Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Nominations: added FBI nomination
Archive 1
Line 9: Line 9:


==Nominations==
==Nominations==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bureau of Investigation/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Hernan (2020)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Hernan (2020)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorothy L. Sayers/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorothy L. Sayers/archive1}}

Revision as of 11:47, 17 November 2023

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.
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: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. 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

Shortcut
  • 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.


Shortcut


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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2024 [1].

Tropical Storm Hernan (2020)

Nominator(s): JayTee⛈️ 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Tropical Storm Hernan, a small and short-lived tropical cyclone that originally was not expected to have significant impacts on land. Yet, it defied forecasts and caused immense flooding and significant damage across much of southwestern Mexico in late August 2020 as it passed closely offshore. This storm is a textbook example of how small tropical cyclones can still pack a powerful punch. JayTee⛈️ 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricane Noah

Lead
  • "40 miles per hour (65 km/h) simply make it 'low-end tropical storm' which conveys the same meaning without numbers.
  • "achieved peak intensity" achieved 'its' peak intensity
  • "6:00 UTC" 06:00
  • Link to maximum sustained winds somewhere in the lead.
  • "The low moved near the Baja California Peninsula" I don't like this wording... maybe 'the low neared the southern edge of...'?
  • 11 inches (280 mm) - Abbreviate please
  • "with accumulation peaking" - pluralize accumulation
Meteorological history
  • "6:00 UTC" 06:00
  • "340 miles (545 km)" Abbreviate
  • "However, the United States" I would say United States-based
  • Link wind shear in met
  • Link Ocean gyre
  • Link maximum sustained winds and atmospheric pressure in met
  • Convection duplicate link
Preparations and impact
  • Link tropical cyclone warnings and watches
  • "MXN$594.045 million pesos (US$26.9 million)" Sigfigs should be the same here
  • " including 115 minors" Why is this important?
  • "13 feet (4.0 m)" abbreviate
  • Link Parota
  • "A young man" This is vague. Young is in the eye of the beholder.
  • "Winds gusts" Wind singular
  • Link sea turtle
  • "Minor rainfall, gusty winds, and large waves spread across the coast of Baja California Sur even as Hernan weakened and dissipated just offshore." I dont think this detail is needed since that's normal and nothing resulted from it.
  • Manzanillo duplicate link
  • Tomatlán duplicate link
  • Nayarit duplicate link
  • It's also frowned upon to start sentences with numbers in numerical format so I would avoid doing so if possible.
Here are some comments to get you started. Noah, AATalk 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above comments have been addressed. JayTee⛈️ 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 miles per hour - please abbreviate here
  • "1,674 homes and nine schools" Since there is a numerical form for homes, schools should also be in numerical.
  • "At least 630 houses and nine schools" Ditto
That should be it.
Noah, AATalk 02:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JayTee⛈️ 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

Will be doing this later but for now note (which I discovered during the text review):

  • Link to TCR is missing
  • Check NOAA sources and please make sure your text isn't too close to the source.
Addressed. JayTee⛈️ 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the wake of Hurricane Genevieve - Could you reword this since it is similar to the TCR text?
  • Discussion 1 link is messed up (appears to be NHC's fault). If you are sourcing discussion 1, change the link to discussion 2's link since they put the text for discussion 1 there.
  • For NHC refs, either include middle initials for all (also II in the case of John Beven) or none
  • FN7: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source? I couldn't find a staff page or editorial oversight.
Ended up removing as it didn't contribute to article much and was a stub of a source. JayTee⛈️ 23:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto FN31
I did some research and found out Lopez-Doriga was actually founded by a man of the same name and it appears to have a decent reputation in Mexico. Its founder is a respected TV show host that is disliked by the Mexican government for its criticism of it, but its in the cohorts of other respected news sources. JayTee⛈️ 23:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That only makes mention of Lopez-Doriga himself in passing and doesn't establish that the organization itself performs high-quality news reporting. Noah, AATalk 00:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't necessarily think the source or its founder (in lieu of a mission statement) is unreliable or not of at least decent quality. And it adds valuable information to the Guerrero section. JayTee⛈️ 05:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we have to establish reliability. We can't go on gut feeling. FAs have to be top-notch in everything which is why I was very stringent in going over the sources. Sometimes this would mean deleting information from an article because the source's reliability can't be accurately assessed. Noah, AATalk 14:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't establish the reputability of this source so I will be removing. JayTee⛈️ 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
I wouldn't call it high-quality, but it has good impact info and passes a quick ScamAdvisor check. JayTee⛈️ 23:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be able to prove that it's reputable and high-quality. If you are certain it isn't high-quality than it probably should be removed. Noah, AATalk 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest I don't think it's a high-quality source. I'll remove it and see what information from it is already covered by other sources and can be salvaged. JayTee⛈️ 04:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link El Universal (Mexico City)
  • Link Uno TV
  • El Universal is a newspaper, not a work
  • Link to El Informador (México) on Spanish WP
  • El Informador (México) is a newspaper, not a work
  • Should be listed as El Informador instead of just Informador
  • Link to Meganoticias on Spanish WP
  • Link to Comisión Nacional del Agua on Spanish WP for Conagua
  • Link to Proceso (revista) on Spanish WP
  • Proceso is a newspaper
  • Link Milenio
  • Milenio is a newspaper
  • El Sol de Acapulco is a newspaper
  • FN34: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
Now goes by La 1, an old and reliable Spanish TV channel, will be fixing and linking. JayTee⛈️ 23:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN35: Author name missing
  • Be consistent in giving locations for news sources (either all or none)
Removed all since only a handful of sources provide them. JayTee⛈️ 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please replace quotations within titles with 'words in quotations here'
Do you mean the quotations in the ref names (i.e. "HTCR") or the quotations in the actual titles of the articles (i.e. tormenta tropical "Hernán")? JayTee⛈️ 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. Noah, AATalk 00:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JayTee⛈️ 04:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add translated titles
1) How do I add them to the references? 2) Is there a certain website we can use to translate the titles? Google's translations are pretty subpar to say the least. JayTee⛈️ 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use the parameter trans-title=. If I am being honest, unless you know someone who can help with translating, the best bet is to use a combination of Google translate and common sense. There’s probably someone who can help with translating somewhere, but I am not familiar. Noah, AATalk 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JayTee⛈️ 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found. Spot checks haven't yet been done. Noah, AATalk 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What spot checks are referring too? JayTee⛈️ 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to check about five references to make sure what you said in the article is supported by the source. Noah, AATalk 00:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Taken care of all other comments thus far. JayTee⛈️ 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an El Universal and a Milenio that are still listed as work. FN3's link is still broken as well. Discussion 1 is actually located at [2] Noah, AATalk 14:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all. JayTee⛈️ 15:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hurricane Noah, is that a pass for the source review? Likewise for the spot check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Noah, AATalk 16:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • FN5: "The system was downgraded to a tropical depression at 12:00 UTC that day" This isn't supported by the discussion which is for 1500. Check others in the section to make sure it is supported by sourcing appropriately.
  • FN12: Statement is supported
  • FN20: "It was reported that at least 19,968 people were impacted and in need of support in the state following Hernan" This statement isn't supported
  • FN25: Statement is supported
  • FN31: Statement is supported
Let me know when you have fixed these. Noah, AATalk 14:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah All fixed. JayTee⛈️ 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't cite mid-sentence in the absence of a punctuation mark. You can have both citations at the end of a sentence. Otherwise, those are fixed. Since 2/5 revealed unsupported statements, I had to do a few more.
  • FN1: (Third citation): "Despite these unfavorable conditions, cloud tops south and west of Hernan's center cooled to between −117 and −123 °F (−83 and −86 °C) as its convection increased, allowing the cyclone to strengthen slightly." and "Continuous wind shear caused Hernan to weaken shortly thereafter, restricting convection to the southern and western portions of the storm's circulation." are not supported within the TCR. I'd ask you again to take a close at the met and what each source specifically supports. I'm convinced this really is the trouble area at this point since I didn't find anything else in the four additional spot checks I did. I will go over the entire met tomorrow night with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it is handled. Other than that, the other SR issues are resolved.
  • FN15 (Last citation): Statement supported
  • FN28: Statement supported
  • FN30: Statements supported; You do only need to cite at the end of the last sentence rather than citing it at the end of both consecutive sentences.
  • FN33: Statement supported

I did five additional spot checks.Noah, AATalk 02:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah Taken care of all. I added discussions 5 and 6 from the NHC advisory archive on Hernan to the met history as they support the claims above. JayTee⛈️ 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass SR. Noah, AATalk 01:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! JayTee⛈️ 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hurricanehink

I did a review of the article before FAC, and thought it was in pretty good shape. I'll leave the only comment I had from two years ago, which is the main reason I can't support at the time.

It could use a damage total, and clarification on the missing person. Having a news story about a missing person around the time of the storm doesn't mean the person actually died, or is still missing. That's the biggest thing missing IMO.

Support. So I'm glad the article now has the damage total. But as for the missing person, it's like one last thread to the narrative that isn't complete. For what it's worth, the Spanish Wikipedia article for the 2020 PHS season doesn't list any deaths. Neither does the WMO report. So I'm not a fan of the current wording saying "though their whereabouts were never discovered." The current sourcing doesn't back that up, and I'd rather the wording be accurate than make assumptions. Further, I don't see where ref 19 cites the information described. It's pretty minor, but I'd rather you make sure you get the wording right rather than just removing it. Even if you change the wording to something like, "there were initial reports of a missing person," then it's still accurate, without having to speculate. This was my only qualm with the article, otherwise I stand by that the article is is in good shape. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink I think the death is well-sourced and seeing as it mentioned in the NHC's TCR on the storm I strongly feel it should be included. The Spanish WP is mostly a copy-paste of this article and may have missed the death. I can re-word the article to more accurately reflect FN19 and I agree that the statement "there were initial reports of a missing person" should be added as there were no further reports of this beyond that article. Seeing these issues addressed would you feel comfortable supporting the article? JayTee⛈️ 19:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TCR death is in Jalisco, which I'm not talking, I'm referring to the missing person in Guerrero. My beef is the original research putting in "though their whereabouts were never discovered." Hence why I suggested the wording of "there were initial reports of a missing person", since that person could well have been accounted for. See any big natural disaster where the death toll can fluctuate, particularly with missing people. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand better now. I re-worded the OR sentence. I believe the FN19 issue is addressed as well as it supports the information in the sentences that precede it in the Jalisco and Guerrero subsections. JayTee⛈️ 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • Note a comes after "ninth named storm". Do you really mean that one of the nine named storms was in fact unnamed?
  • "Hernan was hindered by a high wind shear environment". Per MOS:NOFORCELINK - "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links" - a brief in line explanation would be helpful.
  • "it dropped over 11 in (280 mm)". Inches in full at first mention.
  • "Recovery efforts were carried out by Mexican Armed Forces members and municipal governments". You mix the employees of organisations and just the organisations themselves in this sentence. Is there a reason?
  • References: article titles in English should all be in title case, regardless of how they appear in the original publication. Similarly, words in all caps ("FONDEN y FOEDEN") should be in lower case (apart from their initial letters).
I'm a little confused about this. Are just the English translations of the articles supposed to be in title case or both the Spanish and English titles? Also, FONDEN and FOEDEN are acronyms of government organizations- this would be the equivalent of changing NOAA to Noaa or NASA to Nasa. JayTee⛈️ 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just those in English, eg cites 13 and 20. "FONDEN y FOEDEN": oops, you're right, I'm wrong. Apologies.
  • "... developed three separate areas of low pressure. One of the lows developed on August 21 ..." Is it possible to avoid the use of "developed" twice in 12 words?
  • "initially struggling to organize its convective activity". "struggling" seems to imply volition, perhaps a different word or phrase?
  • "After developing a closed surface circulation". This seems to be a specialist phrase. Is it possible to express the event in a way which would make sense to a non-expert reader?
  • "about 340 mi (545 km) southwest of". Miles in full at first mention.
  • "the United States-based National Hurricane Center (NHC) operationally did not recognize the system as having". "operationally", either delete or explain more fully what is meant by it.
  • "the system was facing strong easterly wind shear". MOS:NOFORCELINK as mentioned above.
  • "while different agencies traveled by helicopter" → 'while workers from different agencies traveled by helicopter'.
  • "Mexico's Secretariat of the Navy, José Rafael Ojeda Durán". Durán held the position of Mexico's Secretary of the Navy, the Secretariat of the Navy is the name the ministry he managed.
  • What is a unit of machinery?
  • "damages from Hernan totaled MXN$594.05 million pesos (US$26.91 million) across affected areas from August 24-27". Delete "across affected areas", I think that can be assumed. "from" should be 'during'. "August 24-27", replace the hyphen with an en dash. (Or the word 'to'.)
  • See also: there are too many articles listed. The last four in particular seem only tangentially connected.
  • Why does "Damage Assessment Committee" have upper case initial letters?
It is capitalized in the source provided. JayTee⛈️ 23:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS takes precedence. See MOS:CAPS. I don't think it's a proper noun and so doubt that it should have initial caps on Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rainfall in Jalisco peaked at ..." Assuming that the quantities following are for a given time period, could it be stated.
  • "At least 630 houses and 9 schools experienced severe damage throughout the state." By "throughout", do you mean 'in'?
  • "5 federal highways" → 'five federal highways' per MOS:SPELL09.
  • "severely flooded streets. Severe flooding of streets". Could one of these be tweaked to avoid the near repetition.
  • "he fell from his roof checking damages from Hernan." Should "damages" be singular?
  • "the 7 aforementioned municipalities." 'seven'.
  • "Food pantries, mats, hygiene kits, and liters of water". Delete 'liters of'.
  • "The Mexican federal legislature requested that the Comisión Nacional del Agua (National Water Commission) carry out studies and take further preventative actions to address the lack of storm-resilient infrastructure in Jalisco to help protect residents of its coastal municipalities from future tropical cyclone impacts." This sentence is trying to do a lot of work. I suggest breaking it at some point.
  • "Waves of up to 13 ft (4.0 m)". Feet in full at first mention.
  • Given MOS:UNITS, why does the article not use metric measurements as its base units?
The US-based National Hurricane Center provides nearly all of the date on EPac storms, and our article follow suit and base measurements using the imperial system (this is reflected in other FA EPac storm articles, i.e. Hurricane Patricia, Hurricane Willa, and perhaps most importantly, the meteorologically-similar Tropical Storm Vicente (2018). JayTee⛈️ 23:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading that as meaning that the article does not have "strong ties to the United States" and so the units should be metric. What has happened in other Wikipedia articles is not relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can flip all the metric and imperial conversions in the lead and Preps/impacts section. Should I do this for the Met history and infobox too? Asking because all of their sources come from the NHC. JayTee⛈️ 23:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds sensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A parota tree blocked off a road in the town of Tamala". Delete "off".
  • "Torrential rainfall fell across the area" → 'Torrential rain fell across the area'.
  • The source says (Google translate) 'that a large part of the ... area' ... 'suffered serious effects'. I feel that your paraphrase of this - that vast portions of both urban and rural areas around Manzanillo suffered serious damage unduly exaggerates the amount and seriousness of the damage.
  • "in conjunction with the Intertropical Convergence Zone". What does this mean, and why is it significant?
  • "or several days in late August, causing at least 12 in (300 mm) of rainfall". Is it possible to be more precise with regards to the period?
  • "after being dragged into an overflowing river." Dragged by who or what? (Perhaps use 'washed'?)
  • "In the state of Michoacán, where disruptions and flash flooding were reported as well, up to 600,000 sea turtle eggs in Ixtapilla Marine Turtle Sanctuary were swept away or destroyed by Hernan, including those of the threatened Olive Ridley turtle, making for a large environmental loss." I suggest breaking "where disruptions and flash flooding were reported as well" of as a separate sentence.
  • I don't see the phrase "intense punctual rains" in the source given. What are "punctual" rains anyway?
  • "The state of Sinaloa reported "intense punctual rains", and flooding, hail, minor mudslides, and debris were reported in southern coastal areas". Do we need "reported" twice in one sentence? Indeed, throughout the article do we need to keep saying that things were reported? Why not simply state that they happened?
  • "A mudslide occurred behind a populated neighborhood". I am not sure about "behind". Perhaps 'near'?

That's it for a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I've addressed all concerns above. I flipped the conversions on everything to be metric first except the infobox as I can't quite workout how to do so. JayTee⛈️ 17:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by by Wehwalt

Gog the Mild asked me to look in, on my talk. Really, I'm only looking at prose.

  • Barometric pressure in the lead is still English measurements first.
  • "Passing just offshore the state of Jalisco," Shouldn't there be an "of" in there?
  • "a couple hours later" this seems both rather informal and also wouldn't there be an "of" in there?
  • "more well-defined" Maybe "better-defined"?
  • There's a fair number of parentheticals breaking the prose. Maybe the longer ones could be made into footnotes?
  • Apazulco could probably use a link. There are probably other relatively small municipalities that go unlinked for reasons I'm not clear about.
  • "Resources from both the federal government's Fondo Nacional de Desastres Naturales (National Fund for Natural Disasters) and Jalisco's Fondo Estatal de Desastres Naturales (State Fund for Natural Disasters) was given to the seven aforementioned municipalities. " I think it should be ... were given ..." The subject of the sentence is plural (resources).
  • "The Mexican federal legislature requested that the Comisión Nacional del Agua (National Water Commission) carry out studies and take further preventative actions to address the lack of storm-resilient infrastructure in Jalisco. The study was intended to help protect residents of its coastal municipalities from future tropical cyclone impacts.[25]" Possibly "storm-resilient" should be "storm-resistant". Isn't the final sentence rather obvious? Does it add anything?
  • "Sand and debris were stirred up throughout Manzanillo as Hernan passed offshore." How precisely are sand and debris stirred up?
  • " mostly due to the overflowing of rivers across Zihuatanejo, La Unión, Coahuayutla, San Jerónimo, Coyuca de Benítez and Petatlán, with over 100 houses experiencing damage in the latter city.[14]" "across" implies an area. These are non-contiguous cities so I don't understand the "across". You might say "Across New Jersey and Pennsylvania" but you wouldn't say "across Trenton and Pittsburgh", you'd more likely say "in". And "latter" should be "last".
  • "Secretariat Ojeda Durán" He's the Secretary of the Navy. Why "Secretariat"?
I think the prose is sometimes a bit spotty but nothing too terrible given that the subject matter doesn't lend itself to deathless prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt All issues have been addressed. JayTee⛈️ 18:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it another read in a day or so. Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and feedback. JayTee⛈️ 18:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2023 [3].

Dorothy L. Sayers

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy L Sayers was a fascinating person. Although she is best known nowadays as a crime novelist, she had several more strings to her bow – playwright, theological essayist, critic, and – most important to her – translator of Dante's The Divine Comedy. An excellent PR with much constructive input from Tim O'Doherty, Dudley Miles, UndercoverClassicist, Wehwalt and Serial Number 54129. Our grateful thanks to all of these. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim O'D

Putting down a marker for now. Comments will address the article past Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924, as I'd already commented about the previous parts at PR. Ping me after a few days if I still haven't commented. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, pinging as requested! - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had actually forgotten about this (don't take that personally!):

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Cut to the core, etc...
  • This one is in the first section but remains my only nitpick left from PR: I think (Nell) needs to be clarified. My point was I didn't really understand what it meant at first: nickname, middle name ... ? I think it is a nickname given that she's referred to as Nell later down: if so, I'd just go with "Nell".
    OK, looking at MOS:QUOTENAME, I think that's probably fair (although I think the brackets works better. Still, the MOS suggests this way, so...) - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The series of Wimsey novels continued with Unnatural Death in 1927, and The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club in 1928 - is the comma needed?
    Blitzed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved from London to the small Essex town of Witham - first time Essex has been mentioned in the body, maybe add a hyperlink.
    OK - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scholar George Saintsbury wrote an introduction to the book - wrote an indroduction or the introduction? Not trying to be smart here, if there was genuinely more than one.
    I think either are fine, regardless of the number (and I say that as someone whose immediate reflex is to use the definite article!). By way of example, if you do a search for "with an introduction by", you'll see multiple reliable and grammatical impeccable sources using this form.
  • 1930–1934 - any sort of description you can give this heading beyond the years? If it's too artificial and inorganic to invent one though, fully understand why you'd choose not.
    I think this may be forced. Her membership of The Detection Club and the introduction of Harriet Vane into her novels were the two main changes in those years, and it's an odd sort of pairing for a title - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I suspected. Happy with that.
  • The Scotsman called it a book to keep the most jaded reviewer out of bed until the small hours - feels a bit quote-y; is it?
  • The Liverpool Echo -> the Liverpool Echo
    Gone for consistency within the newspaper titles with a capitalised "The". - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why refer to Wimsey by his surname but to Vane by her forename?
    On this point I'm going to defer to Tim riley who wrote this part. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It follows Sayers's practice. She occasionally gave him his full title – "Lord Peter Wimsey murmured: 'They all wrote down on their slates'", or half of it – "The Dowager Duchess made her way along the benches and squeezed in next to Lord Peter", but most of the time it's just his surname – "He fidgeted, and Wimsey frowned at him". Harriet is sometimes "Harriet Vane" in full, mostly just "Harriet" and never just Vane. Tim riley talk 09:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The use in this way is also in line with MOS:FAMILYNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names", and I think "Wimsey" and "Harriet" are classed as the common names in her work. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dante and The Man Born to Be King, 1940s - no notes :-)
  • The Daily Sketch -> the Daily Sketch
    As above. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2021 study by Laura Mayall - who is she?
    Sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian writing - also found nothing to complain about here, but confirming I have read it.

Will tackle the rest shortly. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff - many thanks. Just one point left for TR to answer. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philip L. Scowcroft - might want to introduce him.
  • "The second man ... seemed to wear the long-toed boots affected by Jew boys of the louder sort." - if this one could be put first while still making sense I'd go for that: we have Sayers being criticised for antisemitism in the first sentence, followed by two anti-black passages and then the antisemitic one last. Makes more sense, to me at least, to have the antisemetic one first as that's what's emphasised in the preceding sentence, followed by the anti-black ones (and, Christ Sayers! someone that religious should know better ... love thy neighbour etc).
  • Link whodunit? (reading down I see you've done this in Legacy - do it at first use?)
  • and, as at 2023, continues - WGHAT!! THIs ISN AN OUTRASGE!!1 (joke)

And that's me. Happy to support, even without waiting for comments to be resolved. In my eyes deserving of the gold star. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

Comment

At the end of the section headed "Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924" we learn that at the age of 31 Sayers had a son whom she arranged to be fostered. It strikes me as very weird that she did not wish to live with or look after her own child. This presumably throws some light on the character of this deeply religious woman. I'm surprised this isn't more prominent in the article. Do the sources give more background? - Aa77zz (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is surprisingly little in most of the biographies about the matter. At least one biography omits any mention of the son except in a chronology ("1924: Gives birth to a son.") I think that as a single mother in the 1920s who had a child as a result of an affair with a married man, the scandal would have been deeply felt, particularly by her religious family. I don't think this was as uncommon as you may think for the time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Support: all that's open here is minor, and the article is in great shape. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by for now in place of a proper review, which may follow:

