could be aligned with subspecies - both now included Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps write common names after the binomials in the taxobox?

I'm not sure where you mean. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm... I meant the cladogram! FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• You only give nationalities for some of the people mentioned.

done. only one not added is described as "contemporary" implying Scottish Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• "subsp. jamesoni, Korup National Park" Should this caption start with a capital letter? Same issue for other captions.

capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Since this is the type species of the genus, the etymology of the genus name could be given, as it may pertain specifically to this taxon?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the more venomous subspeces" Needing i in subspecies.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Snakes of Medical Importance" Why capitalised here when it isn't in the article body?

oversight - capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if anatomical direction terms like ventral would be better replaced with common terms?

changed one - plain English is used where possible. I think when terms are used with scales is hard to justify as scales have specific meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and adjacent Democratic Republic of Congo" The adjacent?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• How long are the fangs? Any general description of the teeth?

added the only discussion of teeth I could find anywhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Could be mentioned if its generic name is related to its climbing habits?

even though this is obvious, I have (annoyingly) not seen a source link the meaning to the behaviour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Anything on speed?

not that I've seen - mainly arboreal anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link mongoose?

link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In Nigeria males fight each other for mates for access to females" The last part seems repetitive?

removed duplicated bit I forgot to remove before in reword Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Democratic Republic of the Congo" appears to be a duplink, just with a "the" added. But isn't there some guideline not to link countries?

removed duplicated link. I guess the african countries are smaller and less well known to some readers so linking them is possibly okay in this case...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the fact that its an elapid be mentioned in the taxonomy section rather than under description?

removed. Am in two minds whether to shoehorn it into taxonomy or just leave it to genus page.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link dendrotoxins?

link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• "from a suspectedly venomous snake" Suspected?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• How does it differ from other green mambas?

as none of the species overlap - distinguishing between the 3 mamba species is not discussed in any source I have seen. Each has different scalation but no sources discuss differences (except between the two subspecies of this species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link arboreal in intro.

link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - that's it from me, nice to see another snake here! FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "reaches around 2.2 meters (7.2 ft) in length" - the text has a range for length, and oddly gives a different conversion - is there a reason for the difference?

different templates. and laziness - fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• The symptoms of envenomation also differ between lead and text. Suggest checking that all facts in the lead are supported by the text, and resolving inconsistencies where they exist

aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN2: the domain need not be included in the citation - the website name is sufficient

fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• FN4: why is the complete page count included?

no idea. removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• FNs 1 and 5 are to the same site but differently formatted

aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether books include publication locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

locations removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

This is a non-expert prose review.

neophytes always welcome :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• In the infobox, in the first image caption it says, "Subsp." I assume this means subspecies? I suggest using a template like "{{abbr|Subsp.|Subspecies)}}" here.

was not aware of that template - nice find and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I got the template from WP:TFAP Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• In the infobox, the scientific classification is given but there's no citation, and this information is not in the article body. Should it have a citation, like is used for synonyms?

I've never seen citations anywhere else in the taxobox. Much of the information is beyond the scope of the article and is covered in the larger group articles higher up, such as Mamba (which should have more of a discussion on where mambas lie in the poisonous snake family Elapidae, which looks at the family's characteristics and place in the snakes etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's not used in other articles, then consensus states that it shouldn't be used here. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Jameson's mamba has between 15 and 17 rows of dorsal scales at midbody, 210 to 236 (ssp jamesoni) or 202 to 227 ventral scales (ssp kaimosae), 94 to 122 (ssp jamesoni) or 94 to 113 (ssp kaimosae)" I suggest that the abbr template also be used for ssp here.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Its eyes have three preocular, three postocular and one subocular scale." Why is postocular wikilinked, and not preocular? Shouldn't the first instance of the term be wikilinked?