  • When she was fifteen, her parents sent her to a boarding school ... Joining at the age of fifteen, rather than the normal eight, she was seen as an outsider by some of the other girls, and not all the staff approved of her independence of mind. Firstly, does anyone we know which school? Secondly, the ages confuse me a little: in most public/boarding schools, it's normal to join at thirteen from an outside prep school. An all-through school (I'm not sure how many of those there were in the 1900s) may do things differently, but I'd be surprised in the modern day to find a school where it was abnormal to join at that point. Is there any more digging to be done here? People's schools are generally the sort of thing that are a matter of record, if only because the schools themselves tend to remember and commemorate their famous alumni. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks UC. I've tweaked this a little. She was home educated until she was sent to Godolphin, so I've made sure that's clear now.
    In terms of the age of entry, I suppose it depends on the school, but I've tweaked it here to show it was Godolphin's normal age, rather than more generally. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, their article seems to support that (or at least that 8 was normal in the 18th century). I still suspect it was a little less normal than that, but if the source says it, I've only got OR to go on here. A small point: the Salisbury school simply calls itself "Godolphin School", not the Godolphin, unlike the more famous one in London. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi UC, I couldn't crowbar in another edit just to put another edit summary, so I'll answer your question here. Godolphin nearly put her off religion altogether (and didn't want to be confirmed at the time). Her "principal reason for choosing Somerville College rather than Lady Margaret Hall was that Somerville was undenominational", according to Brabazon, and this is partly because of the school. (I think we cover this in the relevant bit, but please let me know if it needs beefing up or tweaking a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes -- to me, that seems like a significant enough influence to stick it in the infobox (not to mention that the school nearly killed her off!). However, flicking through FAs on female writers, it seems pretty unusual to have a school there (or indeed any education at all) -- granted, much of that is because not all of those writers had a school career that we can reconstruct -- so I'm very happy to leave this one to nominator's discretion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, no pressure (honestly!) but were you still considering a more extensive review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very close to a Support, and would not want the process delayed on my account; my concerns and quibbles are minor. A few more (still not a full review!):
  • The marriage, happy at first, grew more difficult as Fleming's health declined: a slightly buried lede; do we know why and how Fleming deteriorated, or indeed roughly how old he was?
I've added a footnote on his various ailments, and (in the body) mentioned he had a stroke and was age 68 when he died. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a verse and prose translation of the 12th-century poetic fragments The Romance of Tristan by Thomas of Britain.: consider "verse-and-prose" to be clear that it's not a) a verse and b) a prose translation. Do we want an of after fragments to clarify that the original poem isn't a set of fragments, but rather that only fragments of the complete work have survived?
Yes, both done. SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The series of Wimsey novels: cut series of, perhaps?
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest wiktionary linking some of the more idiomatic or British terms in the article: shop talk stuck out to me, as did quite a few of the words Sayers used when describing her fellow writers' work in the footnote.
I've added a couple. Unsure of whether to include one for "rollicking" or not, but I think it may be OK from the context. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth somehow clarifying the context of Sayers' comment about "not relying on Chinamen"?
Added a footnote about Fu Manchu. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • hoping to write a notable novel in the manner of: could perhaps cut notable as obvious (nobody sets out to write a novel undeserving of attention), or expand to exactly what she meant (one that would gain public recognition, or embody literary merit...?)
I've cut 'notable' - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviews were favourable without being laudatory: while laudatory does or can mean over-praising, I'd suggest a rephrase, as this will read as an oxymoron to many ("favourable without offering praise").
Gone with your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - that wasn't a suggestion, but rather intended to show the problem! My point was that you can't really be favourable without offering at least some praise. Perhaps "moderately favourable", "favourable, but gave only qualified praise" or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They really should instal a 'facepalm emoji' button on WP for me, it would be an overused facility, but there you go. Now understood and one of your actual suggestions used. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider briefly introducing Waugh; we've set him up as a critic, but it's worth being clear, I think, that he walked the walk as well.
Yes - added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayers originally intended that at the end of the book Wimsey would marry Harriet: why does Wimsey get a surname but Harriet a forename? This could be read as our article's voice placing more dignity upon the former.
It's per MOS:FAMILYNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names", and Sayers primarily referred to him as "Wimsey" and her as "Harriet".
  • but financial necessity led the author to postpone their union for another five novels while Wimsey provided his creator with a good income: I think this could be a bit clearer: we could have made it slightly more explicit that Sayers intended the Wimsey series to end (which was not a given if he retired: he could un-retire), but then decided against that because she needed money.
OK, that's reworked and the series end made more clear. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayers had never been conventionally beautiful: I'm a little uncomfortable with such a stark value judgement in Wikipedia's voice, and, to be honest, a little yucky about using that voice to pass judgement on women's beauty in any case.
I've put the judgement more onto Case's shoulders now, as it was her quote. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • three card trick: worth a link, as it's a MOS:IDIOM?
Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the reviewer in The Liverpool Echo called Sayers "the greatest of all detective story writers", though worrying that her plots were so clever that some readers might struggle to keep up with them: worried is more grammatical here.
Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenney comments that much of Sayers's thinking on the mystery novel and literature generally can be gleaned from her reviews, which reveal much about her attitude to art: can we say anything about what this attitude was?
Not from Keeney, who doesn't clarify or expand on the point. I'll see if any of the other sources cover this specifically, without us having to resort to SYNTH or OR. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction to DLS's collected book reviews gives examples of her outlook. According to the editors her reviews "cast light not only on Sayers’ likes and dislikes as regards crime fiction and English prose writing, but also on her unforgettable personality. More than that, they tell us a great deal about Golden Age crime fiction, and its remarkable evolution during the time Sayers was writing". Sayers expected authors to write to the highest standards of prose and in a personal and recognisable style. In one review she set a little test for her readers, inviting them to identify the authors of six short passages. She frequently berated authors for clichéd situations and hackneyed plot devices (indistinguishable twins, voice of the deceased on gramophone record, death on stage from a gun loaded with live bullets instead of blanks and such like). But I think this is all rather too detailed for a general encyclopaedia article. We could possibly go so far as to say something like, "She expected authors to write excellent prose and to avoid situations and plot devices already used by other writers", and perhaps link that the existing footnote 6. Tim riley talk 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good summary. It sounds as though she was mainly interested in the prose being distinctive rather than simply good (after all, nobody expects people to write in bad prose) -- and therefore we come full circle to the point that she seems to have really valued originality and detested regurgitation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've done what you're both suggesting. Let me know if I've missed something or done it wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rev Theodore Venables: should Rev. not have a full stop as an abbreviation? I'd consider spelling out in full or using the abbr template.
I've added the template, but will demur on the full stop - I think we've consistently not used them throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miss Sayers' best: I'd MOS:CONFORM in another s here, as we've been otherwise consistent.
Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayers, who kept in close contact with her son, sent him an account of the demanding rehearsals for the opening, a milieu new to her: can we have his name again (and was she still pretending to be his cousin)?
I've added the name, but the 'cousin' question isn't clarified in any of the sources, as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • to write a drama for performance in Canterbury Cathedral, following the staging there of T. S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral: did both the writing and the performance follow the staging?
I've dated Eliot's staging, which should make it much clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the early weeks of the Second World War: could we avoid asking the reader to look this up: did she start the column in September, for example? I'd throw in if possible when the column started and when the war started (mindful that audiences in e.g. Spain, China and the US may have different expectations for the latter).
I've added the dates the articles ran between. As we say that was the early weeks, I think the context should be enough. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a wry take on the eternal triangle. : I'd never heard it called that before, though I think love triangle is likely to be familiar to most of our audience. Not a problem as such, but consider clarifying.
Doesn't the link clarify things? - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • similarities in his outlook on the lack of faith, declining morality, dishonesty, exploitation, disharmony and other problems.: similarities to what -- her own perspective? Separately, not sure exactly what "lack of faith" means in this context, or whether it's straightforwardly a problem.
Tweaked to cover the 'similarities' aspect. In terms of the lack of faith, as both she and Dante were god-fearing christians, any lack of faith would have been a problem in its own right. (That's a little bit of OR there: the source doesn't expand enough for a clarifying note). - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure she saw the decline of Christianity as a problem, but I'm less sure that we can transfer that judgement into Wikipedia's voice. Compare something like "Wellington discussed his outlook on Irish people and other undesirables" -- we'd rightly change that to stick the judgement firmly on Wellington's shoulders. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked slightly to make it clear we’re talking about her opinions. How does that look now? - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've now got a buried lead (what were those opinions?). Perhaps something like "Sayers believed that her society suffered from a lack of faith [or: the decline of Christianity?], declining morality, dishonesty, exploitation, disharmony and other similar problems, and believed that Dante shared the same view of his own"? I feel as though I can get more out of the sentence if I swap it round (that is, put Sayers first, then Dante). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • pleased theologians more than it pleased the actors: any idea why she felt it upset the actors?
I've added a quote from her about the "very stale and abstract" nature of the piece. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notices were excellent: not sure totally what this means: does notices mean the same as reviews?
Yes. I though it was a common enough term, but now swapped out. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After years of declining health her husband died at their home in Witham: I'd give his name again (it's been a while) and slightly rework the sentence to be clear that this happened in 1950, not merely after.
Now dated (and named) - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image of Jeeves/Holmes really best on the left? I see one image "facing" left, the other (marginally) "facing" right: the strong readability preference is to go with right-align unless there's a good reason not to, and this one looks like a toss-up to me. Could consider swapping the order of the images to reinforce that.
I'll mull on that one. It's there partly to avoid a column of images down the right. I think I tried it in draft on either side (given both images have one party facing 'in' and one facing 'out'), and this looked better. Let me sleep on it - I'm have a preference for the left position on this, but I'm not entirely set on it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Strong_poison.JPG: source link is dead. Ditto File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg
  • File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg: as this is on Commons, it needs a tag for country of origin
File:Strong_poison.JPG and File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg: Links for both updated (I've archived them as well)
File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg and File:Dante_Domenico_di_Michelino.jpg both tagged (hopefully appropriately!)
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

Generally excellent, as I would expect given the collective level of experience that has already gone over this at peer review!

Some prose nitpicking:

  • "From the mid‐1930s Sayers wrote plays, most were on religious themes": maybe "... mostly on religious themes" would read better
  • "From the early 1940s her main preoccupation was translating the three books of Dante's Divine Comedy into colloquial English. She died unexpectedly at her home in Essex, aged 64, before completing the last of the three." I find "the last of the three" a little awkward; perhaps "... before completing the third book"?
  • "and college chaplain of Christ Church, one of the colleges of the University of Oxford": is the first "college" necessary? I would simply say "and chaplain of Christ Church..."
  • "an amount led Reynolds to describe him as 'far from wealthy'": I think you have a "that" missing here
  • "Reynolds considers Sayers was well placed to deal with Dante's rhymed couplets": couplets?!

And one factual query/nitpick:

  • "Her first novel Whose Body? was published in 1923. Between then and 1939 she wrote ten more, all of them detective stories, and all but one featuring the upper-class amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey." Is this right? I count eleven Wimsey novels, plus The Documents in the Case and the four Detection Club collaborative novels.

An initial readthrough didn't bring up any concerns about the sourcing, and the article certainly seems comprehensive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC reviewer's vade mecum

Normally, I'd probably support immediately because "all my points were addressed at PR". But, think only 50% of them were  ;) ——Serial 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's because she didn't learn campanology: she read up on it, but still made a couple of errors in the description. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to cause trouble you understand, but if you'll allow me to be me for a minute or two  :) ...Well, I think she read up on it sufficiently to "master an esoteric, and, to her, uncongenial discipline", to the extent of being able to "write out on paper a complete touch of Grandsire Triples or Kent-Treble Bob Major from the course-ends and observation calls". Rev Venables introduces the reader (and Wimsey) to C. A. W. Troyte, and she learned from him. It's true that she made errors; she also criticised herself for scientific inaccuracy in the Docs in the Case, and it's well known that her choice of murder weapon in Unnatural Death is almost an impossibility. I think, in the way you touch on thebaxckground to Documents, you should do something similar here; if she just learned French, for example, then it would be completely unnoteworthy, but one of the most obscure practices this country has ever produced, interlinking music and mathematics? Worth a punt (on the Isis, presumably!).
By the way, while I'm here—and I don't want to tread on PMC's toes—but there's some curious cites (now), e,g. 183–186. Just OCLC numbers? ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a bit odd, but they're citing the catalogue entry rather than the books themselves. (Which makes sense as the books are fiction and it would feel weird to cite fiction). It's unorthodox, but I don't see any reason not to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: Well, if you think something's odd, ask at WT:FAC, that'll get an answer. The source review is governed by the featured article criteria. In this situation, criterion 2C, which mandates "consistently formatted inline citations". In any case, no exceptions are made for fiction (and in the Sources/Books section, DLS's fiction is fully referenced anyway!). Also, they're not to fiction: Dorothy L. Sayers : a bio-bibliography, a thesis; Hitchman's Such a Strange Lady; Maker and Craftsmen: The Story of Dorothy L. Sayers; Dorothy L. Sayers: a literary biography. This last one, by the way, is most odd: It's Hone, Ralph E. (1979), which is already cited in full. Those are the first four; I'm not going to list the rest, but they're all biographical (and indeed at least one other—the Kenney source—is also already used as a source. AFAICT, there's nothing wrong with the reliability, but the consistency is, off-kilter, to say the least  :) Enjoy. ——Serial 00:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to come off as prickly, but I know what the FACR are and don't need them linked. I didn't ask because I wound up deciding that I did not see it as an issue. The distinction as I see it is that it's not the content of the books which is being cited, it's the OCLC catalogue for publication details being cited. The citations are consistent when they are being used for that purpose, and I think that satisfies the FACR. (I did misspeak when I said they were citations to fiction - I shouldn't reply when I've just woken up from a night shift and only barely remember what year it is). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Coords, I'm waiting for snail-mail source to arrive. FYI, not forgotten  :) ——Serial 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks SN -- btw it's {{@FAC}} if you want to ping the coords... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: But I didn't want to... or need to. This is a Riley-SchroCat production, pure Glimmer Twins, and I know that, where they go, @FAC coordinators: ain't far behind  ;) ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: FTR, not resolved here yet. Cheers, ——Serial 12:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's not resolved? I think I've covered your points, but I must have missed something: can you clarify? - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: You wanna beat me up? You want beat me up? WTF mate?! ——Serial 10:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - I just want to know what's outstanding! I read through this thread a couple of times and can't see what's still left to do. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'll still probably end up supporting, because, well: the phenomenon that is WP:SCHROFAC. But I admit to still wanting to know how a) these refs are consistently formatted inline citations compared to the rest of the article; b) if it's referencing the database more broadly, then why does {{Citeweb}} or {{Cite linked authority file}} not do? I'm also uncertain as to how WP:V (ideally giving page number(s)) is met, or WP:HOWCITE, or even WP:PAGENR (the citation must clearly support the material as presented). I think, Schro, more importantly, I'm curious as to why. You've never done it before (well, not in your last dozen articles (one a month for a year, an incredible achievement!) anyway), and it hasn't been done in the last 30 or so nominations more generally, so I'd be interested in seeing these other FAs. Although I'll grant you MEDFAC, who have their own... idiosyncratic interpretations of these things  :) I hope Tim's OK? ——Serial 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's still about those refs - that wasn't clear. Well, the cites are supporting the fact that books were published. Nothing more than that, and the OCLC, being a doi of the book's existence, is sufficient to support the claim that the book exists. Page numbers etc don't enter the equation - it's the existence of the book that is being shown by use of a recognised doi. However, given you're obviously not happy with them, I'll swap them out.
As to "why", you'll have to ask Tim: he wrote that section and made the choice. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support the article's promotion, apologies, I see this got dealt with, to a certain extent, a few days ago. ——Serial 13:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC - source review

Putting myself down here, give me a sharp prod if I don't come back within a week :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - here we go. No spot-check performed. This is on formatting and reliability.

  • I notice that some sources have links in the citations, such as 125 to P.D. James and 151 to Contemporary Authors and Gale, but most others with viable links like Oxford Dictionary of National Biography are unlinked. Should be consistent.
    OK, unlinked them all - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37: ""Special Literary Supplement", Truth, 24 October 1923, p. vi;" - there are several publications with the name Truth, it might be worth putting a location or linking the correct one
    I'll check with Tim on that one as he wrote that section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might want to do the same for The Times and The Daily News, both of which can refer to multiple publications
    I've done the Daily News, but I'll leave The Times I think. They all refer to the best known of all the papers under that name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 89, 202, 203: BBC Genome is more properly called the BBC Genome Project
    I've swapped one of them for the Radio Times reference (which is better), but renamed the other two - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 213: Is Lesser Feasts and Fasts liturgically applicable to all American Episcopal Churches? If so, why is the St. Alban's one needed? That seems to a user-made post from one random church.
  • There are quite a few older newspaper stories but they're generally used to cite their own opinion, so no concerns with reliability
  • I've been told not to use state abbreviations like "Boston, MA" in refs. Apparently it should either just be Boston, or the state should be fully spelled out as Boston, Massachusetts.
    • Same for Kent, OH (especially since you have Kent, Ohio, right under it)
    • Ithaca, NY; Malden, MA;
  • New York: Church Publishing, Inc. - should be New York City to avoid ambiguity. You have a bunch of these, I'll not highlight them all, ctrl+F "New York:" will pop them
  • Worsley, Lucy (2014). A Very British Murder. London: BBC. - properly this is BBC Books
  • It's really mostly nitpicks. I don't see any sources that need challenging. We have books from reputable publishers and peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Web sources are used sparingly and for basic facts.

That's everything I have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC. All done bar the one about The Truth, which I'm looking into. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Truth now linked! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a support; I'll reiterate that I don't see the use of OCLCs as citations as an issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder - I have a few questions and will try to finish review over next 24hrs. JennyOz (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim riley and Schrocat, did I ever tell you how 24 hrs is a different period in southern hemisphere? This was wonderful to read thank you! Some questions...

Early years

  • Sayers was born on - I am confused why some bio FAs do or don't include full name at first mention after lede. I had a quick look through some of yours (both) and Brian's and can't see an obvious pattern. For Sayers, in this Early years section, it becomes obvious where the middle name "Leigh" comes from. In other articles the full name is introduced (and cited) after the lede, but in others, not. Is there a formula, or FA discussion etc, I should read?
    There's no guidance on this point (or at least as far as I know!). I know I've included and not included in the past. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • her first cousin and Nell's niece - "and" seems like two separate relationships? 'her first cousin as Nell's niece '?

Schooling

Oxford

  • Mutual Admiration Society, a literary society - or Literary circle? (appears that page)
    I think either term is possible here, but as the MAS called themselves a society, I think I'll just about edge for that one. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • named Roy Ridley, later chaplain of Balliol, on whose appearance and manner she later drew for her best-known character, Lord Peter Wimsey - partly drew?
    The source suggests it's pretty much a full portrait of him she used (and she used to get annoyed later in life with his "exploitation of his likeness to Wimsey", according to Reynolds. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I only asked because elsewhere "Eric Whelpton, who was teaching English there.[30] She had been in love with him at Oxford, and he was among the models for the appearance and character of Wimsey". No problem though. JennyOz (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Covered all the above, unless explained otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924

  • Hull High School for Girls - pipe to Tranby School? (Sayers is mentioned in that article)
  • In 1921 Sayers began a relationship with a fellow writer, John Cournos, which intensified after her return to England shortly afterwards.[30] - this started in France or was a distance thing? Where was Cournos before and after her time in France?
  • products including Guinness stout and Colman's mustard - is separate link to stout needed? The Guinness article is about the stout, and there isn't a separate link for mustard?
  • come as anti-climax to disappoint expectations - definitely no 'an' before "anti-climax" in that quote?
  • She was known to him at first as Cousin Dorothy, - quotes on name?
  • writing it before joining Bensons - Benson's with apostrophe per elsewhere

Early novels, 1925–1929

1930–1934

  • The Documents in the Case - link
  • raise money for the acquisition of premises - did they purchase or hire or book places for their dinners?
  • organised by Sayers, was Behind the Screen - link The Scoop and Behind the Screen?
  • she worked on The Documents in the Case - link
  • a notable novel in the manner of Wilkie Collins - introduce Collins eg 19th-century author?
  • Wilkie Collins, whom she admired - whose work she admired?
  • a longer serial for the BBC, The Scoop, - link per behind the Screen above?
  • Murder Must Advertise (1933) - in caption the year is 1932
  • She edited a third and final volume of Great Stories of Detection, Mystery and Horror - should that be Great Short Stories like the first two?
  • adopted his first person narrative technique - hyphen/s?
  • As her portrait of the Rev Theodore Venables "tenderly evoked" her father, "unworldly, self-effacing [and] lovable", as Reynolds puts it. - Is "As" correct at opening of this sentence?
  • She spent considerable time researching campanology which gave - this needs context? To understand I read The Nine Tailors article and found "She also was inspired by her father's restoration of the Bluntisham church bells in 1910.[11]". Perhaps, "The rectory in which Wimsey and his manservant, Bunter, are offered refuge after a car crash, resembles that in which Sayers grew up" might include a mention of the church's bell tower? Or start the sentence "As the story featured a bell tower, she spent considerable time...
  • Kenny ranks it below the final three Wimsey - Kenney

Last novels and early religious works, 1935–1939

  • her biographer David Coombes - Coomes

Dante and The Man Born to Be King, 1940s

  • life of Christ, The Man Born to be King (1941–42) - cap Be per elsewhere

Detective stories

  • caption Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson - Holmes is on the right, swap names?

Feminism

  • according to Sayers's biographer, Catherine Kenny - Kenney
  • everyday readers"[179] Sandberg considers - missing full stop

Biographies and other books about Sayers

Legacy

  • installed a blue plaque at 24 Great James Street, Bloomsbury, - per image (caption "The door to 1 Brewer Street, Oxford, where Sayers was born") there is also a plaque there but is not an official English Heritage one?
    The image next to that bit of text is the English Heritage one in Great James Street. I don't have any details on the Oxford one (possibly the local council, maybe an appreciation society, who knows): I'll have a look. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

  • The Divine Comedy v the Divine Comedy v Divine Comedy (are intentional?)
    Yes. Dante published Divina Commedia, which translates as Divine Comedy. Sayers's translations were published as The Divine Comedy, complete with definite article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image alts

  • alt=Book cover with title, author and mention of earlier "Clouds of Witness"]] - swap quotes to italics
  • alt=book cover of Strong Poison, with name of author and the words "A new "Lord Peter" Detective Novel - needs closing quotes

Notes, references and sources

  • note 15 including the 20th century poets - hyphen

References

  • Ref 84 Coombes, p. 118 - Coomes
  • Ref 182 Kenny, p. 152 - Kenney

Categories

That's it. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • I have already commented at PR, but will have another look through.
  • It seems curious that the cause of death is not given. The New York Times at [4] says it was coronary thrombosis. Is this not correct?
    Added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a personal opinion, I think sources such as the ODNB article should be listed in the sources section for the benefit of people using it for further research.
    I've been mulling on this one, as there is some merit to it, but I think if we move that into the sources, it would be inconsistent with the other web sources, so we'd have to move everything out of the body and into the sources section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because of its practice of cultivating its students take prominent roles in the arts and public life". "to take"?
    Yes - added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kenney describes the book as "flawed but brilliant", and ranks it below the final three Wimsey novels—The Nine Tailors, Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon—in terms of its literary status in relation to more manifestly serious fiction of Sayers's day." This sentence seems too convoluted to be clear.
    Reorganised to get rid of the parenthetical clause: does this work any better? - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantry point. It is not correct to say that a sub is required for access to the ODNB Sayers article. It is free access, which seems to be a new thing on ODNB for some articles.
    So it is - how pleasing! Subscription template now removed - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first rate article from SchroCat and Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Dudley. All duly attended to, except where commented on above. Thanks also for your PR comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a source review this week. Poke me if I don't get this done --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks In actu: PMC has already done one above, but happy to go through another if needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

  • Excellent article, now much dug over. I won't add, except that I share UC's doubts about 8 being the "normal" starting age for her boarding school. Even more than boys, girls tended to stay at home until 13, unless the school specialized in parents working around the empire. A junior section, up to 13, would usually become much larger at that age. But I won't withold support for that. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Johnbod. I agree the "usual" part is a bit of a wrinkle. The school now takes girls from age three, but whether in the 1900s it was "usual" for entry at 8, 11 or 13, the main source doesn't say and I can't find any other sources that confirm or deny what the "usual" intake age was, so I think we'll just have to rely on the source as it stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2024 [5].

Pierre Boulez

Nominator(s): Dmass (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Boulez was one of the most influential - and controversial - composers of the second half of the 20th century. He had a parallel career as a conductor, working with many of the great orchestras. The article has been through GA and PR, and I hope it might join the growing number of FAs on classical music. Comments on prose, content, balance, length and anything else will be welcomed. Dmass (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the article extensively at GAN, was among the reviewers at PR, and have long been urging Dmass to bring it to FAC. At GAN I was concerned about the length of the text, but since then it has been judiciously trimmed and now has a word count on a par with, e.g., the FA on Benjamin Britten, than whom Boulez lived nearly three decades longer. Rereading the article once again for FAC I find it comprehensive, well proportioned, balanced, widely sourced and cited, commendably well illustrated (which can't have been easy), and a pleasure to read. I like Dmass's use of footnotes rather than in-line parentheses for English translations of French titles: this makes for a smoother read while making translations readily accessible. My fellow peer reviewers were Cg2p0B0u8m and SchroCat, and a pillar of our classical music articles is Aza24, and I hope they may like to look in here. Meanwhile, I add that I think the article meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Tim riley - and for your your invaluable suggestions at GAN and PR. Dmass (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

As the proud (or, occasionally, masochistic?) owner of several of the man's works and recordings, I hope to find the time to recuse and review this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I look forward to your comments (and discovering which of his works fall into the 'sadistic' category!). Dmass (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's just say that if I ever tire of married life and want a quick divorce all I'd need do is play Abbado's 1988 Notations I-IV at anything approaching normal volume -- compared to that my wife finds The Rite of Spring almost tranquil... ;-)
Now to business... I've reviewed and copyedited the lead and the biography section and overall I think it reads very well, and appears comprehensive but not overly detailed. As an example I believe I had heard that some considered one of his state-supported projects (IRCAM I think) really delivered very little bang for its buck and you did seem to touch on this. Anyway I'll take a breather now and you can let me know if you want to discuss any of my tweaks/trims/links... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this! I'll work through them over the weekend. Dmass (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed work. I agree with most of your tweaks so far. There are a few I disagree with, though.
I think the line break in the header is better as it marks change of subject from conducting to institutional work.
As you wish, I won't sweat that one! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the 1925-1943 section, I'd like to keep 'in fact', the point being that Boulez described a sort of victory over his parents, but 'in fact' he remained quite dependent on his father for practical help (for a while at least).
Hmm, perhaps "In the event" or "As it happened"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for 'in the event' which catches the sense fine. Dmass (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will pick up later... Dmass (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence about Leibowitz, I prefer the original, partly because 'he found' is used again later in the same paragraph.
Ah yes, I usually do check if I'm inserting a term that might be used nearby -- my apologies. I did think my tweak of the 12-tone technique part worked quite well, perhaps we can find (pun unintended) something else for Leibowitz's doctrinaire approach? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried your suggestion, but the pronouns get terribly tangled up, so I've come up with a half-way house for the first sentence which I hope is agreeable. Dmass (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone further than you and trimmed the sentence at the end of 1959-1971 more.
Even better, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't think it's accurate to say that PB was 'largely' responsible for the Philharmonie, but he pushed for it for a long time. I think 'in no small measure' is more accurate, if a bit pompous on my part. Anyone think of an alternative? Dmass (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think "in no small measure" is a bit peacockish, and although I'm not certainly claiming perfection in my comprehension the fact that I didn't interpret it correctly might say something, so be good to find some other expression. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've substituted 'in part' for 'largely'. Dmass (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming with the compositions section, I found very little to copyedit but have some queries:
  • "the present moment is all there is" -- Can we clarify who said this? I imagine Boulez himself but since the sentence starts with "According to the music critic Alex Ross" I think it's worth spelling out.
  • but the project did not come to fruition. -- Can we source this, as we do the unrealised nature of other works?
    • In fact the existing reference covers the point, so I've just shifted it to the end of the sentence.
  • few believed such an ambitious undertaking could be realised so late in the day -- I assume "so late in the day" refers to Boulez's age at the time but I think we should just spell it out if so.
    • Done.
      • Tks for those. I'll aim to go over the rest of the article but at this stage, noting also the image and source reviews, I'm leaning support -- been a pleasure to read/review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ian, I appreciate your time. All the best Dmass (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing in the compositions section I seem to have missed earlier, re. transformation of Notations into orchestral works: "a project which occupied him to the end of his life" could use a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've added a citation. Dmass (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming with the conducting section, etc...
  • I tweaked a paragraph in Approach, see what you think.
    • That's the third order those three quotations have been in over the last month! To be honest, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference; the point is still made that he wasn't universally admired. Dmass (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. the Ring (Boulez's conducting was no less controversial, emphasising continuity, flexibility and transparency over mythic grandeur and weight.) -- it must also be one of the paciest, the recording occupying a mere 12 CDs as opposed to the 14 or 15 common at the time, I don't know if your source talks about speeds...
    • It doesn't - and nor do my other regular sources, so I did a quick Google and up popped a blogger, who had done the maths: 'The quickest Ring I have is Sawallisch’s at 13:07. Krauss clocks in at 13:23, Janowski at 13:25, Boulez at 13:45, Keilberth at 13:55, Barenboim at 14:09, and Schleppmeister Knappertsbusch at 14:38.' Of course, Krauss was in the early 1950s, so a quick Ring was not a new thing. According to the sources, it was the fact that Boulez insisted that the orchestra play quietly which really shocked them - even though Karajan in the 1960s had famously conducted a Ring in Salzburg which emphasised the chamber-music qualities in much of Wagner's orchestral writing.
  • The most notorious instance... -- since this is from Boulez's own writings, who describes it as the most notorious?
    • I'm afraid the answer's probably me! I've changed it to 'one of the most notorious', having found a rather wonderful Guardian article which pulls together 'some of his most notorious pronouncements', which I've added by way of a note.

That's it from me unless further changes occur as a result of other reviews... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks so much for your time on this. I'll pick my way through your comments, although I may have some queries along the way, as this is not my strong suit... Dmass (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Dmass (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pierre_Boulez_(1968).jpg: the licensing provided doesn't match the source
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I note that this is a cropped version of an image which also appears here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Boulez_1968.jpg Dmass (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image has a copyright tag indicating it is licensed as CC BY-SA. The source link provided indicates the license is CC0. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the record so that they match. Dmass (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Andrée_Vaurabourg.jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
I don't think I can resolve those issues, so it looks like it will have to go. I'm thinking of replacing it with an image of Olivier Messiaen: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Messiaen_1937_4.jpg - would that one be acceptable? Dmass (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking my oar in: as the Bibliothèque nationale de France records the Andrée Vaurabourg image as "domaine public" can we not read across from French to American copyright law the 70-years-after-death rule? Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Tim riley talk 00:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the life+70 rule doesn't apply to the US for published works, so that image is also missing a US tag. For these and the other US status questions, I'd suggest referring to the Hirtle chart to determine appropriate tagging based on publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Vaurabourg photo with a photo (taken by me in 2022) of the building in the Marais district in Paris which Boulez lived between 1945 and 1958. The street (rue Beautrellis) was completed in 1836. Dmass (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with the next one, this should include an explicit tag for the building. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Theatre_Marigny_-_Salle_Popesco.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this should include a tag for the building.
I'm puzzled by this: the link you've provided suggests that France does have limited freedom of panorama. The Théâtre Marigny was built in 1835, so presumably there's no issue with this. Could you advise what kind of tag I should include? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the age of this building PD-France should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean no further action is needed on this one? Dmass (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that PD-France applies, we can just add that tag and be done with this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:IRCAM_at_Beaubourg_2009.jpg, File:Paris-Philharmonie1.jpg
As for IRCAM this is obviously a modern building, but my reading of the guidance is that it is only ‘for-profit reproductions’ which amount to infringements, which this is not. Is that wrong? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes yes - our non-free content policy defines any work that disallows commercial reuse as non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this image as the problem seems insuperable. I've yet to find a candidate to replace it in this section, but I've found one for the previous section, which seems to balance nicely. Dmass (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Roger_Woodward_and_Pierre_Boulez_rehearsing_with_the_BBC_Symphony_Orchestra_Bartok's_first_Piano_Concerto_in_1972.jpg: what is "NLA Collection"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The papers of Roger Woodward in the National Library of Australia. Dmass (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stephane_Mallarme.jpg: when and where was this first published?
The portrait by Nadar was published in 1900 according to the Bibliothèque nationale de France: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b531079562/f1.item. Dmass (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding that to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Paul_Klee,_1922,_Senecio,_oil_on_gauze,_40.3_×_37.4_cm,_Kunstmuseum_Basel.jpg
Klee died in 1940, more than 70 years ago, which I understand makes his works out of copyright in the USA. Could you advise which extra tag to add? Dmass (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in 1924, according to the Kunstmuseum Basel, which owns it - https://sammlungonline.kunstmuseumbasel.ch/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.inline.list.t1.collection_list.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=13&sp=Sartist&sp=SfilterDefinition&sp=0&sp=3&sp=1&sp=SdetailView&sp=52&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=T&sp=0&sp=SdetailList&sp=0&sp=F&sp=Scollection&sp=l1207#litKlapptext - There doesn't seem to be anywhere to add that information to the image description, but the work is expressly categorised on the Basel website as being 'Bilddaten gemeinfrei - Kunstmuseum Basel' Dmass (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the source, the Mahler Foundation's website shows the date of the work (1917) and the dates of the artist (1890-1918): https://mahlerfoundation.org/mahler/contemporaries/arnold-schoenberg/. Should I just add that link to the file data under source? Also, could you advise which US tag to use? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is 1917 a creation or a publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1917 was a creation date. I haven't been able to identify a publication date, so I have replaced the Schiele image with one which is approved for publication by the copyright holder. Dmass (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added three new images: of René Char, Bruno Maderna and Jean Genet. Would you mind taking a look at them? Thanks again.
File:Capitaine_Alexandre_1943.jpg needs a US tag
Done.
File:B_Maderna_1963.jpg has a dead source link and needs info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Dmass (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, can I just confirm images are fine now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One question: where was File:Capitaine_Alexandre_1943.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the information on Wikimedia is completely wrong. It's not a photograph by an anonymous person, it's by the well-known photographer Roger Viollet, who died in the mid-1960s. I've deleted it from the Boulez page. Dmass (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Source review

Spot-check upon request and I am primarily looking at source reliability. I notice that years sometimes are in parentheses, sometimes without and sometimes they are lacking altogether. Likewise page numbers sometimes are hyphenated and sometimes "A and B". I can't find "Weber, Hildegard Opera Magazine."? https://archives.nyphil.org/index.php/artifact/89470457-2c68-47d5-8102-f2913401bc7e-0.1 and https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fww%2F9780199540884.013.U8205 should probably be behind a pipe, not sitting out there as a raw URL. Is it "Grawemeyer Award" or "Gravemeyer prize"? What makes theartsdesk.com a reliable source? I dunno if all the " Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named " errors are a FAC issue, but one might want to add "ref=none" to them. Definitively not a FAC issue, but a number of authors have pages on Wikipedia that could be linked to. It seems like most of the sources are (save for some British, French and US newspapers) musicologists and other bigwigs in the field, keeping in mind that this isn't my specialty area. It seems like the source section is mostly consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time on this. I’ll definitely look through these points at the weekend (tied up with work away from home for the next few days). Dmass (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing firstly with years in citations, where only one work by an author is in the source list, no year is given (because it's in the source list); where there is more than one work, the year is given (always in brackets) to distinguish between the sources (the most obvious example being Boulez himself). I've checked all the references and I think it's now applied consistently. Dmass (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Dmass (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers in citations: where the pages are adjacent, they are hyphenated; where they are not, I've used 'and'. So for example, reference 45 reads 'Steinegger, 64–66; Hill and Simeone, 211 and 253.'Dmass (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Opera Magazine citation, I'm not sure what your concern is, as the link goes straight through to the article. Is it the format of the reference? Dmass (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the raw URL, I've removed the external link altogether as it doesn't add much.Dmass (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition, which is one of several Grawemeyer awards. I've amended accordingly. Dmass (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
artsdesk.com provides probably the most comprehensive online coverage of arts events in the UK at the moment. It's where a lot of professional critics found a home when newspapers cut their arts coverage several years ago. In my experience the quality is at least as high as in the national newspapers, and often significantly higher. Dmass (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your last point (about the 'Harv warnings') has me stumped, as I don't know what this refers to. Is anyone else able to reply to/assist with this?
SC, you are a wiz on this sort of thing: can you help? Tim riley talk 19:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, will look. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted on all but a couple, which flag up errors if the field is used. (Dmass, it's likely you didn't see any errors at all - there's a script some editors (including me) add to show where they've messed up a reference. One of the downsides is that is shows a warning unless the sfn templates are being used. Long story short: you haven't made any errors, but I've fixed the visuals for those of us who have the script installed). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks so much! Dmass (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've dealt with your points satisfactorily. Thank you again for your time, it's greatly appreciated. Dmass (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, seems like reliability-wise this passes. The harv ref issue isn't really a FAC thing, upon second thought. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

I read this today and thoroughly enjoyable it was too. I have no nitpicks and consider this to meet the FA criteria, fully. CassiantoTalk 16:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to read it Cassianto and for your kind comments. Dmass (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

I finally have a bit of extra time. I remember a few live performances conducted by Boulez. Lead last, as usual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, Gerda Arendt, I'll work through these later today. Dmass (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

  • link Catholic, perhaps?
    • Done
  • I suggest to say - instead of "Boris Godunov and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg" - "Mussorgski's Boris Godunov and Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg". It's not "Aida and Tosca", which more readers may associate with composers immediately.
    • Done
  • I'm not sure that "well-known" adds to the soprano.
    • Cut
  • "son of the pianist Vladimir" looks strange to me with just the given name, even if I understand the wish to avoid the repetition of the surname.
    • I can see that, amended to full name

I read now up to Compositions, and am too tired for details. A few general things: in the beginning, composers are mostly introduced by just surname, later by full name, such as John Cage. Cage and Stockhausen are - I believe - known by surname alone.

  • I see your point, but I think with this it's a question of judgment. I know in some contexts there's a rule that if they're dead, they are only referred to by surname, which is fine if it's Bach or Wagner, but for the general reader Cage and Stockhausen are not such well-known figures. This is a long way round of saying that I have thought about it each time, and consistency has sometimes given way to helpfulness (or an attempt at it, anyway).

Please check links: some things seem to be never linked, others more than once, at least his ensemble not on the first mentioning but the second.

  • Will do, although it looks like the Ensemble intercontemporain is linked both in the header and at its first mention in the main body.

I made a few changes - feel free to revert if you don't agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. A couple of observations only.
    • I've removed the Yvette Grimaud link altogether as there's no English language page (thanks for spotting that the link was to the French page)
      • I'd restore the interlanguage link, - it's an invitation to create it in English (and I may actually do it - next year). When I had first contact with FAC, red links were a no-no, but at least the interlanguage links became acceptable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted to the English name for the Darmstadt course, while keeping the correct link you've given.

Total serialism

  • "That revolution" - a reader coming by the headers will not know what that refers to. We can't expect readers to absorb it all sequentially.

I read through the works section and liked it very much, - lovely quotes, development very clear.

  • Thank you for that!

I moved a pic (Genet) for the posture of the subject, and noticed that the "alt" parameter just refers to the caption. That seems no help for someone blind who would like to get some idea of what is pictured, in this case: what the person looks like. I had not checked others.

Another general point: some links are repeated in the works section, which is fine by me, but others not, - intentionally so? - I'll travel for the rest of the week, - will see what I can still do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, there was a change to MOS in June to the effect that it was okay to relink once per section after the lead, not just once in the main body. So in this case -- and especially given the size of the sections -- linking the same thing under bio and under compositions is reasonable (though not obligatory -- as ever, links are there if we judge they will help the reader). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting

  • I linked some of the authors in that section, only to see that two of them had their links before. If you don't want a second link to the biographers, perhaps just write last name, to indicate that they appeared before?
  • After "Not everyone agreed about the greatness of that gift.", I expected to read disagreement, but Klemperer seems not one of them.
  • While you and I know that Jessye Norman is a soprano, it may come as a surprise to others.
    • tweaked
  • The sentence about her and collaborations sits a bit strangely between the voices about his conducting. It might be better in the "life" section?
    • No I think it belongs here: I'm referring to his collaboration with them as a conductor.

Opera

  • "His chosen repertoire was small and included no Italian opera." I'm not sure what that sentence adds to the following. It also didn't include Spanish opera, for example. I prefer the following positive sentence, about Wagner and 20th century only.
    • Actually he did conduct Spanish opera/music theatre (de Falla); my point is that it's pretty unusual for a conductor interested in opera not to touch the Italian repertoire at all, which is the largest and (as you pointed out earlier) probably the best-known.
  • Image caption: I'd prefer to name the singer that you see, Gwyneth Jones, to the conductor's, and Götterdämmerung to a repetition of Ring.
    • I think better as it is, as it links with the reference in the text to the Ring and to this particular production. Not all readers will know that Götterdämmerung is part of the Ring. And if we name Jones, shouldn't we name Hubner as Hagen?
  • Bastille: the term "director" usually means the one for the action on stage, - I don't know a solution.
    • Good spot, in fact he was appointed president. I've re-worked it.
  • "In the event" - which follows - seems not to mean that event. Is it a phrase I don't know?
    • It's just another way of saying 'in fact'. I think it's fine.Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder how often I misunderstand things because I read English too literally ;) - all taken. I hope to get to reading further today. I doubt a bit that any reader who is not aware of Götterdämmerung being part of the Ring will get this far into the article. I used the image to express my state of mind (a woman who can't believe what she has to see), so thank you for showing it! At present the expression would rather be like Sonia Prina's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got to the header Recording, now off to the (Italian) opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

Writing ...

That's it for today, read to the end. More when back home. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead In general, I like the lead, the following is for only to be considered; several items a related to weight because some seems too much, some too little.

  • - I am not sure that his father's profession is note-worthy, same for the two lesser-known teachers.
    • I disagree, it serves the purpose of establishing that PB was from a middle-class family; the mention of his other teachers corrects the misapprehension (which I think is quite common) that Messiaen was his only teacher.
  • - I believe we have too many orchestra names.
    • Agreed, it's a bit 'listy'. I've cut the LSO and the EIC (and expanded on the latter below, as you suggest).
  • + In their list, I'd single out the Ensemble i. he founded.
    • I've taken a different approach and been more explicit about the EIC later in the lead.
  • + I'd like more about repertoire, such as his restriction to Wagner and 20th-century opera, which sets him apart from conductors who may have conducted a similar set of orchestras.
    • I think the penultimate paragraph is quite explicit about his repertoire.
  • + I'd use the more precise link to Jahrhundertring (piped) instead of sending readers to Wagner and the Ring, expecting that most readers getting that far into his intro will kind of know who Wagner was, and that he created the Ring (and if not, they are just one more click away.
    • Done
  • + "His recorded legacy is extensive." - again, some more examples of music he cared about would delight me.
    • Again, I think that's already in the penultimate paragraph.
  • + I'd place the organisations he founded into some kind of chronology, with an explanation, instead of an unqualified list of mostly French names.
    • Agreed, I've re-worked it in an attempt to make it more informative.
  • This lead has not one sentence about him as a person, and while he was silent about private life (and we should probably do the same), there is this rich "Character" section, to meet him as a person even when only reading the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the second paragraph is very much about his personality.

Thank you again, Gerda, for your time on this, it's much appreciated. Dmass (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am pleased, especially with the expansion of the organisations! About character: I believe that the sentence you mean is still about his professional life and action (uncompromising, polemic). What I liked to read (in the body) was the rapport with Stockhausen, dining with the Stravinskys, rug concerts, and that he took interest in individual orchestra players' private news. I also think a sentence such as "about his private life he remained tightly guarded" would serve the lead well.
  • On a more basic note: you may want to check where linking to the same subject several times is wanted and where perhaps accidental (Joan Peyser 3*). The Basel academy is still linked on the second occasion.
  • One more basic thing is the use of {{lang}} for foreign terms, with all that French. It helps readers who rely on screenreaders. The template causes automatic italics; when they are not wanted use {{langr}} instead. It was discussed here to improve a FAC article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference is not to add anything more to the lead about Boulez's character. I think it's better dealt with in the body of the article, where it's possible to be more nuanced.
    I went through the article a week or so ago, checking for over-linking. I must have missed Joan Peyser's three links; I've removed one of them.
    I wasn't familiar with the use of the language template for foreign terms. I quite see the importance of it. I'm still working through the guidance, trying to figure out what should and should not be tagged. Unless it's essential for FAC, I'd rather deal with this gradually. Dmass (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All accepted, thank you, including for being open to matters of accessibility.
    Support.
    A routine question in recent FACs for composers was how the author felt about an infobox. I remember that I asked you before, and you said rather not. However, some things changed since, - consider the position of the community for Mozart and Wagner. The FACs were Artemy Vedel, Osbert Parsley and Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support, Gerda. As for an infobox, I'm still of the same opinion: I can see that inboxes can be useful in many contexts, but I don't think it would add value to this particular page. Dmass (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see how a (concise and well curated) infobox would add value, but you didn't see the value of template lang either, until now. Perhaps compare Mozart, and the viewpoints of others on it, and if you have little time, just the arguments of Voceditenore, beginning "Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle". I don't want to clutter this FAC with the topic, - we could talk somewhere else. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24

Sorry for the delay, I'll leave some comments in the coming days – Aza24 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aza24, are you still planning on doing a review for this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking now. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family prospered" is rather vague – maybe "The family prospered financially" or something?
    • I think it's clear that they prospered financially from the reference to their moving to a bigger house - not sure it needs to be spelt out any further...
  • "when the Vichy government fell," – a clarifier of World War being the context might be nice. The statement feels a bit out of no where otherwise
    • I've added a clarifier.
  • premier prix should be linked to First Prize (music diploma), right?
    • Right.
  • "although for practical reasons the last category fell away in subsequent seasons" – I'm not exactly sure what this is referring to. Difficulty of obtaining such scores, difficulty in performing/learning properly, low popularity, etc.
    • Done.
  • The paragraph "Key events in..." seems not directly related to Boulez specifically. And considering the article is just boarding on being too long, it may be worth moving it into a note or trimming entirely.
    • Boulez programmed (and sometimes commissioned) these works, as well as conducting nearly all of them; I think they give a brief sense of the Domaine's achievements.
  • A brief sentence on what exactly the Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna was would be helpful (instrumentation, format etc.). Otherwise the line merely acknowledges its existence/importance and doesn't offer much actual information
    • Added.
  • I would link the full title of IRCAM, not the abbreviation. Readers might miss the link otherwise
    • Agreed.
  • "the creation of new works" – "the commissioning", maybe? Makes it sound like the group was writing new music
    • I've simplified it.
  • In general, I think there is more you can do with images
      • I wish I could. I've had a pretty high turnover of images which have been ruled out for copyright reasons. I will certainly keep looking.
    • An image or something to break up the "1925–1943: Childhood and school days" text would be really nice, but I see there are few obvious options. Perhaps there is a quote about Boulez's childhood which can be used in a quotebox? Not a pertinent matter
    • An image like File:Experimenteel concert in Concertgebouw onder leiding van dirigent Pierre Boulez, Bestanddeelnr 917-3248.jpg if very high quality and certainly worth using
      • There is already an image on the page from this (I agree, very high quality) series, taken in the Concertgebouw in 1963. I think it would be odd to have another, especially as it's more an image of the orchestra (Boulez would barely be identifiable once it's reduced to size).
    • The 1977 could also do with an image (to break up the walls of text) what about this one?
      • Sorry to be negative but I think this is rather a poor image; also it wouldn't work in the 1977 section as Sur Incises was written in the late 90s.
  • Got through the biography, will read through the music section soon. From a quick glance and from what I remember of earlier reads a few months ago, the Character and personal life may be still too large (for instance, the "keen walker" paragraph feels like trivia and the final Magus Ross quote comes out of nowhere), and the Legacy too short (Taruskin wrote about it a bit iirc). Also, I was surprised to see Babbit not mentioned, but then I don't know where he would be mentioned.Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the specific points you mention here: I don't think the reference to walking is trivia; it was Boulez's main leisure activity throughout his life and and one of the reasons he chose to live in Baden Baden; I'm sorry you're not keen on the the Ross quote, I thought it was a really apt summary of the material in the preceding paragraphs.
    • As for Babbitt, I agree it's odd but I've gone back to the biographies and they don't seem to have had a great deal to do with each other: they met several times and Boulez conducted two of his pieces in New York in the early 70s.

Many thanks for your time and for your comments. Dmass (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmass, have you finished addressing Aza24's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had but, Aza24, do let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks, Dmass (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good overall. However, I still think the legacy section could use some work. There's hardly any information on the legacy of his compositions specificially. In addition, the Recording seems far too detailed, but I suppose that's not really a bad problem to have.
Aza24, it could be considered "going into unnecessary detail". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some cuts to the Recording section (and elsewhere) which I hope brings things into better balance. Dmass (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean about the lack of something about his influence as a composer. Unfortunately, it's not straightforward. I could attempt a summary myself (along the lines: there were dozens of imitators of his strict serial music in the 1960s, almost none of whose music is now played; there are some important contemporary composers who would acknowledge his influence, such as George Benjamin; but there are probably more who reacted strongly against him, such as the American minimalists) but, of course, my own summary is of no use. At the moment I'm struggling to find a source (or two) which would capture the position concisely; there's a danger of it turning into a mini-essay, which would ramp up the word count again. I will certainly keep my eye out for something though. Dmass (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • "Cité de la musique". Should that be 'Cité de la Musique'?
  • Do you get the sense that you've touched a nerve, Gog the Mild?
    • ...and having made my flippant comment, I actually read the discussion Tim riley linked to, which is really interesting - well it is if you're interested in French capitalisation, which I appreciate is niche... Dmass (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2023 [6].

Benty Grange hanging bowl

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Benty Grange hanging bowl, such that it is, could fit in the palm of your hand. Part of the spoils of an 1848 excavation of a richly furnished barrow—known for the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet found alongside—all that remains are two decorated fragments. But just enough remains to reconstruct their original design, an enigmatic motif of three dolphins (or similar) chasing each others tails.

This article was created in 2018, and brought to GA in 2021, thanks to a review by Simongraham. I've refined it since, and recently given it a close look and revision, making it ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. Given that I walked by the tumulus last month I really ought to look at this. Nudge me if I haven't started in a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". Actually the A515 only joins the course of the Roman road about 200 yards north west of the site (and leaves it again after 500 yards to parallel it 100 yards to the NE before leaving its course entirely after another 2 miles), so the Roman road passes quite a bit closer to the tumulus that the A515. Do you have access to the relevant OS 1:25,000 map? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Gog the Mild. The road (The Street (Derbyshire) it looks like) is plotted on this map. Does that look accurate to you? Assuming it's right, it looks like it would actually be a bit farther away from the barrow than the A515, but not by much—some 300 feet instead of 150 feet. But, as you say, they're different roads at that point. The sources currently used in the article say that (Ozanne 1962–1963) "The continued or revived importance of the Roman road between Derby and Buxton is illustrated by the construction of new barrows and the reuse of prehistoric barrows along its line. Benty Grange is close to the road, Hurdlow on the hills flanking it. Galley Low or Callidge Low near Brassington must have been near it, as also was the Garratt Piece, Middleton Moor, barrow." and that (Brown 2017) "This Anglian burial monument is located c.4.4km to the south-east of the Application Site boundary on a slight eminence immediately adjacent to the presumed course of the Roman road between Buxton (Ague Arnemetiae) to Derby (Derventio) known as The Street', which is followed by the A515 (according to the NRHE entry)." I think the error must have stemmed from me reading "followed" as specific rather than general.
Well, your map and my map diverge about a mile south of Benty Grange. My map has the road passing 25-30 m SW of the tumulus. I know the route of the Roman road pretty well, I walked a couple of miles of it near Minninglow only three weeks ago. I am inclined to slightly prefer the County Council's version, but there are a couple of issues which do not wholly convince me. Bung me a blank email and I'll send you a copy of the relevant bit of the OS map. This is not a section I have walked due to a lack of public footpaths in the area. I assume that the tumulus is the faintly seen circle in this Google map? [7] Or is it one of the two sets of excavations in the same field a little further south? Do you have a precise grid reference or lat & long for the mound?
Sent you an email. That faint circle is what I've been assuming is the barrow. It's almost exactly where the map displayed with the HE list entry says it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for those maps, Gog the Mild. Interesting stuff. I've added the Derbyshire County Council source, and changed the wording to its barrow, which still survives, is prominently located by a major Roman road, now roughly parallel to the A515 in the area, possibly to display the burial to passing travellers. Incidentally, another map showing both tumulus and road is in Bruce-Mitford 1974 (at p. 224). It recognizes the uncertainty, denoting the road as "Roman Road (course of)". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that the arrow in the 1974 map is slightly off. Per Bruce-Mitford 2005, p. 119, the mound is at "Map ref. SK149642, near high point 1226 ft, west of the line of the Roman road". He states that "I am grateful to Clive R. Hart of the Sheffield Museum for this adjustment from the position of the discovery apparently incorrectly shown in Bruce-Mitford 1974, 224, fig. 35.")
  • Separately, if you're ever back in the area, would you be interested in taking a few photos of the mound? I emailed the owner of the Benty Grange farmhouse a few years back for that very reason, but no luck. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no public access. I will have a go next time I am up that way, but it depends on whether I can find a gate and what is growing in the field. (When I wrote "I walked by the tumulus" I meant, 'within 200 m'!) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review
  • "with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension ... The hooks project from escutcheons". I am unsure that "hooks" is the best description. In the bowl pictured for example I see no "hooks", hanging rings, yes. Later you mention "a ring on the back of one fragment" And "from" the escutcheons, really? I don't see this in the bowl pictured and I don't see how it could be the case without a hole being made in either the escutcheons or the bowl.
  • The hooks are not the rings, but the things around which the rings loop. See the example here. I've also clarified that the ring is not part of the escutcheon, but a small iron ring stuck to it that may have been part of suspension chains. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known or speculated how the escutcheons were affixed to the bowl?
  • "and their place of manufacture". Is it agreed that "place" is singular?
  • "Two escutcheons are all that remain of the Benty Grange hanging bowl." "the silver rim and ornaments" have been lost then?
Apologies. I meant to delete that. That was me getting confused. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." Perhaps a semi colon after "1968"?
  • I think you missed the first word of the sentence, but I can reword if you think it's confusing: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each animal has ..." Suggestion: 'creature', to leave open the possibility that they are mythological. (And again at the start of "Parallels".)
  • "is prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". I think that the maps, and other sources, all agree that the A515 does not follow the route of the Roman road.
  • "under the fold". Should that be 'into the fold'. Or, perhaps, 'under the authority' or similar?
  • If "The seventh-century Peak District was a small buffer state between Mercia and Northumbria, occupied, according to the Tribal Hidage, by the Anglo-Saxon Pecsæte" then do we know why "the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655" matters. I realise that the latter is a quote, but it seems strange.
  • "loaned the collection to Sheffield". Is it possible to be more precise? Eg, was it to the town council?
  • Also the Corporation, it would seem, at least in the legal sense. Here's what the source says about all this: IN 1876 the Corporation of Sheffield received on loan from Thos. W. Bateman, Esq., of Middleton Hall, Derbyshire, the collection of Antiquities formed by his father and grandfather, and for many years previously arranged in cases in Lomberdale House, near Youlgreave, Derbyshire, where the collection had been open to the inspection of antiquaries and other visitors interested in it. Both the objects and the cases were removed to the Public Museum in Weston Park, Sheffield, where they remained on loan until 1893, when it was arranged by the Bateman family that the collection should be sold. The objects which had been discovered in the process of barrow digging in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Staffordshire, under the direction of Mr. Thomas Bateman and his father, Mr. William Bateman, F.S.A., were purchased by the Corporation of Sheffield, and comprise the collection catalogued in the following pages. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The city purchased". Similarly.
  • "they would likely be yellow-on-red." "likely" is American English. Suggest 'probably'.