I think I shuffled and forgot to switch bluelink. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and species of mongoose" -> "and a species of mongoose" or "and the mongoose species"

species is plural here (which is why no article before it) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Symptoms of envenomation by this species" Suggest wikilinking envenomation, since the last use of this word was in the lede.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "ISBN 978-1421427195." This ISBN is missing some hyphens, making it inconsistent with the other entries.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I checked the lede to ensure all of the information is mentioned in the body, and found no concerns.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you are ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

okay @Z1720: ready for more... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TRM

• "has a slender build" why can't that just be "is slender"?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "by Scottish polymath Thomas Traill in " -> "by Thomas Traill, a Scottish polymath, in " I think fewer people know what a polymath is than what Scottish means.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "nominate subspecies" what is that?

the sorta default - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Symptoms of envenomation" in humans presumably, unless the bird's speech is slurred somehow?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "3 to 4 hours" three/four.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a lower murine median lethal dose (LD50)." this is utterly meaningless to most readers. Is it necessary in the lead?

snake folks are big on LD50s....but a bit esoteric so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "doctor, zoologist and scholar of medical jurisprudence" you called him a polymath in the lead but not here. Maybe you should call him a polymath here too and include the things he did.

actually on thinking about it, have removed the poncey-sounding polymath Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "at Edinburgh University where" at the University of Edinburgh.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think you can link genus.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "by Auguste Duméril" who was he?

described Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't you link subspecies in the lead?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "that it had a lower number of" -> "that it had fewer"

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• " It may grow as large as 2.64 m (8 ft 8 in).[11]" this is very precise. Do we really mean that there has been an example of one such mamba at such a length?

longest individuals of a species of snake seem to be a Big Deal among writers and readers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• You linked Kenya but not Nigeria? Be consistent.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "containing a small eye and round pupil" just the one eye in this species?

aaaarrrrr, is the one-eyed snake pirate :) isn't so fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• supralabial is linked but sublabial is not?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Democratic Republic of Congo" the Congo.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Same "Republic of the Congo".

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "eastwards to Togo, Nigeria," you link Nigeria here.... but mentioned it earlier.

linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Rwanda and the adjacent Democratic Republic of Congo." the Congo.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• And I would have a comma after Rwanda.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "primary and secondary rainforests" what's the difference?

now linked to Old-growth forest and secondary forest Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "elevations up to" of up to.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Found in primary ... found in areas..." not glittering prose.

tweaked. hope ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Jameson's mamba is a highly arboreal snake" then "almost exclusively arboreal snake" repetitive.

removed one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "due to its arboreal nature ... Since this species is arboreal..." wow, you've said it enough.

removed one - other explains important statement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "eating rodents in ... to eating them " repetitive, perhaps switch one for "consuming"?

switched to "accepting" in captivity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Snake of Medical Importance" sounds notable, no article, redlink?

good point - have redlinked - I think a subsection of Venomous snake is most prudent. Will read up on it and think... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "within 3 to 4 hours" etc, see comments on this lot above.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "child perishing within" dying?

aawwww....okay, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "intravenous murine median lethal dose (LD50) of 0.53 mg/kg" probably needs a footnote to explain what on earth this means.

good catch as I realise none of the target articles succinctly say what it is - footnote added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Member of the three" Members? And is that just a general comment, i.e. a footnote, rather than specific to this species?

They are all present, so change to "Other toxins of the three-finger family present..." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Trivalent and monovalent" what do they mean?

effective against a single or three species. Unsuprisingly the target page (antivenom) is a bit of a mess, so maybe added another footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Any information on the conservation status of this species? IUCN links? Or even a comment to say it isn't in their red book?

annoyingly found nothing - hard to think what to say without veering into OR territory. My current thinking is just letting account in Distribution and habitat section speak for itself. Not ideal.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting article. One day I'll buy you a beer and recount the story of someone picking up a Fer-de-Lance in Costa Rica, thinking it was a grass snake.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll trade you where a friend nearly trod on a sunbaking tiger snake (missing by <10cm) while I was next to him...anyway over to you @The Rambling Man: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @The Rambling Man: It's been a week, so I thought I'd give you a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Bloody hell, how quickly time flies. And how did this drop off my to do list? Ok, I'll take a look tomorrow. Apologies if I'm holding anything up..... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, had another look, and my concerns have been addressed, so that sounds like a support to me! If you fancy another "different" kind of article to review, pop on over to UEFA Euro 2012 Final! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Your thoroughness is appreciated - thx ++++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 September 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) 01:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Knew You Were Trouble/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (game show)/archive2 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English invasion of Scotland (1650)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dhoby Ghaut MRT station/archive2 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megalograptus/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here Is Mariah Carey/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Longstreet/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 World Snooker Championship/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Surrogate's Courthouse/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ceres (dwarf planet)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Zealand nationality law/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manon Melis/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Janet(s)/archive1

[[Category:Wikipedia featured content|PAGENAME]]

Featured article reviews

Template:FAR-instructions/small navbox Wikipedia:Featured article review