A lovely little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gog the Mild. I think I've now managed to answer everything above—got myself thoroughly confused about hooks vs. rings before figuring that one out. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2

That all looks good. There have been a few changes since I first looked at this, so I'll give it another skim. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and that sit outside the rim" sounds odd. Perhaps 'beneath the rim on the outside' or 'externally beneath the rim' or 'externally on the side' or similar?
  • "when one of the escutcheons was analysed in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." I am not sure that "however" is necessary.
  • The however relates back to the first words in the sentence: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. Does that make more sense? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bateman astutely remarked on this as early as 1861". While I realise that you are paraphrasing Brice-Mitford & Scott I am a little unhappy that "astutely" is PoV and/or unencyclopedic.
  • Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "penannular"?
  • "entered the extensive collection of Bateman." Perhaps 'entered Bateman's extensive collection'?
  • "he related his discoveries". In person or in writing?
  • Would it be possible to add a final sentence to "Excavation" describing the current agricultural use of the field containing the barrow?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernameunique, once you have addressed my last query, could you ping me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay. I've responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly enjoyed reading this one: the prose is generally a real strength -- skilfully written, clear and authoritative. Most of the below are prose nitpicks, matters of terminology and places where I think the facts are not quite clear. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for your close and careful read. I think I have finally(!) addressed all of your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support -- thank you for your good humour in handling what has been an intensive and, I'm sure, sometimes frustrating set of comments. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, UndercoverClassicist. And not at all—it's always a pleasure to get a review from people with intelligent things to say. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved matters
  • that are associated with Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art: associated with feels a bit vague and woolly here.
  • The original purpose of hanging bowls, and their place of manufacture, is unknown: this sounds like we mean that we don't know where they were originally made, but reads as if they were all made in some single location, which hasn't yet been found.
  • They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times: I would put some chronological information in here. Do we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times? Are they used throughout the Roman period at all?
      • Butting in, since this has sat around a bit. No I don't think "we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times" at all, indeed probably no surviving hanging bowls are from before the Roman conquest (might be wrong there). "Celtic (pre-Roman)" is the problem; the idea at least used to be that they used Celtic ie British legacy traditions, especially enamel, for an AS market. Perhaps they were made in Hen Ogledd, or just British workshops in AS kingdoms (B-M p. 29). The Staffordshire Moorlands Pan, clearly made for a Roman market in the 2nd century AD, shows a similar mix of contexts for manufacturing and usage. The word "still" should be dropped. I haven't read much of Bruce-Mitford, but his first line says "late Celtic", meaning after the Romans had come and gone. Pre-Roman would be "Early Celtic" in the normal terminology. It's clear to me he regards the finds in AS contexts as not too old when buried (see p 4 for example); on p. 17 his "earlier bowls" start in the 5th century. Johnbod (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this, John -- a great bit of digging (sorry...). It would be useful for the article to clarify the timeframe here, then. "Celtic" is a particularly tricky term, as it's not-always-simultaneously a chronological marker, a set of archaeological cultures, a set of related languages, an artistic idiom and an ethno-national classification. It might be useful to clarify the sense of "Celtic" that we mean here, and perhaps to consider an alternative or additional label (as John does, many now will contrast "British" with "English/Anglo-Saxon", though I think that would need a footnote if we were doing it in a general-audience source). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks - one always has to be careful with "Celtic" (which isn't linked here). Expand to explain is the answer. British can introduce a further set of possible misunderstandings. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for letting this one sit, but thanks, UC and John, for carrying on such a helpful conversation in my absence. I've changed it to Hanging bowls are thin-walled bronze vessels, with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension, that are a fixture of Late Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art—a period spanning approximately 400 AD to 1100 AD. I've also added B-M 2005 page 34 to the cite; it states that The bowls of our series, found in Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Viking contexts, range in date from c. ad 400 to c. ad 1100. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • votive chalices hung in churches: this would be tricky as an original use if their origin predates Christianity, as we've just said.
      • No sign that he does, imo. Christianity among the AS certainly, but the idea is presumably Roman house-churches etc (B-M p.30.) Johnbod (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Btw, "chalices" bothered me a bit, but I haven't seen the source. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Here's what the source says: Speaking in general, there is no evidence whatsoever for hanging bowls having been used in the churches of the Celtic lands as liturgical water-vessels or as lamps. A third possible explanation might be advanced: Celtic churches were influenced by ecclesiastical customs prevailing on the Continent, and during the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, it was fashionable to present votive chalices to be hung up in churches. The Roman basilicas had great numbers of these votive chalices (the gifts of successive popes), and the palatine churches of Carlovingian princes also led in this fashion. There is no doubt that reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands, and manuscripts, like those emanating from the court of Charles the Bald (PI. XXIV, i), or carved ivories, like the panels of the Pola Casket (PI. XXIV, 2), showing the interiors of churches with hanging chalices and vases, would help to spread the fashion. The hanging bowls of Celtic churches may simply have been votive gifts, presented to these churches in accordance with the popular Continental fashion. In such a theory, hanging bowls would have, generally speaking, no utilitarian purpose but would simply express the piety and generosity of the donor. Such a supposition would, however, give some explanation of the enrichment of the insides of these bowls (as in the Sutton Hoo example or the Lincoln example from the River Witham), which makes the bowls more elaborate and costly as votive offerings but renders the bowls much less useful for any practical purpose. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          It does sound like a) "Celtic" means "the Brythonic-speaking parts of the Early Medieval British Isles" (given the "pilgrims" comment, perhaps particularly Ireland and the Western Isles) and b) "Roman" means "in the city of Rome" rather than "subject to a guy called Caesar", and again refers to the same Early Medieval period. I think both should be clarified for our audience. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for all that typing! It seems clear that in this passage "Celtic churches" means churches of Celtic Christianity, which might not always imply use of Celtic languages, and Roman basilicas means basilicas around Rome. I don't see your point about pilgrims and Ireland and the Western Isles. Could "chalices" be changed to "vessels" perhaps? We don't I think want to imply that hanging-bowls were ever used or thought of as chalices. Johnbod (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          The pilgrims comment was purely a guess, based on the fact that most of the likely sites that I know for pilgrimage in Celtic Britain were in that part of the world, rather than in (say) Cornwall, mid-Wales or Cumbria. Good point on the churches; I don't know enough about the topic to say whether there would have been Celtic churches in English-speaking areas. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          In "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands" the meaning would be clearer as "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back to the Celtic lands by pilgrims and travelers". The travel is to the Continental sites he's been tallking about. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          "Chalices" is now "vessels". Not the biggest fan of the newfound alliteration, but better that than creating confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether they are hook or basal escutcheons is uncertain: Schoolbook punctuation would be hook- or basal-escutcheons, but that may be a bit archaic now.
It's called suspended hyphens, but it's quite an ugly thing anyway and an edge case when you wouldn't necessarily write e.g. basal-escutcheons on its own. There might be a way to rework so that hook more clearly modifies eschutcheons, but there's not really a problem here, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a ring on the back of one fragment suggests an association with the suspension chains: would rephrase: perhaps may have been used to secure a suspension chain vel. sim. An association with is a bit flowery while also being rather imprecise.
  • As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968: I would name the museum here.
  • three "ribbon-style fish or dolphin-like creatures": we should attribute the quotation: "what Soandso has called..."
  • They are limbless, the tails curled in a circle, and the jaws both long and curved; where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind, gaps appear, creating slight separations between segments of tail: separate from the copyright issues raised elsewhere, this is a bit poetic for an encyclopaedia.
  • and the contours and eyes of the animals, are all tinned or silvered.: drop the comma before are. It's a cumbersome sentence, but I can't immediately see a good way to resolve it.
  • The escutcheons were undoubtedly part of an entire hanging bowl when buried: can we cut undoubtedly? I don't think we generally assume that what we write is doubtful.
  • This point was made above, but I do think that "undoubtedly" conveys that this is an extrapolated, rather than definitive, fact—it is not known, but there is no reason to doubt it. We could perhaps change to "presumably" if you think it worth it. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "almost certainly", or "are believed to have been..."? "Presumably" works fine too. As you say, the reason to put an adverbial phrase here is because there's a tiny bit of doubt, so undoubtedly doesn't quite work to fill that gap. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably" it is. Note that Bruce-Mitford himself goes with "no doubt". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away: we've generally converted imperial measurements, so should do so here as well.
  • We could, but does saying that six feet is approximately two metres really add anything? Most people can probably figure that out, whereas the two conversions in the article (both 40 mm to 1.6 in) are perhaps more useful. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Benty Grange chainwork was also likely too heavy: a frequent flier here would advise probably; likely in this context is a little AmerE.
  • more developed bodies: what does that mean here: more muscular?
  • The third escutcheon from Benty Grange, meanwhile, surviving only in illustration, is most closely parallelled by the basal disc of the Winchester hanging bowl.: could we give some context for when that bowl is from and what it is?
  • Despite the similarities with other escutcheon and disc designs, several manuscript illustrations are more closely related to the Benty Grange designs: I'm not seeing how this sentence goes together. More closely compared with what? What's the sense of despite here?
  • "shrewdly" as it turned out: if going to stay, this quote needs attribution, but I'm not sure how much value it really adds.
  • Advice changing several manuscripts of the VIIth Century to seventh per MOS:CONFORM.
  • the INI monogram: is it worth explaining what INI meant to a medieval Christian (come to think of it: what does it represent: is this INRI - Iesus Nazarei Rex Iudaeorum?)
  • Went down a lot of rabbit holes on this one (including a very unhelpful discussion with ChatGPT) before realizing that "INI" is simply the first three letters of the first line: Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi, Filii Dei. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • based on its design, and the associated finds: no comma needed.
  • from the barrow: We haven't really talked about the context of deposition yet, outside the lead, and so this comes in a bit oddly. Perhaps "the barrow in which it was discovered"? Ideally, we'd want to introduce its deposition first, but we don't want to pull the whole discovery/excavation section before the date, I don't think.
  • Do we know the date of the barrow? As far as I know, most are Neolithic, but we've implied that this one was post-Roman.
  • A bit more than implied, no? Given the presence of a helmet and cup with silver crosses, wrote Audrey Ozanne, "[t]he straightforward interpretation of this find would seem to be that it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have missed that on first read. Are the burial and the barrow definitely contemporary? Lots of Neolithic barrows were re-used for burials in later periods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything suggesting that they are not. If anything, the proximity to the Roman road (and resulting indication that the barrow was meant to be seen therefrom) would militate towards a later date. (Of course, the Roman road could have been following an existing route.) --Usernameunique (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All true. Happy here in the absence of evidence to the contrary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a small buffer state: Is state, with all its Weberian and Westphalian connotations, the right word here?
  • The area came under the fold of the Mercian kingdom: a slightly mixed metaphor (into the fold or under the wing: a fold is a place you keep sheep), but in any case worth reworking per MOS:IDIOM.
MOS:IDIOM would still prefer something more literal, for those who speak English as an additional language or don't have much experience of sheepfolds. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
under the control it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Benty Grange and other rich barrows suggest that the Pecsæte may have had their own dynasty beforehand, but there is no written evidence for this.: this may be slightly disingenuous, given that we're in a place where there isn't a whole lot of written evidence for anything.
  • That's true, but there's practically nothing written about the Pecsæte, whereas a number of other political entities (particularly the larger ones) in and around Mercia got at least something written about them, even if it was written later, or by sources in other kingdoms. Yorke 1990 has a good discussion of this (under the heading Sources) at pages 100–101. And page 108 is the cite for the line in question: "A separate dynasty amoung the Pecsæte might be assumed from the series of rich burials in barrows, including that at Benty Grange which produced the only other helmet found in an Anglo-Saxon burial besides that of Sutton Hoo, but the archaeological remains cannot be supplemented by any written records which would clarify their significance." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fair enough. Perhaps we could be even bolder and say something to the effect that this [the existence of the barrows] is the only reason to suspect that the Pecsæte had their own dynasty? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I almost went with "no written or other evidence for this", but, technically speaking, I think that goes beyond the source. As written, it's at least clear that the only evidence offered is the barrows. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the objects were found in two clusters separated by 6 ft (1.8 m): Separated by looks wrong, to my eyes, with the abbreviated units: suggest 6 ft apart.
  • that other objects that normally accompany a helmet were absent, such as a sword and shield,: I think the relative clause should really go after helmet.
  • Being so large it may alternatively or additionally have contained two burials, only one of which was discovered by Bateman: might be worth rephrasing for elegance, but if not, comma after large. I'm not sure I understand alternatively or additionally: if the latter (for three total), surely neither of them was discovered by Bateman?
  • Reworded: Given the size of the mound, an alternative (or additional) explanation is that it originally contained two burials, only one of which Bateman discovered. Alternatively/additionally is intended to convey that the clustering could be due to the barrow being (a) looted, (b) a double burial, or (c) both looted and a double burial. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1861 Bateman died at 39: this reads a little clunkily to me: died, aged 39 would feel more natural.
  • loaned the collection to Sheffield: to Museums Sheffield? You can't loan something to a city in the abstract; some body has to take custody of it.
  • having seen to his father's fortune: is seen to a slightly archaic synonym for spent?
  • Grave-mounds and their Contents: per MOS:CONFORM, use our orthography per standard title case: Grave-Mounds and Their Contents.
  • British Archæological Association: similarly, change the digraph to ae.
I'm not sure it is the name: looking at their website, the digraph is used only in the logo (never in text), and I'd argue that it's therefore merely a decorative part of the logo itself, rather than their own sense of their own name. It's a bit odd for Wikipedia to be claiming to be more correct than the organisation itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant question, I think, is what was the name at the time in question—and the newspaper articles use the "æ". Looking at the organization's journal from the time, however, both "æ" and "ae" are used. If they're not going to be consistent, then it's no longer a step too far to drop the "æ", which I’ve just done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974: MOS:IDIOM: I think we mean "wrote another book about", rather than simply "walked to".
  • and published what he termed a "definitive" reconstruction: MOS:SCAREQUOTES might encourage that we simply say "what he termed a definitive reconstruction".
  • Looking at that part of the MOS, it doesn't seem as if the quotation marks are an issue: Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. (emphasis added and footnote omitted). If anything, it's probably the "what he termed" part of the sentence that suggests doubt. But I think there's some value to noting that he's the one who made that statement. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the best link: better is MOS:QUOTEPOV, which has Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred.. It then gives the example to avoid underneath as Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting"., which seems to be almost exactly what we have here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, thanks. Dropped the quotation marks. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Llewellynn Jewitt suggested there were two burials in 1870: less ambiguous as suggested in 1870 that there had been two burials.
  • Source A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with An Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia.: decap an.
  • Capitalisation in the Brenan ref: why is Bowls capitalised but the rest in sentence case?
Our Manual of Style would go the other way: make the formatting fit the norms of the article (as long as doing so requires only superficial changes, such as capitalisation, digraphs, ampersands and so on), not whatever happened to be the norm in the time and place where each individual source was published. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, here and for a couple other books. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How attached are you to the term Anglo-Saxon? Within the field, there's quite a lot of movement against it now -- primarily because it is only very rarely (once?) attested in contemporary sources, whereas English and equivalent were the dominant means by which these people referred to themselves, and partly because of its appropriation by nineteenth- and twentieth-century racists. I believe "English", "Early Medieval" and combinations thereof are generally preferred.
    This is purely in America, because of contemporary political connotations! You believe wrong, and Yankee cultural imperialism should be firmly resisted. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure the "purely in America" label is quite fair; true, the debate was precipitated by the renaming of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists to the International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England in 2019, and that initiative was mostly led (though by no means entirely followed) by the society's North American members, but the ensuing conversation has been international. The Welsh archaeologist John Hines has a good and even-handed article walking through the circumstances of the debate and its fallout, particularly in the UK (there was also a fairly large student petition to rename the eponymous faculty at Cambridge a few years ago, though I'm not sure much came of it). The most consistent and visible voice against the "Anglo-Saxon" term is Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is a Canadian trained largely in the UK: her arguments against it do reference present-day politics, but are based largely in the fact that the term is almost unattested before the sixteenth century, whereas people at the time referred to themselves and were known by others as "English". UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just about all period terms are later inventions by historians, look at "Celtic" for heaven's sake, not to mention Byzantine, Hellenistic, Gothic, Romanesque, Renaissance.... You rightly seem to to be climbing back from "generally preferred". "English" doesn't help - an American student "boldly" converted one major article here to use "Old English" but that has no usage beyond the language. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I read Hines correctly, he doesn't see the term "Anglo-Saxon" as inherently objectionable, and thinks the debate over it both has come at the expense of worthwhile reforms and also counts as its most vocal supporters those who have contributed least to the field. But the more salient point, I think, is that we're in an encyclopedic rather than progressive context; the point is to state the facts as they are, rather than as they ought to be. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with this: the general approach on here when a decision is remotely a matter of taste is to defer to the first person who made the call. I'd do it differently, but I'm me and you're you -- there's nothing here to impede promotion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • but on minimal and possibly incorrect evidence.: Could we have some sense of what that evidence is? Presumably, if it's possibly incorrect, it's also possibly correct, so I'm surprised that we're closing this hypothesis down so firmly.
I think it would be worth explaining that one, if only in the footnote on "without evidence": our current framing implies that Henry and Haseloff said something like "I reckon it was yellow and red, but don't have any evidence for that", which they quite clearly didn't: the problem is that their evidence (the fact that B-M allegedly saw or reconstructed that colour scheme) never actually existed. Was that really all of their evidence, though? Often these conjectures are made by comparison with other similar objects, for example. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "without offering evidence", but is this not already explained in the footnote? The main problem is that they just say it, without saying why. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not understood, clearly: from my first reading of your comment, it sounded like they did say why (because Bruce-Mitford said it, and that our priors for all-yellow decoration are pretty low, given that yellow enamel is pretty rare in the period), but that the evidence/argument is generally considered unconvincing. That's not quite the same as offering no evidence, and I think it's a little unfair to accuse Henry and Haseloff of simply making baseless assertions if they did not in fact do so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Henry 1936, At present, out of all that was originally found, there remain only two half escutcheons, one in the Ashmolean Museum, the other one in Sheffield Museum. By combining them it is possible to reconstruct a pattern of three elongated beasts biting each other's tails ... They are enamelled in yellow on a red field, like several of the spiral discs, and the bronze has also been plated with silver. Per Haseloff 1990 (translated), Fragments of an escutcheon from Benty Grange, Derbyshire, show three animals arranged in a circular shape with ribbon-like, tapering bodies that end in a fish tail. These are clearly representations of dolphins, which appear in Irish art, especially book painting (Cathach of St. Columba; gospel fragment, Durham A.I.10. fol. 2r). The colors of the enamel are, in my opinion: yellow for the animal bodies and red for the background. The separating metal bars are tinned. According to R. Bruce-Mitford, there is only one enamel color, namely red. And per Ozanne 1962–1963 (probably taking her lead from Henry, who is cited in the following sentence), The Middleton Moor escutcheon is enamelled in red only, while the second attachment has both yellow and red, like the Benty Grange fragments. Henry possibly analyzed the escutcheons in person, but there is no indication either of the others did. In any event, however, none of the authors present any evidence for their assertions, and Haseloff gets a fact incorrect when he attributes an all-red theory to Bruce-Mitford. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it slightly to try to make it more clear: A yellow-creatures-on-red-background colour scheme has alternatively been claimed, but no evidence for such a layout has been presented. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to the Tribal Hidage: I would introduce what this was.
MOS:NOFORCELINK would always advise some kind of explanation additional to "just click the link", but I'll have a read and a think as to whether I can suggest something that's both brief enough and correct enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in that case I've gone with a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nearby farm was renovated between 2012 and 2014; as of 2023 it is rented out as a holiday cottage: I'm not sure how relevant or encyclopaedic this bit is; the last part in particular could be taken as WP:PROMO. Given that none of the sources cited here really pass HQRS muster, would remove.
  • As noted below, I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, but the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's thus somewhat interesting to know the status of the farmhouse, just as it's interesting to know the status of the barrow and the surrounding fields. It's not a point I feel particularly strongly about, however. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm with User:SchroCat on this one: the farmhouse itself is interesting, but not the renovation and not the current use as a holiday cottage (it would be interesting if the barrow itself, or something more directly related to the artefact, had some current use, but this cottage is only notable by sheer proximity and the sentence with that citation does read like an advertisement.) UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the mention of it being rented out, to make it seem less like an ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

Some initial thoughts:

  • "seems to show that a hook may have been present" – this double-hedging is a pet peeve of mine: what's wrong with "seems to show that a hook was present"?!
  • The discussion of colour is slightly confusing: we are told that the yellow-on-red colour scheme has "also" been suggested before the all-yellow theory which it is additional to is mentioned! Either cut the "also", or mention Bruce-Mitford's all-yellow working hypothesis first.
  • Some of the description of the dolphin design seems uncomfortably close to Bruce-Mitford's text to me:
    • "each biting the tail of the animal ahead of it" / "each biting the tail of the one ahead of it"
    • "jaws both long and curved" / "long curved jaws"
    • "where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind" / "where the tail or ribbon body of an animal should logically pass through the mouth of the one behind it"
  • "The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away": this is a little jarring on the first mention of this chain; I would say something like "a mass of corroded chainwork was discovered six feet away..."
  • "the lateral stroke of the INI monogram that introduces the Gospel of Mark": Bruce-Mitford 1974, cited for this, says that the monogram is IN and the gospel is John; I don't have access to Bruce-Mitford 1987, so I can't see if that supports the claim. (Though I see this fragment of the Durham gospel is in fact Mark and has what looks suspiciously like the monogram described by B-M)
  • Well, this one is interesting. Per B-M 1974, "The lateral stroke of the N in the IN monogram from St John in the Durham Gospel fragment MS A II 10 is built of two similar fish motifs. The MS dates from about A.D. 650." Folio 2r of the Gospel Book Fragment (A. II. 10.) shows just this—but, as you say, it is the beginning of the Gospel of Mark. Meanwhile, what does folio 2r of the Durham Gospels (A. II. 17.) depict? The Gospel of John, with a big N-looking thing, decorated with fish- or dolphin-looking things. I think B-M had to have been describing the fragment: it is the only one where there is a "lateral stroke ... built of two similar fish motifs". But the similarity between them is probably the cause of the error. (And as discussed here, there appears to be another, related, error in B-M 2005.) I'll also take a look at B-M 1987 when I have access to it again next week. But for now, I think we can be confident that the article here correctly navigates the intended meaning of the sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Bruce-Mitford 1987 does not shed any further light on this issue. It says just that the best analogy for its fish design [is] in the Northumbrian bible fragment MS Durham A.Il. 10, of c. 650. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fosse"/"penannular": both uncommon technical terms. Can they be glossed, linked, or replaced with something more understandable?
  • Given that one of the fragments is (or at least recently was?) on display in Sheffield, I don't suppose there's any way of getting a decent photo of what it looks like now? If I remember next time I'm up there I'll have a go, but that's not going to be until February at the earliest.
  • To be honest, I'm not sure where I got the information that it was on display; the link it was sourced to doesn't seem to have that information, and I've now removed it from the article. I've also emailed the museum a couple times about a photo, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto-public—interesting points. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto-public, just checking if the above responses are sufficient for your support. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "A third disintegrated soon after excavation, and no longer survives. " Well, is it necessary to tell the reader something that disintegrated no longer survives?
  • I also was wondering about a photo of the one on display, either taken by a visitor or if the museum would co-operate with making one of its images available through OTRS. Having taken more than a few photos as a visitor to museums, I suspect the latter would be the preferred option. The Ashmolean might also be queried. Has either a Wikipedian in residence?
  • I've sent both museums emails on the subject. The Weston Park Museum was kind enough to send photos of the helmet at one point, so I'm still hopeful they might find time for the escutcheon. I sent one to them recently; I'll try following up with the Ashmolean, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the objects mentioned in "Parallels" simply of similar design, or do the sources draw the parallels with the escutcheons in question?
  • "In 1861 Bateman died at 39" age 39?
  • "having seen to his father's fortune," perhaps "dissipated" rather than "seen to"?
I get the same thing with cute idioms that don't work well in all ENGVARs Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974,[100]" Does this mean he went there?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; templates like tq cause template limit problems in the FAC archives, and slow down the load time for the entire FAC page. I have replaced them here as right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IB
  • The three location links should have some delinking to bring them in line with MOS:GEOLINK
Excavation
  • Is the C21st renovation of the farmhouse important? Or the fact it's now a holiday cottage?
  • I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, although the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's somewhat interesting, therefore, to know that the farmhouse is still around and kicking. The article on the helmet also mentions the same facts and went through the same FAC process. With that said, I don't feel too strongly about it (especially, perhaps, because the owners never responded for a photo of the barrow), so won't push back if you think the article better without it. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll accept the first bit about the farmhouse being there (I suppose knowing the environment of the archaeological site is an important point), but not so much the holiday cottage, which seems superfluous. Your call, and it won't affect my support below one bit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Nicely written - engaging and nice and clear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, just checking to see if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? (Obviously, neither is obligatory.) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thanks for the ping. Only one of my two comments has been addressed, so I'm not going to come down off the fence on this one yet - but don't let that hold up the process if you're looking to pass this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs and SchroCat, apologies for the delay—had some computer issues which made editing more difficult. But SchroCat, I've responded to the remaining comment above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with a guarded Support for this. On the prose side it is certainly qualifies. Both UndercoverClassicist and Johnbod are eminently more capable than I to judge the content aspect and I hope at least one of them confirms they are happy with that part too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

  • I've butted-in some above.
  • I wonder if you came to regret picking an object that barely exists? You end up doing a lot of "the knee bone was presumably connected to the thigh-bone" stuff, which has perhaps understandably attracted much reviewer excitement.
  • "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." See above - B-M does not mean "Early Celtic", before the Romans, but Celtic from the Romano-British, sub-Roman or "Late Celtic" period. Best to expand to clarify this important point. "Still" is misleading - he & others regard most of them as being made "during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times".
  • "He suggested that this was the result of "a mixing or tempering with some corrosive liquid; the result of which is the presence of thin ochrey veins in the earth, and the decomposition of nearly the whole of the human remains." Any modern comment of this? Sutton Hoo similarly lacks the human remains, but I think this is just put down to natural soil chemistry.
  • B-M 1974 says that "The disappearance of human remains may be due to the soil conditions observed by Bateman. The process of disintegration was no doubt advanced by the robbing of the grave." Given that B-M was very familiar with the conditions at Sutton Hoo by this point (he excavated there from 1965 to 1970), it's somewhat surprising that he doesn't discuss the possibility that it was simply the nature of the soil; it does suggest, however, that he thought Bateman's hypothesis had some potential. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list "Bruce-Mitford, Rupert (2005). Taylor, Robin J. (ed.). A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with an Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-813410-7" As you know, Rupert Bruce-Mitford died in 1994, having started compiling his catalogue in the 1940s. Sheila Raven is credited as author of the Scandi finds section (not relevant here), and the entry authors (end of the pre-numbered pages) are these two and Jane Brenan. I don't see Taylor, Robin J. anywhere on a g-books view. I think a note explaining the situation would be good somewhere.
  • I think that's all for now. Nice article, though I wish the subject was more complete. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that the "still" in "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times...", which is still there, and needs to go (and "Celtic" to be further expanded, was added in response to a query by Dudley M in the pre-review on the article talk (not his fault). We have a lot of "tree" detail in the article, but I think the "wood" overall picture needs stating more clearly. If such an experienced and intelligent reviewer as UC was misled, it shows there was a problem, which I don't think has been sufficiently dealt with. The page or so in Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092 (pp. 101-102) might help, if you've not seen it. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone's interested, the conversation higher up moved me to start Dragonesque brooch, an earlier type of British cultural hybrid artefact. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Johnbod. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • You should give the source in the image description of the reconstruction.
  • "What remains of one escutcheon belongs to Museums Sheffield and as of 2023 was in the collection of the Weston Park Museum. The other is held by the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford; as of 2023 it is not on display." You imply that neither is on display but you should state this specifically.
  • The discussion of the date and provenance of the bowl is unclear. In the lead you say "a fragmentary Anglo-Saxon artefact from the seventh century AD". In the main text "it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". This implies late seventh/early eighth rather than straight seventh century. But "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." This implies that it was not made in 7C Mercia but of ancient Celtic manufacture.
  • This still seems vague. Post-Roman Britain redirects to Sub-Roman Britain, which is the fifth and sixth centuries. Is this what you mean? Vikings are irrelevant unless they also used them. The Vikings were active in Britain between the late eighth to the eleventh centuries, which is very broad. Presumably the bowls' dating can be more closely specified than that. (BTW the term "Celtic" is controversial except as applied to the language. An academic historian once objected to it in an article of mine and I replied pointing out that it was in a quote from another academic historian.) How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the [[Sub-Roman Britain|post-Roman period]] (fifth and sixth centuries). Some were acquired by Anglo-Saxons, probably by trade, and used until the ... century." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Driving by - I don't think that is supported by the sources. There are 28 examples from Viking period graves in Scandinavia,(B-M, 41) never mind Britain. B-M is very cautious in giving dates, except for burials when there is other evidence, but supports a much longer range than just the fifth and sixth centuries. Your presumption that "dating can be more closely specified than that" is I think wrong. Another context where "Celtic" is not controversial is artistic style, especially in fact after the end of the "Celtic" Iron Age with the Roman conquest. That is what matters here. Btw, I don't think we should exclude the possibility that, at least after the earliest period, the A-S elite (perhaps later joined by the Vikings) were the main market for hanging bowls, perhaps commissioning them direct from the workshops. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to clarify the wording, and where I have wrongly interpreted it I think that this shows that the wording is unclear. Your comments help to clarify. From what you, say maybe change "used by Anglo-Saxons until Viking times" to "used by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings." My reference to fifth and sixth centuries was what I assumed was meant in the article by "post Roman period" for manufacture, not usage. You appear to say that both manufacture and usage carried on much longer than what is usually meant by the post-Roman period. If dating cannot be closely specified then I suggest saying so, not giving a vague and apparently irrelevant "into viking times". As to Celtic, I was commenting on "Celtic populations", not Celtic art. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Scandinavian examples date to the Viking period, does that mean that they post-date the ones in Anglo-Saxon burials? The Viking Age is usually taken to start in 793, but that seems Anglo-centric and I do not know whether it is taken to start earlier in Scandinavia. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two notes that are relevant to the above discussion. First, Bruce-Mitford's conclusions on dating (2005, p. 40) is as follows: The main conclusions reached in this chapter on the dating of the hanging-bowls are as follows. The origins of the series is firmly placed in the late and early sub-Roman bowl-making industry, and Brenan's proposition that there was no continuity is not accepted. It is maintained that there was no bowl-making industry in Ireland before the eighth century, although the ornamental background of at least one group of bowls, the fine-line group, was well established there during the sixth century. Hanging-bowls were used in late Roman and early sub-Roman contexts, and the Faversham (1) (Corpus no. 37), Finningley (1) and (2) bowls (Corpus nos. 109-10), and the Newham Bog (1) (Corpus no. 71), and Silch-ester (Group 2, no. 5) escutcheons are (or may be) all examples of this. A bowls are by and large confined to the fifth and sixth centuries. The B bowls and the folded rim are a seventh-century development, and the folded rim everywhere supersedes the straight in-bent rim that descended from the late Roman bowls of Irchester type. However, some A bowl traditions continue, in not clearly apparent circumstances, into the seventh and later centuries. With the exception of the Wilton bowl (Corpus no. 97) and any others that may have shared its peculiarity (riveting on of the escutcheons), A bowls and B bowls had soldered escutcheons, following the Roman tradition. Riveting of escutcheons is found later in the C bowls, and becomes thereafter universal. C bowls are dated generally to the seventh/eighth century and D and E bowls are the last in the series and date to the eighth-eleventh centuries and even possibly later. Second, there's a 1999 article (doi:10.1080/00766097.1999.11735623; not cited in B-M 2005, probably because it's posthumous) that expressly argues that hanging bowls—whatever their broader dates of manufacture and use—were only deposited in Anglo-Saxon graves in the 7th and 8th centuries. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for the typing. Some of this could go into our main Hanging bowl, by a professional archaeologist, but rather short. For this article, one might simplify by restricting/distinguishing between this type of hanging bowl, and other later ones. Mind you, B-M doesn't seem to commit himself as to which of his letter types the bits come from. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Much as I'd love to take credit for the typing, this is a very handy tool.) I've edited the line about use to clarify that Vikings were amongst those who used the bowls, and added some of the above (namely, the article by Helen Geake) about when hanging bowls were included in Anglo-Saxon graves. We could add a discussion of the different bowls types, but I think that would be better placed in the main hanging bowl article, especially because here, the bowl itself (as opposed to the escutcheons) no longer survives—likely why Bruce-Mitford does not discuss what type of bowl the Benty Grange example was. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wayside drinking vessels of the sort Edwin of Northumbria is said to have provided travellers". to or for travellers.
  • "stuck the back of one fragment" "stuck on the back of one fragment"?

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • The one outstanding point I see from the discussion above is "Celtic populations". The term "Celtic" is controversial in this context and "British" would be better.
  • The problem with British, as a standalone term, is that it seems much more ambiguous than Celtic. The current sentence refers to Celtic populations in Britain, and we'd be changing to British populations in Britain—a phrase that could just as well include Anglo-Saxons in it. Per Johnbod's comment above, we could perhaps go with something along the lines of native Romano-British populations, although it's somewhat clunky. Bruce-Mitford 2005 unabashedly uses the word Celtic: No one doubts that the great majority of the bowls are of Celtic manufacture. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bruce-Mitford died in 1995 and in his time the term "Celtic" as applied to people was not controversial, which it is now among academic historians. I am now away and do not have access to my books, but in British people see: "In this sub-Roman Britain, as Anglo-Saxon culture spread across southern and eastern Britain and Gaelic through much of the north, the demonym "Briton" became restricted to the Brittonic-speaking inhabitants of what would later be called Wales, Cornwall, North West England (Cumbria), and a southern part of Scotland (Strathclyde).". Changing "They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." to "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." would not be unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Usernameunique that an unexpanded "British" is at least as likely to be misunderstood or mislead as "Celtic". I'm not sure how "controversial" Celtic actually is - everybody agrees it is a weak term, with a lot of baggage, but it is univerally understood. I note that Leslie Webster's 2012 book has "...been argued that in the sixth century the majority of bowls were made by Celtic populations within Britain ..." and later "as the A-S kingdoms extended" the workshops seem to have retreated to modern Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webster was an art historian using a term almost always avoided by historians of early medieval Britain. The first volume of the Oxford History of Wales by Thomas Charles-Edwards is called Wales and the Britons, meaning excluding the Anglo-Saxons, and he obviously regards it as an unproblematic usage as he used it in the book title. He writes of central Scotland being disputed between the Britons, Picts, Irish and English. Britons is used in the same sense in Barbara Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages and in the two modern academic histories of the period, The Anglo-Saxon World by Nicholas Higham and Martin Ryan, and the first volume of the Cambridge History of Britain, Early Medieval Britain by Rory Naismith (Professor of Early Medieval English History at Cambridge University, who is the reviewer I referred to above who objected to my use of "Celtic" in an article for the WikiJournal of Humanities, see comment RNN16 in [8]). The only exception I can find is the article on Celts in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, which described them as various groups of peoples in Europe and Asia Minor, including Britain. We should not use a term in a sense regarded as problematic by almost all specialists on early medieval Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we know all that! Webster (who is still alive) is a historian too, and a very distinguished one! Art historians, including "specialists on early medieval Britain" (only a couple of whom seem to feature in your impressive library list) are at once perhaps more conscious of the issues around "Celtic" than general/political historians, and less at the same time scared of using the term for this period. You might recall the name of the British Museum exhibition a few years ago. The issue is - what does Randy from Boise" make of a plain "British"? As I've said several times above, unpacking and explaining these terms is best for those readers who haven't read the Oxford History of Wales etc. What that review note actually says is "Commented [RNN16]: Better to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’. ‘Celtic’ is problematic as a collective label except from a linguistic point of view." which is certainly true. But to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’ here is not an option, as these areas seem to be firmly where hanging bowls were not made at this period. "British" in the A-S period has its own, much less well-rehearsed, issues - when do the "British" in modern England stop being British? Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion is: "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." The meaning of "Britons" here seems to me clear to anyone from the context. However, you raise a point I was not aware of. I assumed that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made. So were they made by native Britons in AS areas? This should be clarified in the article. Of course you raise valid points about "British", but disputing historians' usage and using a term they reject because they have not discussed the issues is OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You suggested above "How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the post-Roman period (fifth and sixth centuries)." Just saying. The little we know on locations (essentially find-spots rather than evidence of manufacture) is summarized below. They may have been made in areas the A-S hadn't quite got to at that point - see Webster. Later on they probably were made in Ireland. There is I think nothing in the article to encourage you to assume "that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made", except the mention of "Celtic" style, but it might be best to head off that idea somehow. Btw, why not Scotland? The evidence for manufacture there is far stronger than for Wales or Ireland. Since the mere mention of "Celtic" seems to immediately generate different assumptions - Iron Age for Undercover Classicist, & Wales & Ireland for Dudley, I really think as clear as possible a statement of what is meant (and not meant) is needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have mentioned Dumnonia and Strathclyde as well as Wales and Ireland. I did not include Scotland as it did not exist at that period and I would be interested to know where in Scotland the bowls were made. The south-east is presumably possible before it was anglicised at an early date by the Northumbrians. Strathclyde is likely but it was not yet part of Scotland. Dal Riata covering the western seaboard of Scotland and north-east Ireland is likely. I assume Pictland is unlikely as it was a separate culture in the far north. A discussion of the areas and dates of manufacture would bypass the need to choose between Celtic and British. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dudley Miles, this is taken from p. 225 of Wales and the Britons by Charles-Edwards: Hanging-bowls, a form of thin copper-alloy bowl designed to be suspended from three or four hooks, provide evidence for a quite different pattern of exchange. They usually have Celtic decoration but are mainly found in Anglo-Saxon graves of the period 550–650. When they have been repaired locally in the area in which they are found, the craftsmanship of the repairs is sufficiently different from that of the original manufacture to show that they were imports from somewhere else. They were not made by Celtic craftsmen working for Anglo-Saxon employers in eastern Britain; and thus the Celtic form of decoration is the best guide to their place of origin. Unfortunately it is not known from where in Celtic Britain or Ireland they were imported into Anglo-Saxon England. This uncertainty is itself, however, a symptom of the shared material culture on either side of the Irish Sea and reaching up into the Hebrides. That shared material culture began to emerge in the fifth century, as shown by the development of one fourth-century British type of Brooch into the standard form, the pennanular brooch, class 1, in both Celtic Britain and Ireland and at very much the same date. And per Youngs 2009 p. 228 (doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264508.003.0009), I suggest that enamelled hanging-bowls were originally made in some of the most prosperous centres of British Britain from the mid-sixth century, from the lower Severn Valley to the Moray Firth, though not in the poorer western areas that were to become bastions of medieval Celtic culture, Cornwall and highland Wales, and that the fashion for such bowls was exported to Ireland much later than the first wave of brooches and pins of c.400. My view (which is a polite term for a guess) is that we should be looking, after the domination of Rheged, the creation of Wessex and fall of Elmet in 617, at the Strathclyde, Scottish Dál Riata and Pictish areas. It is always tempting to look at Scottish Dál Riata as a west-coast gateway for the exchange of goods and ideas with the rest of Ireland, not just in the context of the Columban foundation on Iona. There had been traffic with neighbouring north Britain since prehistoric times. Was the situation in former Roman Britain in the sixth to seventh centuries analogous with the effect of the Roman invasion on the Celtic kingdoms of Britain? The latter is argued to have resulted in an earlier influx of British metalwork into Ireland, particularly the midlands and the north. Did the successful Anglo-Saxon military campaigns of the period lead to a production shift north and west, following established marriage alliances, trading and ecclesiastical connections? The bowls in the Anglo-Saxon territories represent any one or all of the following: loot, tribute, prestige gifts, marriage portions, local trade, originating with British elites. These vessels were often old, mended and frequently incomplete when buried by their finnal owners. Smiths are mobile, but so too are patrons. --03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Usernameunique (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added this line: One possibility is that they were originally made by populations outside the sphere of Anglo-Saxon control, such as in the Severn Valley in southwest England to the Moray Firth in Scotland, and—as the Anglo-Saxons extended their domain—were manufactured in progressively northern places, such as Dál Riata, Strathclyde, and Pictland, with the tradition ultimately taking root in Ireland also. (Fun fact: this FAC is now twice the length of the article.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's make it even longer That framing seems imply that "the Anglo-Saxons" were a single political unit (in particular, the phrase extended their domain and perhaps the phrase Anglo-Saxon control). Is that accurate? If not, would suggest something like "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms/polities/realms/similar extended their domains...". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the reference for the image should be in the image description as well as in the article.
  • "141 were from Britain and Ireland, 26 from Norway, and 7 from elsewhere in Europe." There are several issues. 1. MOS forbids - if I remember correctly - starting a sentence with a number in figures. 2. Is no breakdown of the figure for Britain and Ireland available? Anglo-Saxon areas, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland? 3. Europe should be "mainland Europe".
  • (You're correct about the MOS.) I've reworded to Within the British Isles, England accounted for 117, Scotland for 7, and Ireland for 17; elsewhere, Norway accounted for 26, and the remainder of Europe for 7. I don't think Bruce-Mitford gives a more detailed breakdown (although it could be at least partially compiled from the bowl-by-bowl breakdown), though he notes that The bowls have come to light in all parts of the British Isles, from Shetland to the Isle of Wight, except for Wales, and Devon and Cornwall. Of those European (but not Norwegian) 7, meanwhile, I don't think "mainland" works, since Sweden accounts for a bowl. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webster says, "some 150 bowls or bowl fittings are known from Britain (before 700)... most of them from England". Also 4 from Ireland. But B-M has more on this, maps at least. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Image placement is OKish. File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg should probably say that the underlying design is PD. Otherwise it seems like licencing is OK. Personally I tend to think that the ALT text needs to convey the same information on appearance as the image would, not merely say what the image is. Source-wise, spot-check upon request. Why do Liestøl 1953 and the 19th century Bateman sources have no page numbers in the References section? What do "pp. 223, pl. 73.", "pp. 223, 223 n.4." and "pp. 46–47, 47 n.a." stand for? Is Thomas Bateman (antiquary) a high-quality reliable source? Same question for William Henry Goss. I see there is some inconsistency in which information is provided by which sources - some books have ICCNs and/or ISBNs and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a PD template for the design. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added better alt text—have deserved to be called out on that for a while. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Bateman works are being cited as a whole (in essence, "he published X book", followed by a cite to the book). For Liestøl, the whole article is about the idea being cited (that hanging bowls may have been vessels for liturgical use). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"pl." stands for "plate". "n." stands for "note" (as in footnote 4 or footnote a). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bateman and Goss are being cited as contemporaneous sources, not for modern analysis, and are high quality reliable sources in that context. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a missing ISBN. The intention, however, is to have book cites include whatever numbers (primarily ISBNs and LCCNs) with which they were printed; depending on age, some have one, both, or neither. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review—particularly appreciate you taking it so quickly after it was posted. Replies above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be warned that this isn't a field where I can instinctively recognize the relative reliability of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Just a courtesy ping to let you know that all comments have now been addressed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2023 [9].

Begotten (film)

Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 American experimental horror film Begotten, after two failed nominations in regards to sourcing and structure, I have done a complete revision by removing unreliable sources, adding more reliable ones and revising some problematic portions while updating the material when it was necessary.Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wingwatchers

Finally a film article at FAC. I will post comments/suggestions shortly. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to art historian Scott MacDonald, the film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations." such as what? I wouldn't recommend shoving it to a single art historian because the lead is supposed to be written in a summary style. Rewrite that sentence to reflect the themes of in the body and avoid attributing to any single author. For example just explicitly say that the "The film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations including XXX.
I am gonna redo that and make a separate paragraph that summarizes the film's themes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest relocating the theme part after the plot in the lead and remove the part about Merhige acknowledging the thematic elements since it doesn't really provide any real content basis. You have already mentioned the "mythic and religious elements" and mentioning it is "intentionally incorporated into the film." is not very important or useful either. In addition, I would also suggest replacing the word argued with critiqued and readjusting it so it transitions well from the plot part wherever you see fit. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded it a little and placed it after the plot section lead as you suggested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to have it placed after the story in the same paragraph but this also works. Wingwatchers (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. my bad. If its fine as how I changed it I will leave it alone. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was shot on location in New York City and New Jersey over a period of three and a half years – although, in an interview, Merhige said filming took only five and a half months." I would think that Merhige's claim is more reliable and accurate since he is directly involved with the film. This sentence is conflicted and I cannot grasp if it is shot over three and a half years or the latter.
I will reword that to reflect the incorrect timespan with Merhige correcting it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it." -> "After the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, with development for the film beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984." -> "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, and development began in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Principal photography took place in the mid-to-late 1980s" -> "Principal photography occured in the mid-to-late 1980s"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the Influences section be part of the production? And we have two sections with confusingly similar names.
That sounds good, I will try to incorporate that into the development sub-section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

  • "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." I disliked attributing a director's vision to an interview because it gave the impression that the director's vision was incorrect. I suggest changing it to "Merhige said that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke." to make it more concise and the fact that he stated such things in an interview doesn't necessarily add any context to the sentence.
I agree, did a short rewording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." "later", as opposed to "early"? To the best of my knowledge, the directors normally revealed a film's development process after that film had been published, so the use of "later" here doesn't make sense. Even if he is stating in retrospect, I would still remove the word "later" because he at the time was indeed drawn by the use of performer.
Redid it a bit to say "Merhige has stated he was drawn to the utilization of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement".--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project," "next project"? What is his first project?
From all my diggin, I have not found the exact productions he directed and have only found sources that have stated that he previously worked on some with Theatreofmaterial.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project, which was initially for the theater." I am sorry if the "next project" is Begotten. This sentence doesn't make any sense since the first paragraph suggests that the film in question is already being developed because you mentioned how he is drawing inspiration from Japanese dance and how he sought to replicate the same group dynamic.
Both Begotten and the start of his interest in film/theatre. The dance troupe planted the seeds for the film and what would become both Begotten and Theatrofmaterial as a background to its maker and what would be the film. Dont know how you feel it could be reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misinterpreted that part as Merhige's general approach to the filmmaking process rather than the film's production itself. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All is good. I restructured that a little to be more clear.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." I assume that the "next project" is the Begotten but the way it is presented suggests that is another project, which is amplified by the lack of context regarding his "earlier projects". The way I look at it, it can be reworded to "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing the film, which was initially for the theater." although I am still puzzled on how the fact he is intrigued by Japanese dances and sought to replicate Japanese group dynamic is relevant here since he began developing the film "after working on several different experimental theater productions". His Japanese vision based on my understanding is for the theater rather than the film itself.
reworded that starting sentance as the first paragraph is meant as background information leading up to the film's development.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." -> "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was conceived as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra."
This has been reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria, Merhige revealed that the film itself had also been an attempt to document many of the thoughts and ideas he was going through at the time, believing that if he did not "get it out there" they would overwhelm him" Remove interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria since it doesn't really add context to the production process. Just Merhige revealed will do.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Still only twenty at the time, he wrote the film's script in six months." Why does his age matter?
I am going off of a couple of FA article's that used the youth of the director as notworthy.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before working on Begotten, he had previously made several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" -> "Before working on Begotten, he had previously developed several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" more formal
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These were well-received, and gave the director the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten" -> "These were well-received, and gave Merhige the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Principal photography occurred in the mid-to-late 1980s" most film FA usually use began instead of occurred
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to Themes

  • How did critics identify so many themes when the film itself received "little to no" critical attention? Do you mean scholars? Kane is not a critic so this should be changed to both critics and scholars.
The few that even bothered to review it pointed these things out. But, you are right most are scholars.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who noted the film's intentional grainy and decayed visual style functioned as an allegory of uncertainty to what she referred to as "the hermeneutic of the image" note" is only to be used for facts, whereas this is interpretation.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternately, critic David Annwn Jones noted the film's use of certain underminings of 1930s horror films such as Dracula and Frankenstein (both released in 1931)" Same thing
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really like using stated and noted as opposed to said, see MOS:SAID. Said is in no way informal and is a very consistent and concise way to express academic interpretations.
Alright, will adjust accordingly.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed all instances like "In her review of Merhige's third film Suspect Zero for the Los Angeles Times," "Author and independent filmmaker", "Film and literary scholar" because it would be very lengthy and dull to address people's journals and professions. See FA The Empire Strikes Back#Thematic analysis as an example.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances such as "we are encouraged to mourn the film's characters (father/mother/son) through the agony and torment inflicted upon them." are written in a non-encyclopedic tone.
Any suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont know. Just avoid using "we". Wingwatchers (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I will tinker with it a little. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the quote "We would breathe to the point of hysteria and create these moments of panic. Afterwards, we would analyze what the experience was all about. It was an intimate science" is genuine. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redid the quote to specify the director's intention. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In retrospect, author and independent filmmaker John Kenneth Muir is not a critic, so the previous statement, "Several critics have noted that Begotten contains an underlying theme of death and rebirth,[1][12][20] recurring throughout most of the director's works. [22]" would be incorrect.
Removed that title to reflect that because his books are partial reviews on horror films and because of the previous problem of extended titles being long and unnecessary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances such as "Merhige acknowledged" should be converted to "said" because it conveys that the film was indeed "deliberately arranged to appear as part of a mythology" but the statement itself is of his own interpretation.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wingwatchers, I think all of your comments have been addressed. Do you have any come backs and/or further comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Still reading through, but just to note the quality of sources has improved significantly since the last FAC. Am a major fan of this style of horror. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it took a while and some suggestions/digging to find satisfactory, High quality sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be held open for a week please, would like to review but life events have happened. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Paleface Jack (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ceoil was probably addressing the coordinators :-) . Sure Ceoil, in anticipation of one of your thorough reviews, we can hold it for a week. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sound Gog, and to hold myself to that deadline, have always though your innovation of reminding reviewers is most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support and trilled to see this at FAC - feel free to revert any edits made during my re-read...

lead:

  • Link motifs. Also motifs are not so much "explored" as placed or employed.
altered in the body and lead.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • conquer the earth through various means - last bit is redundant. Also the claim is vague, would be good to expand here.
Reworked.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • were major influences on Begotten, as Merhige believed their ideas and theories had not been explored in film to their full extent
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the first part of a trilogy would drop this as the next two claims say the same thing
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

  • Rephrase barren landscape", which is used three times in this sect
Changed to desolate.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice. Ceoil (talk)

General

  • would put the cast section much lower in the TOC. Also, the Brian Salzberg and Donna Dempsey entries here are uncited. And do we need "which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen"...which seems to credit extras
The Son of Earth credit is cited due to the actor reappearing in Merhige's later works. The extras cast listing is there in fitting with other Featured articles that list extras if they are significant.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Principal photography lasted from a period of "three and five-and-a-half months". Guessing that it lasted three months, with some additional shots after 5 and a half months.
Unknown, most information I found only listed as this and not describing the half month period.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real mouthful and diffucult to parse - can you break down pls - While comparing Begotten's opening sequence to the eye slicing scene in Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929), Film Comment's Robert DiMatteo stated Dimitri Kirsanoff's Ménilmontant (1926), tribal art, ethnographic studies, Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), as well as the paintings of Piero della Francesca as possible influences on the film.[12]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have concerns over the reliability of SplicedWire, FilmThreat.com & WorldScreen (the last of which gives a lot of pop up ads). Given the film's art house origin and appeal, would have expected more academic analysis.
I did too, I checked out the reliability of all three and they appear to be reliable and sound enough for inclusion as per Wikipiedia guidelines.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks:

  • You revered me on changing who sets out on a journey of death and rebirth through a barren landscape - which is totally fine, but still don't like "barren landscape" as it seems vague and lacking
Redid.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • twenty of her closest friends? (re Sontag) Maybe just 20 people
Would seem a bit more specific and better flowing for the overall structure if it remained as it is.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, dunno. Most people have 3 to 4 close friends, maybe just loose the word "closest" as it seems a bit swoony and pretentious. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "disturbing" is used 13 times. It is certainly that, but can you reduce, especially in the legacy sect, where we have hough initially mixed in his response to the film, Muir has since called Begotten "one of the most disturbing films ever made".[108] Natalia Keogan of Paste described the film as one of the best and the most disturbing avante-garde films.[24] Several publications selected it as one of the most disturbing films, including Highsnobiety (2016),[109] Entertainment Weekly (2017),[94] Screen Rant (2019),[110] NME (2023),[111] Similarly, Begotten has appeared on several lists of the top all-time disturbing...
Redid it to cut down on some of that wording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s - surely it began only once, do you know the actual year?
All sources use this wording so it is hard to tell withough asking the director himself.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime in mid-to-late 1980s. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Development commenced sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s" is in this style, but it still says "Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paleface Jack, have you addressed all of the comments in this review? If so, could you ping the reviewer. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. And i messaged them on their page and they have not replied yet. I still need to message the first reviewer which I will do later today. I am confident this will pass as all the issues have been addressed so we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for tardy response, will sign-off in next few days. A spot-check on source is needed, will action. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good mate. Any problematic sources shall he removed accordingly. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paleface, you shouldn't count on my support just yet; the interpretation sections are very muddled and not well done. Very repetitive and vague; mentioning again and again an archetypal figure - without going into examples of who that might point to. Will clarify this complaint in a few days, but for now, the article seems confused in what specific sources it draws from, and how it interprets them Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I will get working on that and complete it as soon as possible. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the themes section there are pieces that I am gonna try to reword a little, starting with renaming the section as "Analysis", the suggestions and complaints to that section that you will explain once you get back shall be adressed once that is done. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Look forward. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For coords, myself and Jack are going to move this discussion to article talk, and report back in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

This nomination has not shown signs of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get in touch with the reviewer and see where to go from there. Hopefully there shall be a consensus soon as possible, we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there's still no substantial movement towards support, I'm archiving the nomination. I encourage you to continue working on the prose issues with reviewers and see about getting them to sign off on the article before resubmission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by source comments

  • BroadwayWorld.com (ref #143) is listed on WP:RS/P as "generally unreliable", so shouldn't be used in a Featured article without significant justification.
Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fair bit of inconsistency in how sources are presented. For a glaring example, see refs #3 and #128. More generally, some websites/publications are italicised while others aren't. Some list a website and publisher, while others don't. Some give the website address, some give the website name. A quick glance suggests that these issues were raised at the last nom, so should have been resolved prior to this nomination. I would echo some of the queries raised there about whether some of the sources used qualify as "high-quality" per the FA criteria, but I'm not well enough versed in the subject area to be able to offer any real expertise on this.
Yeah, I removed a lot of unreliable and questionable ones while rewriting the entire citation style, so some of that stuff sifted through the cracks in those edits. I will work on that today and get that all sorted out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of listing a website for some of the sources, some of those sources did not come from a website or the "Website" was also the publisher. In some of those cases the publisher was not originally a website so just the publisher is listed. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few CS1 maintenance errors in the references, it looks like you've got some |ref= tags just duplicating what the reference would naturally be called anyway.
Yeah that might have been the ones that sifted through the cracks of my reference revamp.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found and fixed the errored citations. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could really do with a source reviewer who knows the field, if possible. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I tried reaching out to some when editing the article before the nomination this time but no response.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A number of reviews in this and earlier noms wen through the reliability of sources, and from what I can see, all non-formatting issues have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Unlinked non-book/journal sources -
  1. WorldScreen - ok, "30-year-old publication covering the international media business", publishes in print and online.
  2. JoBlo, ie JoBlo.com - seems dodgy - is this not just a very popular/insiderish blog?
    Not to my knowledge. Some major publishers have used it as a source and has been listed as reliable by Rotten Tomatoes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine as listed on the RT Critics List as a "JOBLO - Tomatometer-approved critic"
    Keep, modify or remove? Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as used Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. shortfilms.org.uk - ok, is the London Short Film Festival[10]
  4. World Artists Home Video - Small distribution company, but they are used only to cited that they did actually release the movie on VHS.
    Searching, see that the release is on WorldCat[11]. Maybe use that ref also
    Looking over that, they imply that it was released on VHS in 1989 but there was no such release from newspaper reports, or any other outlet so I am not sure if this would be reliable enough to use as a source. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RevistaCinefagia.com - dodgy Ceoil
    See its removed Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HorrorNews - dodgy
    That was my original assessment, however, I have seen some literary sources that use that interview as a source. I have also seen some FA horror articles that have that as a source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If its an interview and is used for direct quotes only, then am fine with it. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed and will find a new review to replace later.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you need to though? The article is already quite long. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, then again so are many other FA Film articles I have seen. I will not add a review. But later if this nomination passes or not I have found some sources to add (We Got This Covered, is one of them) Paleface Jack (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Review sections can bloat easily with quotes, and as indicated on the talk, I would be more concerned with expanding on the film's visual style and its sources, rather "I liked" "I didn't like" back and forth. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Forum des Images - Fine, well established in the industry, high quality contributors
  8. Not sure what to make of "Merhige 2016", which seem's fine it's ex an instagram post by the director. The claim is "On July 29, 2016, Merhige announced via Instagram that the film was to be released for the first time on Blu-ray in the fall of that year" - can we source this from elsewhere. (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over everything and how far down the rabbit hole I went, I could not find an alternate source for that and it does have some reliability if the filmmaker is making that statement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, was highlighting only to make the point that Instagram< is used only to source that the director made claims on instagram Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, alr. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Film Stage - site has editorial oversite, professional RT approved writers who are regularly invited to major film festivals

Spot-checks to follow this evening. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

Placeholder until tomorrow UTC. ——Serial 19:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver

I will try to get comments by Thursday. Realmaxxver (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • "Its plot draws from various creation myths", "The film is based on various creation myths, including Christian, Celtic mythology, and Slavic paganism." I would suggest removing the first instance of this in the lead, as it it kind of repetitive.
Rewrote that based on your comment.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, but was switched to film after..." --> "Conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, Begotten was switched to film after..."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

I'd really like to see this article hit FA status, and it's clear how much work has gone into it (and how improved it is compared to when I last looked).

  • Opening paragraph requires work. Repetition of word 'violence', creation myths mentioned twice, and the sentence about 'narrative motifs' (without details of those motifs) is pretty useless. I worry that the second paragraph then returns to issues around silent films and influences; the structure of the lead could be a little better, I think.
Done
  • "Mother Earth and her son appear in a flashback" Do we know it's a flashback?
I think that was added in a copyedit by another user, while the scene is reminiscent of the beginning where Mother Earth and her son walk through a dead forest. Some reviews suggest this is a flashback so I will reword it a little for context.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisted of a handful of core members highly in tune with one another, knowing each other completely on both a professional and personal level" This doesn't come across as that neutral
Did a little tinkering with the sentence.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " producing several theater productions" Repetition
removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try my best.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You discuss the writing of the script after mentioning the start of production; is script writing part of the production, or did it come prior to the production? You mention his earlier films after that; I wonder if this section would benefit from being a little more chronological?
Did a little resituating of things.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group followed up by discussing these experiences, filtering the and emotions into something he could replicate for the film" Incomplete
Incomplete in what way?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final sentence of the development section could be much smoother.
Redid it a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it was intended that the visuals had a decayed look" Beware of passive voice. Who intended this?
reworked to reflect Merhige's intention
  • "through analog format, with the development of Begotten realizing the filmmaker's ideas through this format" Repetition
removed--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetiton in discusion of Robert DiMatteo
Where at?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reached the end of the production section. I think the prose probably needs a bit more work before this is FA-ready. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, prose needs work and I am still trying to learn how best to do that. Any Suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [12].

Mark Murphy (American football executive)

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Murphy is the current president of the Green Bay Packers, an American football team in the National Football League (NFL). Unlike most NFL teams, the Packers are owned by a publicly-held, non-profit corporation (Green Bay Packers, Inc.) that is led by an elected board of directors. Murphy was elected to the presidency of the organization in 2007, assuming the roles in 2008. Prior to this role, he played for the Washington Redskins for 8 seasons, received his undergrad, masters and JD degrees, served as an athletic director for two colleges and worked for the NFL Players Association.

This will be my third FAC, after Bob Mann and Packers sweep. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Look forward to resolving any concerns promptly. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

The use of non-independent sources (Commanders.com, Packers.com, ColgateAthletics.com, and NFL.com) and questionable ones (BuffaloSportsHallFame.com) makes me think this article isn't ready for prime time --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, thank you for your input and happy to work with you if there are specific statements that would be better backed up by a different source or removed altogether. That said, context matters; none of the statements supported by the sources you identified are contentious or questionable, nor are any of the sources unduly praiseworthy/harsh. Within the realm of reporting on sports figures, many details just aren't reported on by scholarly sources. That said, I'll take a look and see if some of the existing sources can replace some of the ones you noted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, just as a note of some progress: I replaced or removed all instances of Commanders.com and BuffaloSportsHallFame.com. I also replaced all instances of NFL.com except for one and Packers.com except for two. Still working on ColgateAthletics.com. I'm guessing you have concerns about the American.edu source as well? I'll see what I can do with those. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, more progress: I have removed or replaced American.edu and ColgateAthletics.com. Regarding this NFL.com source, are you opposed to its inclusion in this article. It covers two statements regarding the changes the NFL made due to Covid-19, both of which are not controversial. It is also authored by Judy Battista, a former New York Times journalist with a good reputation. Still looking on the Packers.com sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, I removed or replaced the NFL.com source and the Packers.com bio of Murphy. That leaves the press release by the Packers. Are you opposed to this source, considering context and the statements that it supports (which are generally not controversial or overly praiseworthy/critical). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "a position he would hold until 2007" => "a position he held until 2007"
  • "The Packers won Super Bowl XLV in 2011, made the playoffs eight straight seasons from 2009 to 2016 and Rodgers won four MVP awards" => "The Packers won Super Bowl XLV in 2011 and made the playoffs eight straight seasons from 2009 to 2016, and Rodgers won four MVP awards"
  • "to receive a "white letter, as the outstanding performer in his sport, for all three" sports" - that looks weird with the last word outside the quote marks. If the word wasn't in the original quote, I'd be tempted to present it as "to receive a "white letter, as the outstanding performer in his sport, for all three [sports]"."
  • "Halfway through his freshmen year" - freshmAn, surely? I'd also link this as it is not a commonly understood word outside the United States
  • "During his junior year" - link this term too
  • "as the Redskins starting safety" => "as the Redskins' starting safety"
  • "17-straight points" - no reason for that hyphen
  • "The 1983 NFL season was Murphy's finest of his career though," => "The 1983 NFL season was Murphy's finest of his career, though,"
  • "The Redskins would go on to play in" => "The Redskins went on to play in"
  • "During his time with the Redskins, Murphy was the Redskins' representative" => "During his time with the Redskins, Murphy was the team's representative" (less repetitive)
  • "his prominent role in the strike shortened led to" - this doesn't seem to make sense, are there words missing?
  • "he worked on player counseling program," => either "he worked on a player counseling program," or "he worked on player counseling programs,"
  • "Murphy returned to his alma mater in 1992 " - I would re-name the university as it's been a long time since it was mentioned before
  • "with two bowl games" - what is a "bowl game"?
  • "the Packers announced Murphy as the organization's ele president" - what's an "ele president"?
  • "The lock out ended in July 2011" - isn't lockout one word?
  • Fort McCoy image caption is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
  • "This mixed use development would provide new commercial space" - in the lead "mixed use" had a hyphen....?
  • "The 2017 season saw the Packers consecutive playoff appearance streak end" => "The 2017 season saw the Packers' consecutive playoff appearance streak end"
  • "to be the Packers 15th head coach" => "to be the Packers' 15th head coach"
  • "one of his worst statistical seasons as the Packers starting quarterback" => "one of his worst statistical seasons as the Packers' starting quarterback"
  • "in this case Love, as the Packers new starting quarterback" => "in this case Love, as the Packers' new starting quarterback"
  • "The Packers record since he became president" => "The Packers' record since he became president"
  • "Murphy noted in his remaining years as president, he would" => "Murphy noted that in his remaining years as president he would"
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. Article — "Murphy worked for a year for the Street Law Clinic after graduating with Juris Doctor in 1988, where he received an award for developing a program educating inmates on the law. He then was hired as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice from 1989 to 1992."

Where does the source mention that he worked at the Street Law Clinic "for a year"?
Likewise, I don't see the source mentioning that he worked at the Street Law Clinic (SLC) "after" graduating. All it says is that he received that award we mention "during" his time at SLC.
Are we treating "a law degree" (from source) as "Juris Doctor"? (from article). If we have a source that makes it a bit more explicit, it would be better. Else, I'd maybe IAR on this particular one.

2. Article — "... including basketball, volleyball, softball, and hockey."

I can't see the source mentioning "hockey". What is mentions in "ice hockey". Not an expert on sports (have worked on just 2 sporting articles), so I am unaware if treating "ice hockey" as "hockey" is a standard practice or not.

3. Pretty similar, I feel:

Article: On the football side ... with two bowl games under Murphy
Source: On the football field ... in two bowl games during Murphy's tenure

4. Article — "Murphy married his wife Laurie after they met at Colgate University and they have four children together."

The source does not specify the year of their marriage. Neither does the source specify whether that "event" took place before or after their meeting at the Colgate University. All it says is that his wife "is a Colgate graduate".

5. Article — "Murphy also donated $250,000 to 'causes in Wisconsin that support social justice and racial equality' following"

The source just says that he "pledged" to donate. From my reading of the cited source, we are unaware whether he actually donated that amount or now. However, the way we present that in the article, it very clearly says that he has donated. There is a difference in pledging and donating.

Apologies for doing this, but unfortunately (and sadly), I have to oppose this nomination. I have spot checked a total of seven citations, of which, five are problematic. This is a biography of a living person, we need to be extra careful about this, and that can be reflected in my above comments; I have been a bit more nitpicky than I usually am (due to this being a blp), but many of the above mentioned issues should really not have existed. Most of the issues I mention are not difficult to find, any spot-checker with access to the sources can find them; it took me no more than 40 minutes to find and compile these issues. Based on the review and problematic spot checks (5 of 7), I unfortunately do not have confidence in rest 85 citations which I did not check, and therefore did not find any need to check more citations. I am willing to revisit my oppose on the grounds that (1) All the 92 citations in the article be checked by the nominator for source-to-text integrity (2) Some other independent reviewer conducts and passes a spot-check. Since it is really hard to do this top-to-bottom check within the time and boundations of the FA process, I also suggest withdrawal. However, if you are willing to do the same during the FA process, I am willing to strike the "suggesting withdrawal" part. Feel free to ping me for any help, of if you ever need me to do more spot-checks outside of this process. Thanks for all your work on this article and other articles! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, comments #2, #3, #4, and #5 have been addressed. Hockey in the US generally means "ice hockey", but that is a good comment for clarifying. #3 is borderline close paraphrasing (there is no other way to say "two bowl games"). #4 I changed to note that it was just her alma mater (again, a minor word choice clarification, its implied they met at their alma mater, but again, needs to be clarified). #5 is again a minor word choice. Yes there is a big difference between pledging and actually giving, but this was likely more a slip of the tongue ("keyboard") then anything else. #1 is the only one I see that is a definite miss on a spot check, and that came about from the comment above about changing sources from Packers.com to other more independent sources. I just did not do a good enough job of rewording the sentence to better match the new source. Let me take a look at that one and your larger comment about spot checks and get back to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh, I have addressed comment #1. The JD is mentioned in another source, which has been added, and I reworded the offending sense to match the source. Taking a look at the sources now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gonzo fan2007, how are you getting on with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, please withdraw this. My elderly mother fell and broke her hip on Friday. Not going to have a lot of editing time for a while. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Of course. My apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2023 [13].

Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891

Nominator(s): Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully reviewers aren't bored of season review articles for sports clubs, as I present this one for your perusal. Inspired by the excellent work of ChrisTheDude, I've brought this one up to what I believe is FA level. This was Somerset County Cricket Club's first season in the County Championship when they provided a great shock by defeating the all-conquering Surrey side. As always, all feedback will be warmly received. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am touched that you cite me as inspiration :-) I will endeavour to give this a review over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:County_Ground,_Taunton,_1895.jpg is missing author date of death. Ditto File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png
    • I think I've covered both of these now. Found the year of death for the County Ground picture, so that's included. For the Palairet one, I couldn't ascertain which of the Chaffin brothers took the photo, but they all died over 70 years ago, so I've switched it to a PD-unknown with an explanation, is that okay? Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HTHewett.jpg is missing a US tag, and the tags that are given are contradictory. If the UK-specific tag is kept, details on research will need to be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I switched that image out as I couldn't find any more details, including a date of publication, for it. Added File:Ranji 1897 page 295 H. T. Hewett.jpg instead, which is another with a PD-unknown because only the photography studio information is provided.

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for this, I've made a few changes to licenses and what-not, as detailed above. Please let me know if these are okay. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When and where was File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Not necessarily the first time it was published, but I've found a copy of it in an 1893 book, so added that to the Commons information. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Fair enough. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing seems fine to me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero, hi is this a pass on sourcing based on formatting, reliability and verifiability or should a request for an "official" source review be placed at WT:FACSR? FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given Guerillero's lack of response, I have added a request for a full source review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • "Surrey were undefeated in first-class matches and were champions-elect": does this mean they had already mathematically won the championship, or just that everyone expected them to do so?
  • In Somerset's last match they were three runs short of avoiding the follow-on, at 172; so since Gloucestershire's first innings was 254 apparently the follow-on score for a three day match was then 80 runs. Perhaps a footnote explaining that the rule then was not the same as it is now?
    • I've added a footnote about this on the first mention of the follow-on: do you think it is worth duplicating the footnote for this instance too? Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be helpful. Could it perhaps be phrased to make it clear that the follow-on is still a rule of cricket, but the number of runs has changed? As written one could read it as saying that the follow-on is no longer a rule of cricket and that when it was a rule it was 80 runs in all circumstances. I knew what the follow-on was but am not an avid cricket fan, so I actually went to the follow-on article thinking, based on your footnote, that the rule had perhaps been abolished some time in the last few years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And mentioning that following on was compulsory for teams with deficits of 80 runs or more. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just these two minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review! Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Okay, tweaked the wording of the footnote, and duplicated it for the match in question. Let me know what you think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Reserving a place. Harrias, could you give me a poke once you are in a position to respond to review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Yeah, I'm here or hereabouts. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against six of the eight other first-class counties". Which two didn't they play and why not?
    • They didn't play Nottinghamshire or Sussex. I can add that, but as for the reason, it is never plainly stated. Reading between the lines, it seems like Somerset couldn't manage a full schedule, either due to player availability or just the financial cost. There is some suggestion that Notts wouldn't agree to play them, but none of this is stated clearly enough for inclusion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naming the two they didn't play would help. Possibly 'for reasons which are unclear' or similar?
Okay, lots of searching Newspapers.com has come up with something, so have added: "During a subsequent gathering in Taunton, Spencer explained that the decision to restrict their fixture list to twelve matches, which meant they did not face either Nottinghamshire or Sussex, was primarily a financial decision." Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slow left-arm orthodox". Perhaps append 'spin'?
  • "County Championship": the paragraphs are on the long side.
    • I can play around with this if you really feel they are too long to meet the criteria, but realistically, the only other option is each match having its own paragraph, and I prefer long paragraphs over very short. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a heavily rain-affected match". Optional: 'a match heavily affected by rain'.
  • "just under five hours on the other." Perhaps "other" → 'third'? Or mention somewhere how long each match was.
    • Changed to "There was no play on the first and last days of the three-day game and just under five hours on the other." The close repetition of "day/days" is slightly irking, but I wasn't keen on your suggestion as "the third" might have drawn readers to think it meant day three of the match. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2023, the defeat remains Somerset's fourth-largest innings loss." They have lost by more? Three times! Good lord.
  • "to score his 41 runs." Suggest deleting "his".
  • "Nichols bowled economically and claimed five wickets". You not gonna tell us how many runs he leaked?
The joys of summary style.
You won't regret it.
  • "Woods then collected his fifth wicket of the innings in either the final or penultimate over allowed by the time". You what? I don't think "allowed by the time" does what you want it to.
That works. It skips over why this was the case, but non-experts won't even realise it's an issue and fans will understand why.
  • "while similar sentiments were echoed". I don't think that one can echo a similar sentiment. Maybe 'while these sentiments were echoed'?
  • Perhaps footnotes to explain "to win by nine wickets" and "Lost by an innings and 375 runs".
I liked your note c, and think an explanation somewhere of, just, the two main, non-obvious, expressions of victory - by x wickets; and by an innings and y runs - would avoid MOS:NOFORCELINK: "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
Added a couple of footnotes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. For me it's in "page/tools" at the top of the page. I must have clicked something in preferences. I have done it, revert if you don't like it.

Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Cheers, replies given. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just two points open I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Further remedial action completed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/ passed

In half a mo. ——Serial 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newspaper sources are mostly local, which in the 19th century were thus papers of local record.
  • Primary sources galore, almost solely wrt match stats and other contemporary info.
  • Missing idents/archives are irrelevant since the papers are hosted by established archival sites.
  • Standardise your 13-digit ISBNs in whatever fashion you choose (I'd suggest XXXX-XXXX as that ties in with your 8s).
  • Authors are known authorities. Publishers are respected houses.
The source review is almost passed. ——Serial 17:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [14].

Philosophy

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy is a systematic, rational, and critical inquiry that discusses general and fundamental topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, and mind. It spans several millennia and historically included the individual sciences. Thanks to PatrickJWelsh for the fruitful collaboration to get this article to GA status, to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, and to Cerebellum for their recent peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK

  • I think this is a bit above my pay grade, but I'll try to review this well. At a first glance, excellent article; the list of references alone made my head spin, must have been a ridiculous amount of effort to write all this. AryKun (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But they...the term" I know this is grammatically correct, but it still reads weird to me. Maybe replace with "However"?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major branches of philosophy" → "The major branches of philosophy"?
    One difficulty here is that not all philosophers produce exactly this list. For example, a few include aesthetics as a major branch. Without the "The", we leave it open whether there are other major branches besides those listed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Presocratic philosopher" should be Pre-Socratic and would benefit from a link. Also later in the article.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of duplinks and terms linked at second or third instances; for example, most of the major branches are mentioned but not linked in the first section.
    Done. I'm not 100% clear on how to best handle duplinks that occur in different sections. According to my interpretation the current formulation of WP:DUPLINK, one link per section is acceptable. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "et alia" needs a link; also, isn't the form et al. more common?
    This is discussed in SilverTiger's comments. I think "et al." is used in the short citations but I don't know about cases where it is used in the regular text. I'm not sure that it should have a wikilink since this is not a concept discussed in the article but merely an expression used to discuss other things. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sciences" Linked to the wrong term.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Influential traditions...African philosophy." → "The most influential traditions in the history of philosophy are Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy. Other philosophical traditions include Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy."?
    I wouldn't object to your suggestion. But this was already discussed in Fritz's comments below. The fear was that this type of expression implies a ranking and should better be avoided. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shaped by the encounter with Western thought" → "shaped by encounters with Western thought"?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resolve the politically turbulent 6th century BCE" → "resolve political turbulence during the 6th century BCE" Also, the sources seem to place the "political turbulence" in either the 8th or 5th century BCE, depending on whether you're referring to the Spring and Autumn period or just the Warring States.
    Done. The text mentions the 6th century because that is when the Hundred Schools of Thought emerged. I added a source for the date and I reformulated the passage to avoid implying that the date states when the turbulence itself emerged. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced new forms of Buddhism" → bit repetitive, maybe "diversified into new forms"?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the ", for example," construction frequently; I feel like the first comma should be a colon.
    I reformulated a few. I think starting the expression with a colon would be possible but is not required. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really nice work, nothing else that I have comments on. This is a really nice overview of the major topics of philosophy; of course, it doesn't go very deep into any topic, but I feel like that's a consequence of the fact that we're trying to fill essentially a library's worth of subject matter into 5,000 or so words. There's nothing factually incorrect that I could see at a first glance, but that's with the caveat that my knowledge of philosophy is limited to the level of an introductory college course. AryKun (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello AryKun and thanks for taking the time to review the article! I implemented most of your suggestions and left a few comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger

I have to concur with AryKun, this article must have required a ludicrous amount of time and effort. It's also outside of my wheelhouse and above my paygrade, so here goes nothing.

  • The lede and the first section are fine, though I think you should mention and give a brief explanation of what a school of philosophy is in the lede.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "et al." should be italicized.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is mistaken. More to the point, it is standard to use "et al." only when there are more than three authors. (Although not Wikipedia policy, which I cannot find on this question, see here.) If the latter two authors are to be excluded from mention in the body of the article, then I believe it should instead say "and others" per this. Or, if we're going to keep the Latin in the body of the article, it should be spelled out in full (unless it is inside a parenthetical).
    In short, I think the article should either list all three authors or else find some way of avoiding this complicated stylistic issue that has nothing to do with the content or accessibility of the article. I am not sure what the best call is, however, and so I decided against making an edit myself.
    Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise a valid point and I'm not sure which guideline to follow here. The guideline MOS:FOREIGNITALIC you cite states that foreign terms require italics but makes an exception for "phrases that have been assimilated". The alternative would be to spell the three names out. Some style guides recommend using "et al." starting with three authors while others require more than three authors. Maybe someone with a better MOS-knowledge can solve the confusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if we keep the Latin, it should be spelled out as et alia with the italics. Latin abbreviations such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc." and so forth do not receive italics and should not normally be used outside of a footnote or parenthetical when there is a perfectly suitable English equivalent. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    et al. is always abbreviated and italicized in formal usage; I do not think this article should deviate from that. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked this question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"et_al."_or_"et_alia"_with_or_without_italics. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be consensus that the short version is more common. Opinions are a little divided concerning italics but it seems there is a slight preference for having no italics. This is recommended by most style guides. I restored the original version. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tend to use "like" frequently, to the point that it sometimes feels repetitious.
    I was able to cut down the frequency. There are still quite a few left but I hope it's managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no overt issues in History of philosophy.
  • Italicize modus ponens.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My initial, very slow read-through was (a) informative, and (b) revealed no major issues except that you never really explain what a philosophical school is, when schools are mentioned multiple times in different places. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Thanks for the feedback and the actionable recommendations. I hope I was able to implement them. Please let me know if additional points catch your eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but I see no further issues. Support. Good luck, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

During the peer review I reviewed this article in accordance with the FA criteria and all of my concerns have been addressed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

  • Question: I helped Phlsph7 bring this article up to GA status. Am I allowed to weigh in here to support or oppose the FA nomination? My assumption was no, but this suggests it is okay as long as I declare my involvement when I do so. If it is permissible for me to participate in such an official capacity, I will hold off for another week or so to see what other editors have to say—then I will review the FA criteria and read the current article against them in order to weigh in for or against. Otherwise, I am happy to just follow the proceedings and comment as appropriate on what others have to say. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PatrickJWelsh and thanks for offering to review. As I understand it, just writing your own review comments and improvement suggestions should not be a problem. Maybe one of the @FAC coordinators: could clarify whether, in addition to that, you are also allowed to vote. Your comments would be highly appreciated either way, with or without a vote. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are certainly allowed to vote, it probably won’t be given much weight considering your extensive involvement in the article's development. On the other hand, if you assisted the nominator in elevating it to GA status (as in if you were a co-nominator), the possibility of being a co-nominator here as well could be considered, but that’s obviously for you two to decide. FrB.TG (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @FrB.TG, thanks for clarifying. That makes perfect sense and seems like a good policy. @Phlsph7 did invite me to jointly pursue the FA nomination, but I declined because I was not willing to do my fair share of hunting around for ISBNs and the like. (Another concern was not to sabotage someone else's hard work by taking a hard stand against a reviewer whose requests, in my considered judgment, were misguided—as, for instance, I was basically prepared to do when our GA reviewer seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate for Wikipedia to say that it was wrong to discriminate against women. NPOV, give me a break! I don't want that dude's approval.) Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I wanted to ask whether I may start another nomination. This nomination was started 25 days ago. It has 4 supports, it has passed the source review, and there are no unaddressed issues at the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7 Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

Wow, this is a great example of a massive topic being successfully compressed into an effective overview article. Here are a few comments, I may come back and add more later too. Shapeyness (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the detailed and thoughtful observations! I've responded to and implemented a few and I'll get back to you once I've addressed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology: No comments here, this is all interesting and on-topic - I like the depiction of Newton's thought process here :)
  • General conceptions: Here I have some worries about due weight. This sub-section seems devoted to particular philosophers' general views on what philosophy is, but I'm not sure how they were chosen. Of course, they are all historical greats, but there are many great historical philosophers and we couldn't give all of their individual views. Do overview sources tend to highlight these particular examples? If not, then I think probably the two subsections here should be merged with some substantial trimming. I'm not sure if there are sources that make these types of links, but perhaps some details on these philosophers' views could be kept to illustrate broader viewpoints. For example, Kant seems to define philosophy in terms of subject matter while Socrates and Russell define it in term of process or an intended outcome. I think framing things in terms of broader trends or ideas and using these as examples is better for due weight, and provides better confidence to the reader that these are examples chosen for a particular reason. Of course, push back if you think there are reasons to keep, or to do things in another way!
    • @Shapeyness, this also came up during the GA review, and I certainly see the point. The problem, to which I could find no better solution than the current section, is that, based on an unscientific survey of popular and textbook introductions to philosophy, authors pretty much just defer the question to the entire book. There is no single definition that adequately captures the practice. Hence my recourse to editorial judgment as to what might best serve the reader.
    • That said, I quite like your distinction between subject matter and process. Anything that counts as philosophy in the sense that is the subject of this article must be a balancing act between the two. (This to exclude, on the one hand, fringe podcasters and lunatics on the subway platform and, on the other, folks engaged in what are now recognized as distinct scientific disciplines.) For FA purposes, though, we would need to find a solid source to back this up.
    • Whatever the solution – if this section is, indeed, agreed to be a problem – I do think it is important to provide a general definition of the subject, distinct from its etymology (love of wisdom is lovely, but uninformative and probably outright misleading) and its various competing academic definitions. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your concern is valid and I'm not sure how to best address it. As I see it, the basic gist of this subsection is to give the reader a general idea of some accessible aspects of philosophy without providing a precise definition. One minimally invasive solution would be to make this subsection not so much about these individual philosophers but use them instead as examples. Applied to Kant and Russell, this could be:

    Philosophers ask general and fundamental questions. For example, 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant identifies four questions that encompass the task of philosophy: "What can I know?"; "What should I do?"; "What may I hope?"; and "What is the human being?". The active exploration of philosophical questions can help people identify and overcome prejudices. According to Bertrand Russell, "The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason."

    If this type of solution is acceptable then I could see if I can come up with something similar for the paragraph on Socrates. A more invasive solution would be to merge the two subsections, remove the paragraphs on Kant, Socrates, and Russell, and try to reintroduce some of their points as examples in the other paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses PatrickJWelsh, Phlsph7! If there are sources that discuss some general aspects of philosophy like this (subject matter vs process was just an example that came to mind, I agree with PatrickJWelsh we need good sources here!) and some you can use to link those to these examples, or perhaps even just discuss them in the context of conceptions of philosophy, then I would be happy with the less invasive approach. Although I think care should be taken here not to overstress particular viewpoints just to fit these philosophers' ideas, other examples could also be used if they better illustrate what RSes tend to focus on. (Btw, I'm not saying using these examples would do that, I haven't really read any general sources on this, just something to consider!) Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to use a different approach since I am not aware of a good overview source that would link these examples. I tried instead to provide a concise summary of the gist of these paragraphs to give a general conception rather than mention the individual philosophers and their examples. I moved Kant's example to the paragraph where the division by content vs method is discussed. The resulting subsection would have been a little too short so I merged the two subsections. Please let me know if some essential parts were removed so we can explore ways to include them in the new setup. I'm also open to restoring the subsection-structure and some of the examples if they can be linked to good overview sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this change.
It makes the article less accessible to readers, especially those with no background knowledge—and it does so for no other reason than to satisfy Wikipedia criteria intended to serve its readers, almost none of whom are at all aware of the distinction between articles with the plus icon and those with the star icon.
For what it's worth, the mentions of Socrates and Russell both cite to introductory texts, and the Kant material is so famous that such a citation could surely be adduced were this actually somehow helpful. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if we can find a compromise to have both the concrete examples while not giving undue weight to one particular position. I found a way to include the examples of both Socrates and Russell. I also restored the subdivision between of "General conception" and "Academic definitions". Kant's questions are still there but they were moved to another paragraph. If it's important, there may also be a way to move them back to the subsection "General conception". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a lot better to me, I prefer this to removing the section altogether. I have no problem with this if it is also ok with PatrickJWelsh. Shapeyness (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for the belatedness in my response, but this version is good with me.
(Background: I was once conscripted to oversee the philosophy table at a sort of informational fair where incoming students could learn about different departments and courses of study. A young woman approached and asked, rather tentatively, "What is it?" I started by saying that this itself is a philosophical question. She literally backed away. I don't think she said a word.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic definitions: Science-based definitions usually face the problem of explaining why philosophy in its long history has not made the type of progress seen in other sciences This is true, but some philosophers believe that philosophy does make progress, maybe this can be reworded so that it doesn't state this as fact
    I think there is a minimal consensus that philosophical progress is at least different from the typical progress usually seen in the sciences. I reformulated the sentence to emphasize this point without implying that there is no progress. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also some lone sentences and short paragraphs here that could be combined and perhaps reordered
    I merged the last paragraph into an earlier paragraph. Maybe the paragraph on linguistic therapy could also be merged but there are also advantages to keeping it separate as a distinct position. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shapeyness, this is also mostly my doing. Although I most naturally write in long paragraphs composed of long sentences, I make a conscious effort in the opposite direction for Internet content. Especially considering how many people are reading this stuff on their phones, I think that readers are well-served by shorter paragraphs than would be appropriate for a print publication. If, however, other editors do not find this reasoning compelling, by all means, condense away! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking. This emphasizes its self-critical, reflective nature. This seems to be a repetition of the point at the beginning of the General conceptions section.
    The general thrust is the same. I had the impression that it makes sense to include it here as a separate conception since the precise formulation of "thinking about thinking" as a definition is often mentioned. The text in the subsection "General conception" is weaker and only characterizes the self-critical attitude as one of the features of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: this section in particular is one of the best examples of providing a condensed overview. I can't speak to the other traditions, but the Western philosophy section seems all good to me. Any temptation to add more details would probably snowball so I think this is the right level of detail here. One thing I will mention is that Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy are all mentioned but not discussed - would a short discussion of these be worth adding or do you think that would be undue / add too much extra content?
    Condensing the huge traditions down to a few paragraphs was really the main challenge here. I think adding a sentence or so for each of the addition traditions would be defendable but I'm not sure that this would be an overall improvement since their impact is significantly smaller. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: On the section you added in response to #Fritz, I added a little bit of extra detail. Hopefully that is ok with you and not excessive, feel free to revert or alter any of the changes! Shapeyness (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shapeyness: Your addition helps close the temporal gap between the periods. I made slight adjustments to the timeline to reflect how it is presented in the cited sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Branches: This is also a very good section, here are the only nitpicks I could find! This is a very small one but This idea is rejected by foundationalists, is it better to frame this as a response or a proposed solution than a rejection? I'm not sure foundationalists would reject the validity of the problem itself.
    "This idea" was supposed to refer to the idea that all beliefs require justification. But I see now that this is confusing since this idea is mentioned two sentences before. I implemented your suggestion, which avoids this problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtue theorists judge actions based on the moral character of the agent who performs them - I'm not sure that this is true. Bad people can do good things according to virtue theorists, my understanding is that the morality of an act is judged based on whether it is (a) in alignment with a particular virtue, i.e. it is the type of thing a virtuous person would do, or relatedly (b) it develops virtue within a person, e.g. if you make a habit of sharing, you will become a more generous person by nature. This idea is correctly described in the following sentence.
    I agree that this sentence could be misleading if read without considering the following sentence. I slightly reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is the distinction between an inner world of experience of an object and the existence of this object in the outer world. This seems confusingly worded to me - do you think this would be better? An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is that there is a distinction between our inner experience of objects and their existence in the external world.
    Yes, that expresses it better. I removed the "our" form your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methods: Some of the earlier paragraphs are quite short and could probably be combined. I also think empirical views such as experimental philosophy or naturalism should probably be mentioned here. For reference, 60% of philosophers accept empirical methods in the most recent philpapers survey and 32% accept experimental philosophy (this is more controversial though with 36% rejecting). In general, my impression is that naturalistic and experimental philosophy is covered in most metaphilosophy or philosophical method textbooks/overviews, I can find examples if useful for assessing due weight.
    • @Shapeyness, "naturalism" is an extremely contested term. Even Hegel, arguably the idealist par excellence, has been labeled a naturalist in recent academic literature. I'm also extremely skeptical of "experimental philosophy", most of which in my experience is just sloppy social science that only demonstrates what only a professional philosopher would ever think to question in the first place. If there is good evidence that the field has developed in the past ten years, however, I would be happy to revise my assessment. So, while I do not wish to diminish the significance of these discussions, I am inclined to keep them out of such a high-level article. (Oh, and thanks for sharing that survey!) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An earlier version of the article had a short passage on this. It's true that methodological naturalism and experimental philosophy don't reflect a typical approach to philosophizing but for the sake of comprehensiveness, I wouldn't be opposed to include a short mention. What do you think of the following:

    Methodological naturalists place great emphasis on the empirical approach and the resulting theories found in the natural sciences in contrast to methods that focus on pure reasoning and introspection. Experimental philosophy follows methodological naturalism and tries to answer philosophical questions by gathering empirical data in ways similar to psychology and the cognitive sciences.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Fischer & Collins 2015, p. 4.
  2. ^ Fisher & Sytsma 2023, Projects and Methods of Experimental Philosophy.
  3. ^ Knobe & Nichols 2017, lead section.
I agree with PatrickJWelsh that experimental philosophy is more questionable / contentious than many of the other methods traditionally used in philosophy, but I do think it (and empirical methods more broadly) are an important viewpoint that should be included. This is my own personal view, but more importantly I think it reflects the coverage of RSes. I would support the paragraph proposed by Phlsph7 if other editors don't have any problems with it. Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article implies that philosophers are generally dismissive of empirical data, that is a falsehood that must be addressed. On the fraught nature of "naturalism," however, just follow the Wikilink above. The term is borderline meaningless.
Experimental philosophy is the only approach in the above-linked survey that more respondents than not consider bogus. It is good that this philosophical endeavor has its own article, but I cannot see how there is any reason to bring it up here. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short passage. I removed the part on experimental philosophy and reformulated the contrast to avoid implying that other philosophy is in general dismissive of empirical data. I used the term "methodological naturalism", which has a more specific meaning than the wide term "naturalism". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind leaving out experimental philosophy if empirical methods and methodological naturalism are included to some extent. Shapeyness (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relation to other fields: Historically, philosophy is often considered the "mother of all sciences" since most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy until they reached their status as autonomous disciplines this idea has already been covered a few times by this point in the article.
    I'm not sure how to best handle this since it is important in this context but also a repetition of what was said earlier. For now, I shortened the sentence to the bare minimum. It could be removed altogether but that might mean that readers who skip other sections miss it. C (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more comments, these should probably be the last ones. Once again, feel free to push back on these - I may be quite busy until next week but will try to respond to any comments. Shapeyness (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read through some comments in other sections and agree with PatrickJWelsh that it might be better to expand on the Greek/Roman paragraph in the academic definitions section (and possibly cut the Wittgenstein sentence). It seems strange to mention Foucault and Hadot without talking about eudaimonia as a purpose of philosophy, or movements such as Stoicism.
  • Western history: this might be a bit nit-picky, but I don't think postmodernism is confined to continental philosophy (and depending on how pedantic we want to be, I'm not sure it's really a "movement")
  • Do you think there is room to discuss briefly some of the main views on the analysis of knowledge? This could be a short sentence on e.g. reliabilism, sensitivity to truth, and/or knowledge first epistemology, maybe virtue epistemology. My only worry is that this area of epistemology is introduced but major views are not presented (JTB is not a commonly held view).
  • Two points in favor of mentioning Stoicism: (i) the article is good, and (ii) a superficial version of the doctrine has currency in recent self-help/managerial literature. So let's point readers who might be interested in the direction of something better!
    I added one sentence on Stoicism and eudaimonia. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support the removal of any mention of postmodernism without much stronger sourcing. The primary reason for this is that, to my knowledge, none of the famous philosophers categorized as postmodern accept that designation. (Even if, yes, I do understand that it serves as a useful catch-all for the mostly French philosophers operating under the influence of Nietzsche against a horizon defined by Heidegger—more or less.) The secondary reason (and hence the strongly) is that this term is frequently deployed among anti-democratic conspiracy theorists, some of whom directly or indirectly promote political violence. So why not just go with post-structuralism, which captures much the same group of thinkers without feeding into misrepresentations of academic philosophy that possibly contribute to real harms?
    From Grayling 2019: Continental philosophy ... is associated with ... trends and movements ...: ... postmodernism .... I followed your suggestion to change it to post-structuralism and added a corresponding source. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on Shapeyness's other suggestions: on Wittgenstein because I can see both sides of the argument, and on the epistemological schools of thought because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to have a view.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one sentence on alternative definitions of knowledge. I left the Wittgenstein sentence since without it, we would have a one-sentence paragraph and merging this sentence into another paragraph was rejected before. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less busy than I thought so will finish off the review with some comments on sources for criteria 1c and 2c. Shapeyness (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work addressing my other comments! A few more that I missed before. Shapeyness (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you have. Thanks for helping me out. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • There's a significant amount of whitespace in the Etymology section
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Plato_by_Raphael.png is missing a US tag. Ditto File:Nietzsche1882_smaller.jpeg, File:Konfuzius-1770.jpg, File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg, File:Half_Portraits_of_the_Great_Sage_and_Virtuous_Men_of_Old_-_Confucius.jpg, File:JohnStuartMill.jpg, File:Aristotle,_Metaphysics,_Incunabulum.jpg
    Done for all except the image File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg. This image already has the text This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1928.. Is this sufficient or does it additionally require the template "PD-US-expired"? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Phlsph7 and @Nikkimaria, the image of Butler in the final section hangs over into "See also" in a way that looks weird on a full-sized monitor. I tried shrinking the image, but that didn't help so I left it as is. Is there a good solution for this? For I do think that we should keep the image. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I added a clear-tag. This is also not ideal since it creates an empty space for some display devices. An alternative would be to move the image further up but this could separate the image from the relevant paragraph depending on the display device. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems you responded faster than me. I tried moving the image up one paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about using this one instead: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg? We could also probably shave a line off the caption. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judith_Butler_(2011).jpg? I don't like it as much as a photo, but it's landscape oriented, which would almost certainly resolve the issue. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the cropped image. It should help since it has less height. It could still cause problems for some display devices but I hope it is managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Viewed full-screen on a 27" monitor, there appears to be about one extra line space between the closing text of the section and the beginning of the next. I do not find this distracting, however, and don't consider further tweaks necessary. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Does the article pass the image review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg is missing evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source-field asserts that the photo was directly provided by Judith Butler. Is that sufficient as evidence of consent? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That page refers to personality rights, which is a different issue from copyright. commons:COM:VRT outlines the process for copyright permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original image on which our cropped version is based has evidence of permission. I'm not sure how to handle the cropped image itself so I asked at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Evidence_of_permission_for_a_cropped_version_of_an_image_whose_permission_has_been_confirmed_by_the_VRT. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the feedback I got from the noticeboard, there seems to be no problem with the permission of our image. Please let me know if any additional tags should be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Do you consider the issue concerning File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg solved or are there more points to be addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest linking to the VRT ticket from the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I saw that the edit to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg in which I added the link got reverted by a VRT member. I assume it is because adding permissions is the responsibility of the VRT and because the earlier noticeboard discussion resulted in the conclusion that no additional permission statement is required. Personally, I agree with the argument presented in that discussion. Do you consider this point essential in order for the image review to pass? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I'm not convinced that rationale makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You could articulate your concerns at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Evidence_of_permission_for_a_cropped_version_of_an_image_whose_permission_has_been_confirmed_by_the_VRT and I would be happy to implement your suggestion if there is consensus for it. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed for the image review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz

  • Drive by comment (I may give the article a more in-depth read later): I think that the History section could use an additional subsection, for the mentioned "other influential philosophical traditions". It looks like the claim that Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy are the main tradition derives primarily from Grayling's book, but (while I am absolutely not an expert) I am somewhat dubious of this 'ranking'. I'm not advocating that every tradition have an equal amount of article space, but a subsection for "Other traditions" could at least cover the central historical aspect of Japanese, Latin American, and African philosophy, and give some more worldwide coverage to the section. Please let me know your thoughts! Fritzmann (message me) 18:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Fritzmann2002 and thanks for your first review comments. I would try to implement your suggestion if there is consensus on this point but there are some considerations that make me hesitate. A key point here is WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. It is very easy to find overview sources that give a narrower perspective on the history of philosophy than our current section. A great example in this regard is the 10-volume Routledge History of Philosophy, which focuses exclusively (or almost exclusively) on Western philosophy (which is understood in the sense of including certain forms of Arabic-Persian philosophy). Scharfstein 1998 is a little bit broader: he dedicates the whole first chapter of his book to explaining and defending the claim that there are only three great philosophical traditions, the Indian, the Chinese, and the European. I found it tricky to find wide overview sources that give a broader outline of the history of philosophy than the one we have here. It's often necessary to use sources from adjacent fields, such as comparative philosophy or world philosophy. For example, Smart's book "World Philosophies" covers many additional traditions. However, he justifies this by using a very wide definition of "philosophy" that is not typical of how philosophy is usually defined. It goes well beyond systematic and rational inquiry by encompassing traditional worldviews, including myths of origin and ... proverbial lore.
    I'm not sure if you find these points convincing and I don't want to impose my own view here. Shapeyness in their comments above also asked a question similar to yours. If there is consensus between the two of you that adding such a section would be an improvement then I would give it a try to see what I can come up with. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we falling into the trap of Eurocentrism and English language source centrism by that logic? TheUzbek (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I implemented the suggestion, which I hope solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I reformulated the passage in question. As I see it, there is always an implicit "ranking" that decides what needs to be included in the article, what could be included, and what is not important enough to merrit a detailed discussion. But maybe you are right that this shouldn't be made too explicit. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your well-argued response; it's very clear you have a strong understanding of the subject matter! I think the one other concern I had is that those other traditions are just sort of name-dropped and then not elaborated upon within the history section. Even if those three just got a single combined paragraph that is basically a summary of their lede in their respective articles, that would more than satiate what I am looking for as a reader. Again, not at all a requirement and just my two cents - I would also be interested to hear input from other reviewers on the matter. Fritzmann (message me) 13:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Fritzmann, a small subsection for "other traditions" with just a single paragraph or two would be enough. There are due weight concerns but I think they are outweighed by concerns on the other side over providing a global perspective (WP:WORLDVIEW). Shapeyness (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a first attempt at implementing this suggestion. I hope this is roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann and Shapeyness: any come back on this? No need for any, I'm just checking. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source suitability review

Spot-check upon request and warning that given the sheer width of the topic, only an expert can really judge whether there aren't any major omissions. Reviewing this version, I notice that a large number of § aren't followed by a space. Source formatting is unusual but that doesn't need to be a problem. Retrieval dates are not applied consistently. Are there no non-Western sources besides Jha, Meenakshi and the Economic and Political Weekly? I am not sure that Baggini, Julian; Krauss, Lawrence as well as Britannica are a good source for such a topic? Speaking of Britannica is not consistently formatted. Dowden, Bradley H. (2020). is apparently unused. I am not sure that the Routledge source needs to say "www.rep.routledge.com". OUP Oxford and OUP ought to be standardized to one or the other. Quinton, Anthony Meredith lacks a bullet point. Of the sources I know, they all seem to be suitable for a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I hope I managed to sort out all the formatting and consistency issues. I used the template multiref2 instead of the more usual sfmn mainly because it uses a new line for each bundled reference rather than putting them all in one line, which can get confusing if there are many references. I added retrieval dates to all reference templates that use a URL parameter. Please let me know if there are others that also require it. After a short random look through some of the sources, I encountered the following non-Western authors: Jonathan Chimakonam (University of Calabar, Nigeria and University of Pretoria, South Africa), Fainos Mangena (University of Zimbabwe), Antonio Cua (Filipino Chinese), Tu Wei-Ming (Chinese), and Licheng Ma (Chinese). There should be many more and I could have a more thorough look if this is a concern.
I removed the source "Baggini & Krauss 2012" since the claim is well supported by the remaining sources. As for Britannica, I agree that it is not ideal for in-depth claims on very specific topics. However, this is not so much of a problem for this article since it doesn't go into depth on any specific point and has mostly the goal of providing a broad overview instead. I tried to avoid using Britannica as a standalone source by having it in addition to other sources of the same claim as an accessible alternative for readers to consult. If you have the impression that it is not appropriate for a certain claim then I will try to find an alternative.
Dowden 2020 itself is used several times. The error message comes because I added an earlier version to link it to an ISBN. The 2020 version is freely available online and the page numbers refer to this version. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there are many non-Western authors, but are there also non-Western publications/publishers? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was not aware that your point was focused on the geographical location of the publishers rather than of the authors. You are right that most of the sources used in this article are published by Western publishers. The main reason is that these publishers globally dominate the field of high-quality academic sources written in the English language on philosophy in general, including non-Western philosophy. If you have a specific source that you would like to see included in the article then I would be happy to take a look at it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any specific source in mind, just a general observation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Does the article pass the source review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Dowden 2020 needs to be fixed, it throws a harv error for me. Probably because there is another template there, Dowden 1993. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the harv warning comes from a user script. I added the parameter "|ref=none" to the 2nd template, which seems to have solved the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a pass, with the caveat that this isn't a topic on which I have much familiarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from UC

Perhaps fittingly for the subject, I worry that we've become tied in terminological knots in the section about definitions of philosophy. To me, the latter two paragraphs (about philosophy being a form of therapy or an exercise in self-improvement) strike me more as statements about what philosophy does rather than attempts to form an all-encompassing definition of what it is -- a bit like you might say "running is a form of outdoor therapy", "God is love" or "a dog is man's best friend": nobody would seriously argue that "man's best friend" is even trying to be sufficient information to explain to an unfamiliar outsider what a dog is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that whether these paragraphs express definitions of philosophy in the strict sense is itself a philosophical question. Overgaard et al. 2013 consider the question "What is philosophy" and discuss philosophy as a form of therapy as one of the answers to this question in contrast to other answers, such as philosophy as a form of science. Banicki 2014 talks of "philosophy as a kind of therapy" and of "the therapeutic model of philosophy". One consideration in this regard would be whether the features in question are considered essential aspects of philosophy rather than merely accidental features that philosophy just happens to have. For example, is it essential to philosophy that it aims at curing certain (linguistic) maladies? In any case, the positions discussed in these paragraphs are influential characterizations of philosophy that should be discussed somewhere. It seems to me that this section is the most fitting place to do so. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that these things need to be discussed somewhere. I wonder if the answer is to have a subsection on the functions of philosophy - which could then have (for example) some material on the role of philosophy within society (I immediately thought of the Greek idea of the kaloskagathos - a man both beautiful of body and cultivated of mind), as an adjunct to other fields, and so on. I do feel like the definitions section loses focus some time in the last three paragraphs and has moved, without really stating it, from what philosophy is to what philosophy does. If nothing else, those last two paragraphs tread lightly indeed and may be on the wrong side of brevity versus comprehensiveness UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with defining something in terms of its aim. The case of philosophy as a spiritual practice of self-improvement goes back to Greco-Roman times (would it be worth incorporating a Wikilink to Stoicism, which is the most obvious example?) and has been taken up by recent philosophers who are themselves the subjects a considerable scholarly literature.
I feel less strongly about linguistic therapy as it is so strongly associated with a single 20th-century figure. It seems like a nice addition the article, but its case for being encyclopedic at this high level is debatable.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a step towards a compromise, I merged the last two paragraphs into one to give less emphasis to the therapy-conception of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate work towards compromise, but these two forms of "therapy" are wildly different. One aims to bring the practitioner into sync with the rational structure of the cosmos by way of living according to the rational principles uncovered by way of philosophical reflection and spiritual exercises. The other aims to liberate just those who have confused themselves into being upset about philosophical problems that are actually just confusions about how language works. Does any source actually treat these as different approaches to the same thing?
I support restoring the previous version. Or, if for some reason the length of these paragraphs relative to those preceding them is actually an issue – which I really do not think that it is – then we could cut the Wittgenstein paragraph and add another sentence or two to the other mentioning a couple Ancient/Hellenistic philosophers by name.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are surely not the same thing, they are merely related as forms of therapy. For now, I replaced the expression "closely related" with "related" to not overemphasize the connection. Personally, I don't see a problem with the original version. I would go ahead and restore it unless others see it differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only @UndercoverClassicist appears to object, and we should certainly allow a few more days, but they have possibly abandoned that objection in view of our comments. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't, but that need not be a problem: I haven't offered a review and so it's merely a suggestion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware of a good overview source that makes this precise distinction between the definition and the functions of philosophy and provides a detailed discussion of those functions then I would be happy to read it. I'm not sure that it's always possible to draw such a clear division between what something is and what it does. Some things may be defined by their function or by what they do. This could be true for philosophy. In our current article, the section "Relation to other fields" was intended to cover some of the expansion ideas you mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Central description"?

According to the article's Information page[17], the "Central description" of this article, unlike the "Local description", does not capitalize the first word. I don't know if this is an issue, however, because I can't find the former in either the article or the project sidebar and don't know where on Wikipedia it appears. Is this something that should be addressed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=info

I think the central description is taken from wikidata, in our case https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5891. I'm not sure about their rules, but comparing it with a few other items, lower-case seems to be standard. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. I have no experience with Wikidata. I only brought it up because it looks like a stylistic inconsistency, but I couldn't figure out where it was coming from or in what contexts it might be displayed. It seems, though, like we should probably just leave it alone. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

I will sign myself up to some work on the formatting and reliability of the citations, but not spot checks. Maybe some thoughts on completeness, but Adamson is on 6 volumes of his History of Philosophy and we haven't even passed the Renaissance. I suspect he will do 6 volumes just on what is traditionally covered in an undergrad Modern Philosophy class. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the sources. Adamson's A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps is a huge undertaking indeed. I'm not sure how many volumes are planned in total. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [13] uses a primary source but [12] does not although both have direct quotes. Cite all direct quotes of primary works to your favorite translation or edition.
    Done. I didn't spot any others. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regenbogen 2010 and all other non-English sources should include a lang= flag
    Done. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am used to "et al." in italics, but I will let the MOS specialists tell you if it is common enough to be upright.
    The short answer is that opinions are divided but style guides tend to favor no italics. For the long answer, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"et_al."_or_"et_alia"_with_or_without_italics and SilverTiger's review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History seems well balanced to me over all. There is a strong temptation to make it 90% western and 10% "eastern", but the major traditions makes sense to me.
    • I might mention the critical traditions (Marx, Feminism, etc) in the Western philosophy section since you introduce Marx vis-a-vis China in the article and that seems off to me.
      I found a way to mention Marxism. Feminism has its own paragraph in the section "Relation to other fields". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would retool the Latin American section to cover the traditions of Indigenous North Americans as well.
      Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some worry that outside of the History section the article is pretty much pure-Western Philosophy. Can you weave in anyone from another traditions
    I don't think the presentation is pure-Western since the topics covered are not restricted to Western philosophy. I tried to follow how high-quality overview sources present the different subjects. For example, overview sources on epistemology in general (not specifically on Western epistemology) usually do not mention things pramanas even though they are discussed in Indian philosophy. But they mention sources of knowledge that are discussed as pramanas in Indian epistemology, like perception, inference, and testimony. In this sense, the territory they cover does not exclude Indian epistemology. We could explicitly introduce the term pramana. However, given how the overview sources treat the subject, I think this is not a good idea. The same overlap is there for the other fields as well, such as the existence of matter and souls discussed in metaphysics.
    A different approach would be to use examples from other traditions. For instance, we currently use utilitarianism as an example of consequentialism. We could replace it with a discussion of mohism. But the influence of utilitarianism and mohism is orders of magnitudes different, which is why this probably would not be a good idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of the sourcing is incredible. Very well done. I might push you on the following sources:
    • Zack 2009, because it is your only pop work in a sea of academic ones
      I replaced it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • EB Staff articles
      They are not ideal for sourcing in-depth claims on a very specific subject but I don't think this is a problem here given that we are trying to provide a broad overview and that they are accompanied by additional high-quality sources. If some specific instances are not appropriate for the claim they support then I would try to find alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is because my upper-levels were done in feminism, critical race theory, standpoint epistemology, queer theory, etc., but it feels like it was given the short end of the stick.
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rjjiii: Comments

I think it's fantastic that you're bringing these broad topics up to GA/FA standards. I have not participated in a Featured Article Candidate discussion before, so I won't support/oppose. Logic is the part that I'm most familiar with, so I'll focus entirely on that section.

Source spot-checking for this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&oldid=1184786104#Logic

  • [107]: Verfies the source and no close paraphrasing. Really solid summary of someting that is kind of complicated in the sources' phrasing.
  • [109]: The term "modus ponens" is used beginning on page 367 in Dowden; it's very clearly laid out on the cited page (p. 103) in Velleman, so good use of multiple sources without WP:OR. The example quoted is from the other cited page in Velleman (p. 8). In addition to using high quality sources, this is about the way deductive reasoning is introduced in college-level Intro to Logic classes.
  • [110]: The sources verify the article and there's no close paraphrasing. Again a good summary of something with complicated language in the source texts.
  • [113]: Vleet (2011) seems to verify the whole paragraph on its own.

I'll try to come back soon to comment on the prose, Rjjiii (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rjjiii and welcome to FA process! Your knowledge in the field of logic is appreciated and I'm looking forward to your prose comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from the top:

  • The piped link would be more clear to me if it was "correct reasoning".
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph is clear except for this sentence, "In this way, it formulates exact criteria and methods based on the structure of arguments to determine whether they are correct or incorrect." I think that "formulates exact criteria and methods based on" could be shortened down to a single verb like "examines" without losing any meaning to nearly all readers. If there is some nuance in the current wording, it's not clear to me.
    I slightly tweaked your suggestions to include the term "exact criteria" since formal logic is mainly interested in general criteria of validity rather than whether a specific argument is valid.
  • "analyze and evaluate" Would the single verb "assess" cover both?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this support is not as certain and does not guarantee that the conclusion is true." The "is not as certain and" seems redundant.
    That's true, I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of comments from other sections of this FAC page:

  • I find "et al." to be the common form and appreciate the change.
  • Regarding the bundled citations, the way you've done it has a benefit for accessibility. Bundling citations into lists either with bullets (*) or a template that generates html lists, will allow screen readers to parse the short footnotes as separate items. Template:sfnm could one day be updated to make use of this, but currently it does not.

Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Gog the Mild

Recusing to comment. Leaning oppose.

  • In the image gallery at the top of the page, I am a little unhappy that all three of the non-Western philosophers are on the second row; it sends an unfortunate (not so) subliminal message.
    The rationale behind the current arrangement is the following. One way to divide philosophy is in Western and non-Western philosophy. So it makes sense to group the philosophers together in one row each. In regard to philosophy in general, Western philosophy has been more influential than non-Western philosophy. So it makes sense to have it in the first row.
    One alternative would be to arrange the philosophers chronologically: Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Avicenna, Kant, and Nietzsche. However, Plato is much more important in the field of philosophy than Buddha and Confucius. So it might be a good idea to keep him in the first place. Maybe there are other organizing principles that avoid this problem. In any case, the sidebar is used in many articles and there were already several discussions on who should be included on the talk page. So we would have to start a discussion there first and get some input before making any changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting on who is displayed, just on the order they are displayed in. If there is a discussion you could point me towards where this is discussed, and ideally agreed, that may be helpful. That the current order is based on the perceived importance of each in the field makes me more uncomfortable. I assume there is a HQ RS which so ranks them? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is a misunderstanding here but I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom. According to my understanding, the current order is not based on the perceived importance of the individual philosophers. They are sorted by association with Western and non-Western philosophy: Plato, Kant, and Nietzsche belong to Western philosophy. Buddha, Confucius, and Avicenna belong to non-Western philosophy. This way, we have two rows of images: the Western row and the non-Western row. The philosophers within each row are sorted chronologically: Plato was born before Kant and Kant was born before Nietzsche; Buddha was born before Confucius and Confucius was born before Avicenna.
It shouldn't be a problem to provide reliable sources for their association and their birth dates. There were talk page discussions on who should be included but I'm not aware of discussions on the order in which these philosophers are presented. I appologize if I'm talking past the point you were trying to make. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog is quite right to raise this, and to feel uncomfortable with the current division. Comments that intimate western philosophy is more important than that of the East is mildly eyebrow raising, and does not alleviate that discomfort. To get as close to a random list as p[possible, I suggest either aphpabetizing them, or possibly chronologically. Unfortuantely, what would be perfect—{{Random slideshow}}—is not an option open to us. MOS:ACCESS, you see. ——Serial 20:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Serial and thanks for your input and your suggestions. I think the claim that some philosophical traditions have been more influential than others is not controversial. Maybe pointing to some high-quality reliable overview sources can alleviate the discomfort caused by contempating this idea. I just had a look at the entry "Philosophy" in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy: correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to discuss almost exclusively Western philosophers. I also tried the entry "Philosophy" in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy with the same result. If you know of some high-quality reliable overview sources on philosophy in general that paint a very different picture then I would be interested in looking at them.
Plato is often considered the most influential philosopher so it would make sense to consider an ordering principle that makes him come to the first position. A chronological order would make Buddha come first. This could be surprising to readers. For example, I didn't spot a discussion of Buddha in the two overview articles mentioned above but they both discuss Plato. In the alphabetical order, Plato would come last. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the natural question, then, is why images of the Buddha, Confucius, and Avicenna are displayed at all... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this would be the more relevant concern than the question of whether the current order of images is biased. I don't think they are included because they are among the 6 most influential philosophers overall. The main argument for their inclusion is probably that non-Western traditions should also be represented and the images in question each depict one of the most influential figures within their tradition. For related discussions, see Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar#Justification_of_additions and Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar#Averroes?. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party comment: I've commented in an existing (if not especially active) discussion at Template talk:Philosophy sidebar#Picture shouldn't be a gallery. The image isn't appropriate for the navbox in general, regardless of the ordering. If the image is removed from the navbox, there could still be a lead image or gallery in this particular article. For example, a two-by-two gallery containing Buddha, Confucius, Plato, and Avicenna, could represent the four major traditions that are discussed in the subsections of Philosophy#History. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! It's probably better to have the main discussion at Template talk:Philosophy sidebar#Picture shouldn't be a gallery rather than here. I'll post an update here once we've reached a conclusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short update: I removed the image from the sidebar and added it as a lead image instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: I think the inclusion of Nietzsche is an odd choice, as he has not been nearly as influential as either Plato or Kant. Western philosophy is often divided into three periods: ancient, medieval and modern. The current display has an image of an ancient philosopher (Plato), two modern philosophers (Kant and Nietzsche) and none from the medieval period. Might I suggest replacing Nietzsche with an influential figure from that period? Thomas Aquinas feels like the obvious pick. Other influential philosophers from the period include Duns Scotus, Anselm of Canterbury and William of Ockham. Tkbrett (✉) 16:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Aquinas would be a solid choice. What do you think of the following? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philbar 5.png
I note in passing that this does nothing to address the concern I raised to kick off the discussion this image. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my case for the current order but I don't want to impose my view. The following has a chronological order. Would that be acceptable? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philbar 6.png
I think the updated image is better. I can't say I share the concern of the original drive-by comment. Tkbrett (✉) 17:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It provides an interdisciplinary perspective and studies their scope and fundamental concepts." I am unsure what "their" refers to. Is it possible to clarify or rephrase?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had originally posted two points which I saw as readily fixable with a view to then closing the nomination. As the discussion has become rather more than a drive by it seems appropriate for me to recuse and allow one of my fellow coordinators close it. Not least because as the article stands I am unconvinced that it meets criterion 1d and so have indicated that I am leaning oppose at the head of this section. Obviously I am open to being convinced otherwise, but have not yet been. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, while not binding is persuasive as to why a gallery might not be a good idea. I would honestly prefer nothing in the leade to cherry picking 6 philosophers. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on both points. But while that is my preference, it is not something I am going to oppose over. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that having no lead images would solve various problems, like the ones we have been struggling with here. If there are no objections, I would go ahead and remove them. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, does this resolve your concern? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:. It does. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I co-nominated this article for GA status with Phlsph7 just this past August, and so it largely goes without saying that I approve of the overall structure and coverage of the article. There is more discussion on these matters than anyone would want to read here and in the article Talk page and its archives.

To this I will just add that I am quite impressed with the way that they have handled the issue of balancing Eastern and Western traditions, which I flagged prior to FA nomination (skip down halfway) as probably the biggest challenge, and one for which there is no perfect solution. To the best of my ability to assess, they seem also to have done an admirable job of bringing everything into compliance with all the niceties and finer points of Wikipedia style.

Much gratitude as well to everyone else whose edits and comments have contributed to making this such an excellent article!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh: Thanks a lot for your support, your countless valuable contributions, and your guidance in getting this article FA-ready. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [18].

History of military logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I split this article off from Military logistics, which I am still working on. This is one of those high-level articles that a traditional encyclopaedia has, but where the Wikipedia is deficient. I have tried to make a start with this article, which I created by splitting the history section off from the parent article, rewriting, and adding material, mainly to the front and the back. Almost all the article is now my work.

There are good reasons why these sort of top-level articles do not get the attention that many readers would expect, the major one being that they are so hard to write. This article has to cover 2,000 years of military history. Ideally, it would be a summary of its subarticles, but none of them currently exist. The task of this article is therefore to cover important developments without getting into to much detail, and it degenerating into a catalogue of battles and wars. A conscious effort was made to avoid making the article Euro-centric, and to incorporate examples from around the world. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Chucking in a few peanuts, mostly on the really old stuff, for now:

  • Feudalism in the lead: something of a dirty word among medieval scholars, who haven't really been happy with the idea of "Feudalism" as a single coherent Thing for a few decades now. Certainly, the idea of calling it "a system" (rather than, at the most charitable, a series of slightly-ad-hoc systems with some similarities but also important differences) is really quite dated. Articles and books on big topics like this often end up with blind-spots when it comes to the specifics of individual disciplines: suggest something like "in medieval Europe, responsibility for military logistics was often delegated to the magnates of individual households (and mercenary companies?), who would supply their own troops".
    It comes from a 2021 source. Deleted that from the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century there was the shift from a centrally organised army to a combination of military forces made up of local troops: if we're (admirably and correctly) going to avoid Eurocentricism, we need to put sentences like this into geographic context: I doubt the fall of Rome had much impact in China or North America.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking a little on this, I'm not sure the basic point here is valid. Firstly, the Roman empire didn't (all) fall in the fifth century, and the Byzantinists are now getting increasingly comfortable and consistent at calling their subject the "(Eastern) Roman Empire" until the 15th century. Secondly, the Roman army wasn't straightforwardly a single, centralised organisation in the fourth and fifth centuries: units were increasingly tied to the areas in which they served and recruited from those areas, particularly from children of soldiers - in many ways not all that different to your textbook "feudal" model (see lots of work on this at Banna (Birdoswald). Thirdly, I'm not sure what the distinction here is between a "centrally organised army" and one "made up of local troops": isn't everyone local to somewhere? Professional troops were fairly rare after 500 Thinking on it, that's not true either: professional militaries, perhaps, but they were also pretty rare before that, and certainly people serving by obligation were part of the show in the "late Roman" army and indeed very much the norm outside the high Roman professional army and perhaps some of the Hellenistic monarchies. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same note, the lead still reads as pretty Euro-heavy to me, especially in the second paragraph, which is explicitly about Europe only but also the only material on a three-century period.
  • Is there anything to add to the lead about logistics post 1948?
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see something done about gendered language in the very early sections: for instance, Neolithic armies ... rarely exceeded 20,000 men (given how little we know about Neolithic warfare in general, I don't think we can say that all Neolithic societies had no fighting women, or indeed no alternative gender categories), and A king or warlord might use his army...
    Changed to more gener neutral terms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still see rarely exceeded 20,000 men in the lead. More generally, there's a fairly regular use of "men" for "soldiers", "warriors", "troops", "combatants" and so on, which I think should be avoided. Yes, it's a commonplace/cliché in (particularly older) military writing and yes, it's more-or-less accurate for most of our time periods, but we don't do that for other situations where the same is true: nobody would write about the "privileges granted by the Roman senate to its men", for example. Given the general nature of this field I think this is a case where we have to be particularly proactive about systemic bias. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On which: 20,000 seems very big for the time we're talking about: I'd be interested to know what that's based on. The biggest mass-death sites I've seen from the Neolithic have bodies in the low hundreds, which doesn't really seem to fit with armies that massive wandering around. I'm also curious about where all these people are coming from, and who's feeding them when they're on the move: a really big Neolithic site had a population of a couple of thousand people total.
    I was looking through Prehistoric warfare to see if I could find a better source.
  • Roman soldiers are generally called legionaries in English (see Ngrams); legionnaire is best kept for the French.
    Heh. Because I'm reading a French language source and not thinking. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems odd to pass over the whole Mycenaean/Classical world until Alexander, and then devote an entire paragraph to the guy. There's also a bit of a buried lead here: if Philip was banning carts, it implies that someone was previously using them. (There's another problem here: we say that Alexander banned carts, but then that he used them to lug his siege engines around: this sounds like the commonplace in classical military historiography where the historian has a virtuous commander force the soldiers to carry their own gear to restore discipline or general manliness) In particular, I'm sure much work has been done on how the Persian armies of Xerxes and Darius I were supplied.
    Do you have a suggested source? I have amassed a library of books and journal articles on logistics but have nothing on the Persians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those in the field will know better, but some that come up on a quick search:
Again, I'm not suggesting putting everything in here, but this article needs to be a judicious summary of that everything, and therefore we need to start from a position of knowing what the whole topic looks like before we can summarise and cut down. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest pointing out that the Romans were by no means the first to construct a network of roads for military and other logistics: the Persians got there a few centuries earlier.
    Added the Persians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciated, though we now have the weird situation that the Romans get all the focus and the credit, whereas the Persians - who did it first - get relegated to being one of many in a list of "and the rest". I think this is another respect in which taking another swing at this section with the (Graeco-)Persian context in mind would help. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, on Eurocentrism: we make a brief gesture to China, India and South America about roads, but otherwise our conception of Antiquity basically happens between the Alps and the Euphrates: we did briefly wander into Persia, but only when we had some Macedonian armies to follow there. We've named a whole lot of influential commanders, empires and societies from Greece, Rome and areas often associated with them: what are the equivalents (say) in Egypt, the Far East and the Americas?
    There is a whole paragraph on logistics in medieval America. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, but nothing for the pre-medieval period (the meaning of Antiquity intended in my comment above). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving a bit outside my area, the Medieval section is curiously early Medieval (and quite strongly Carolingian): in particular, it makes a slightly odd move to Crecy, then back to the ninth century, then to the Mongols (though it isn't massively clear on the chronology of the latter two), then out to the wider world (good), then back to Big Charlie. Given that the Early Modern section doesn't pick up until 1530 (a rather late date, in my view: I think most would use 1453 or 1492), it's odd that the High and Late Middle Ages have received so little treatment: there's loads in Anne Curry's recent-ish book on Agincourt, for example, on how the English and French were supplied, and that's very different to the "king calls the lords, lords call their vassals and sort their own provisions" model that we sketched in the lead.
    Do you mean Agincourt (2015) or The Hundred Years War (2023)? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only read Agincourt, but I'm sure her newer book has equally good if not better material. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think our sketch of "the Vikings" gives them too much coherency (as if we've written from Alfred's perspective rather than Guthrum's): Viking was something you did, not something you were, and Scandinavians hardly spent the whole period getting along and working together.
  • Did anything interesting happen in western Asia and north Africa during the early medieval period?
  • I notice at the moment that the "Antiquity" section has six sources cited, only two of which are 21st century: that's a big topic divided between very few voices/perspectives.

Certainly looking at these two sections, I wonder if there's an element of WP:WRITEITFIRST here: there's a difficult balance between summary style and comprehensiveness to be struck, and it might be difficult to establish it without a bigger, more detailed and more global account of military logistics in the ancient and medieval worlds. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a top-level article, it calls out for subarticles, but they do not currently exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but more importantly, it calls out for being a judicious, well-balanced, (as far as possible) error and systemic-bias-free summary of what those articles would or should say. There's no problem if those articles don't exist (yet), but for an article like this to be FA quality, it does need to be written with a good, up-to-date understanding of what its field is. For this one, as you'll know much better than me, that field is massive and has the problem of being both extremely broad and having depth and details which are extremely important. I'm going to stick down an oppose at the moment, purely because of how long I can see this review is getting already: it isn't fair to turn this into an extended peer review and I do think the sections on Antiquity and the Medieval period need a fairly major rework to make them up to date with current scholarship and representative of the world picture. I don't think that sort of rework is within the scope of a normal FAC; however, I am absolutely open to revisiting that !vote if the situation does change. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we have no other mechanism for review and comment. Our only options are to provide reviews here or leave the article as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hawkeye7, could you glance over the article Operations Research (particularly the World War II section), and the sources there, and have a look at whether your sources give OR (known as Operational Research in the UK) a due-weight role in the evolution of logistics during WWII and ongoing ? The role of OR in military logistics, particularly in WWII, has always been emphasized in the field, and it has a large place in West Point Military Academy training. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the examples in the article concern operations, but I can add a sentence or two about OR and logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment. Sorry Hawkeye but this has been open for more than four weeks now and hasn't gained a single support and even has an oppose. I don't think it makes sense to keep this open any longer now. The usual two-week wait before a new nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2023 [19].

My Little Love

Nominator(s): NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Adele's song "My Little Love". I know my reputation is spoiled here due to the godawful Meghan Trainor songs, but sometimes I really enjoy great jazz like this one. Don't be fooled by it not getting a commercial single release, this song very much forms the heart of 30 along with tracks like "To Be Loved" and "I Drink Wine". Just trust me on this and do play it once! Also, it features voice notes of Adele's child. (How has Meghan Trainor not done this yet?) I have been very lucky to receive DYK and GA reviews from Aoba47 and Pseud 14, respectively. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass)

Thank you. I'll get back to you on the sample point.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to the discussion with Aoba below, I have added an audio sample to the article.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That completes media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • I think it may be worthwhile to link steel guitar since items like bass are also linked. Also, does bass in this context refer to a bass guitar? If so, I would clarify that in the prose.
  • Information about which bass instrument it is is not available, unfortunately.
  • Thank you for the clarification. I know that liner notes can unfortunately be ambiguous at times so I understand this situation. I was just curious since Greg Kurstin is credited as playing the bass guitar for "Easy on Me", but I also see that he is credited as playing just bass for "Oh My God" and "I Drink Wine" so it is likely just a case of inconsistency with the liner notes and credits. At least, there is some information here. I have a physical copy of Bluebird of Happiness, and the only thing in the liner notes are the songwriters, producers, and samples. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (at the EastWood Scoring Stage in California), I think it would best to specify the city, especially since earlier in the same section, No Expectations Studios is specified as specifically in Los Angeles.

Great work with the article as always. After reading through the article once, I could only find two three very nitpick-y points (well, technically three since the first point has two comments). Once both points have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Just to be clear, I am only looking at the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. What do you think about the potential inclusion of an audio sample in this article? I was being more conservative after the "Easy on Me" nomination but there might be a stronger case to be made for one here.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think an audio sample would be justified here as the voice notes are such an integral part to the song, from its creation all the way down to its reception. I believe it would also help some readers better understand what the prose is conveying as some people may not be as familiar with voice notes or would not fully understand how these messages are interwoven into the song itself. Thank you for addressing everything. I will read the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I trust that you will address anything that ChrisTheDude brings up in his review below. Hope you have a happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

  • "Kurstin plays bass, mellotron, piano, and steel guitar; Chris Dave plays drums and percussion; and David Campbell arranged and conducted the strings" - the tense changes from present to past mid-sentence
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for "melisma"? I for one have no idea what it means.......
  • "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed they may" => "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed that they may"
  • "In the United Kingdom, "My Little Love" debuted at number five on the Official Audio Streaming Chart" - might be worth clarifying that this is not the main Official UK Singles Chart (the UK's equivalent to the Hot 100). It actually missed the UK Singles Chart completely, although this will almost certainly be down to a bizarre rule that no artist can have more than three songs in the chart in the same week.
  • That's what I got. Oh, and don't ever feel the need to categorise songs you like as "godawful". They're not bad songs if you derive enjoyment from them. The other day someone told me that my favourite album of the last six months was "absolute garbage" and I just ignored him because hey- I really like it and that's all that matters :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. Thank you so much for the review! I haven't heard the whole Zach Bryan album but the Kacey Musgraves collab was awesome. You should definitely not pay any mind to anyone criticizing you for enjoying it, lol. Hopefully he'll join Trainor and Miss Adkins next year.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the first one, I can see that you've split it into multiple sentences, but it still reads a little oddly (to me at least) that David Campbell conducted the strings but Kurstin plays bass. I would suggest it should all be in the past tense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Addressed comments from Gog the Mild
  • "Music critics compared the production of "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye". Did they, or did they 'compare[] "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye'?
  • "an emotional progression for Adele." I am not sure what this means. (What does it mean?)
  • The critical consensus was along the lines of "Adele delves further into her usual emotional subject matter; gets more emotional than ever". Open to suggestions on better ways to articulate this.
  • " Critics also highlighted the inclusion of the voice notes, praising the songwriting and lyricism." This reads as if the songwriting and lyricism of the voice notes were praised. Is that what is intended?
  • Switched to pre-GAN wording.
  • "and entered the top 40 in some other countries." Maybe "some" → 'several'?
  • "Adele began working on her fourth studio album by 2018. She filed for divorce from her husband". It seems odd that she was working on the album more than a year before the event which inspired it.
  • "mended her estranged relationship with her father" reads a little oddly and I am unsure it is grammatical. 'improved her relationship with her estranged father' or similar may work better.
  • This sentence has already passed a few FACs and seems to pass my grammar checker as well. A similar sentence is cited as an example of correct usage of the word on Collins: "People who have conflicted or estranged relationships generally do worse after a bereavement."
  • "The years following the divorce plagued her" doesn't work. Plague in this context means, according to Wiktionary "To harass, pester or annoy someone persistently or incessantly." A period of time cannot harass etc.
  • According to Oxford dictionary, plague in its verb form can mean "to cause pain or trouble to somebody/something over a period of time". I've reframed the sentence along your suggestion, though.
I don't think I made a suggestion, but I like the change - it is now tied to something specific.
  • "These inspired her return to the studio". Perhaps you could say prior to this that she had ceased studio recording. And, if known, state when and why.
  • Hmm, I was able to locate some stuff about her announcing she will never tour again in 2017 but nothing about ceasing recording. I think "return" here just means she went back to the studio for a new record cycle, not necessarily that it was after a long break.
  • "Adele released "Easy on Me" as the lead single from the album, entitled 30, on 14 October 2021." Why is this here, rather than the latter part of the last paragraph in this section, with the other details on release order and dates?
  • "Adele co-wrote "My Little Love" with its producer, Greg Kurstin". This jars a little, and thinking about it, probably because you are jumping chronologically. When they co-wrote the song, it was not known that Kurstin would produce it. Suggest deleting "its producer" - which also resolves issue of "producer" and "produced" in the same sentence. Kurstin's role as producer is already covered in the next section.
  • "which Annabel Nugent of The Independent described as "smoke pluming from a lit cigarette perched on an ashtray"." I doubt that she did. Perhaps "described as" → 'likened to' or similar.
  • "and thought it marked an emotional progression for Adele." As above. ('and considered it even more emotionally wrought that Adele's previous work'?)
  • Suggest "spectate" → 'see'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good. I'll give it another read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2
  • Any reason why Adele is described as English instead of British?
Do you mean on Wikipedia biographies?
? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gog! I mean Wikipedia biographies! As in the wording stably in place on her biography over the past five years (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018). Would you like me to change this? It would get swiftly reverted without there being some sort of consensus behind it. <3 Also, I really apologize for the joke above. I don't think you liked it.NØ 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The joke was great. It gave me a belly laugh.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. What happens in one, or even many, Wikipedia articles sets no precedent for what should happen in any other. I was just asking an open question and was anticipating a policy based response. As I didn't get one I looked it up myself. MOS:NATIONALITY says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident". I think it is clear that it is looking for the country of which the subject is a citizen or national and one cannot, since 1707, be a citizen or national of England. However, the addition of "region" confuses the issue, as, to a lesser extent, does England being a country, albeit not a sovereign one; I think this adds enough uncertainty for me to let it go, in spite of my personal feeling that it does not comply with the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share your willingness to have the MoS-based wording in the article. However, I would also like the same correct wording reflected on other articles like Adele, Ed Sheeran, or Amy Winehouse and hence talk pages of those will be the avenue to achieve the change more broadly.--NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention the son's age at first mention of him?
  • "She recalled that creating it cleared up some of the chaos that was obstructing her ability to express her feelings." perhaps '... emotional chaos that was ...'?
  • "Some praised the lyrics". You then go on to only mention positive opinions. Were any less fulsome?
  • There were no negative reviews about the lyrics. Removed the "some" wording.
  • "The song received a Gold certification in Brazil." Why the upper-case G?
I capitalize the names of these award titles like I would with any other awards like "Grammy Award", "Video of the Year", etc. The official award titles have them in caps and it makes sense imo since "gold" here is not referring to the metal.--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "official award titles" are proper nouns and so should be capitalised. I am not at all sure that a "certification" is an award or otherwise deserving of upper-case initials. (Eg, if I were a certified MMA instructor, I would not say that I had 'received Instructor certification' with an upper-case I.) What is the full "official award title" for Brazilian gold certification?
Here's the formal discussion about this a few years ago which ended in a sort-of consensus to leave it up to individual editors but encouraged capitalizing when the certification is referring to a single country (Brazil in this instance) and not needing to do it in a sentence combining certifications from several countries, e.g. "the album was certified gold in five countries." I, of course, have capitalized them on all song articles I have worked on and have a preference for that for the sake of consistency.--NØ 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing that consensus: I see two against capitalisation, one for and two, including you, offering no opinion on this specific issue. Similarly the 2007 discussion you refer to, which only attracted two contributors, ends with "if you want to say "They received an RIAA Gold plaque" then fine, but normally lower case would be fine". Is there an official title in Brazil that goes along with such certification? Is the gold award certification trademarked? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gold is not trademarked by Promusicae as far as I can tell. They refer to the certification as "Oro" (capitalized) in Portuguese on their website. Even if you are not satisfied with that discussion, I would say there is a soft consensus the caps usage is okay from all of my own song FAs. Taking Blank Space as an example (admittedly, the other 1989 FAs don't seem to follow this), "multi-platinum" is lowercased when referring to multiple countries grouped together: "It received multi-platinum certifications", then capitalized when referring to individual countries: "Australia (8× Platinum), Canada (4× Platinum), New Zealand (4× Platinum), and the UK (2× Platinum)". You're welcome to start a new discussion about this but said discussion would fall out of the scope of this particular FAC considering there are 10+ other FAs utilizing the caps. Best, NØ 14:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three hours after posting this, you changed your mind and made the change. Which is fine, you are allowed to change your mind. You are even allowed to change the article just to get an irritating reviewer off your back. But could you just confirm that going forward you are committed to this version of the article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On this article, sure.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thankss!--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this is the longest review (mostly because of my replies). I would prefer to collapse my reply about the certification titles too after you agree Take 2 has been satisfactorily addressed.---NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Ok. Re take 2, I would prefer you didn't. The closing coordinator may not be as generous as me around MOS:NATIONALITY, so I would like it to be readily see it so they are aware they need to come to a judgement on it. Similarly I would prefer the discussion around G/gold to be easy to spot for the reviewer and for anyone subsequently referring to this discussion. Just one issue above I would like a little more clarity on before supporting. I'm sorry if this FAC has seemed unusually gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the acknowledgement in that last sentence. Descending into lengthy discussions about larger MoS issues affecting several different articles on an FAC about an extremely short article has been unexpected, to say the least. I'll leave take 2 unhatted.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-check upon request and cautioning that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. Some dates are in parentheses and others aren't. I don't get the impression Otherwise it seems like the sources are formatted consistently. Everything I see appears to be sourced to typical pop-culture sources that I've seen on other FACses on these topics - magazines, news, typically prominent, from what seem to be professional writers. Note my caveat that I am not deeply familiar with any of them. Is Dutch Single Top 100 an official chart or anything? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this one and all of the other source reviews you do, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Similarly to the Mckenna Grace article, dates format outside the parentheses when author names are not available. Unfortunately, this is not something I can fix unless the authors for those articles become known. The Dutch Single Top 100 is indeed an official chart recommended by WP:GOODCHARTS.--NØ 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass, then, with the caveat about source unfamiliarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotcheck
  • 3 I don't see anything about her mending the relationship with her father?
  • "Their relationship had long been strained. [...] Adele did go to see Evans before he died. 'I know he loved me, and we actually got our peace before he died.'"
  • 4 OK.
  • 16 Where is "sentimental"?
  • I have now successfully learned that "emotional" can not be swapped out for "sentimental".
  • 21 OK
  • 24 OK
  • 25 OK, but is "low register" a subjective or objective claim?
  • Musical register is a technical term so objective. If another journalist said she was singing in a high register they would be objectively wrong.
  • 27 Quote's not in the article.
  • It is but there are also lyrics in a bracket. Try a search for: "Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child (“Mummy’s been having a lot of big feelings lately”) or blubbering into her phone during bouts of insecurity"
  • 30 OK
  • 33 OK
  • 34 Can I have a quote that supports the sentence?
  • "This being an Adele track, Mummy’s a bit blue. 'I don’t really know what I’m doing,' she sighs, to which her nine-year-old squeakily replies: 'At all?'" sort of supports that she feels confused and lost, but the Entertainment Weekly source also cited right after this sentence definitely backs up the whole sentence.
  • 40 Can't find the "astonishingly moving" part.
  • Switched it out for direct quote "incredibly touching" now
  • 44 OK
  • 46 OK
  • 48 OK
  • 49 OK
  • 52 OK
  • 55 OK
  • 57 OK
  • 58 OK
  • 59 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for investing the time for a spotcheck.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

This review has been stable for a while so I had a look with a view to promote but I'm a little curious about some of the language, particularly something like the song being "complimented" for its "sentimentality". First off, unless there's an EngVar thing, I'd expect a person to be complimented, not a thing; secondly, I'm used to sentimentality being viewed as more pejorative than praise (or perhaps I'm just not that into pop music). Normally I'd recuse and review myself but I'm doing that on a couple of other articles so I wonder if I could take Jo-Jo up on the offer of a spotcheck, and after that call on Mike Christie for a review, mainly of the Reception section as that's what sparked my comment. MaranoFan, please don't make any changes based simply on what I've said here, it's really a drive-by -- let's see Jo-Jo's and Mike's takes before anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Just to be clear, "complimented" was one of only five suggestions made at the GAN, that I probably incorporated on a whim. It should not be indicative of any larger problem with the article. The GA reviewer also did spotchecks in case you find that relevant.--NØ 19:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to pick up the review; I have a house guest at the moment so it might be three or four days till I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks all, I will aim to take another look at this in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I can nominate another one right?--NØ 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I starting going through again last night and still have concerns that might impact future noms as well as this one -- pls be patient. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite shocked. The rest of the sections are very recently written and ironclad in my opinion. Curious for you to outline the issues.--NØ 12:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

Just looking at the reception section.

  • "Critics complimented "My Little Love" as one of the most sentimental songs on 30": the sources don't use "sentimental" -- it appears you're using it as a synonym for "emotional", to avoid close paraphrasing concerns. The source phrases appear to be "undoubtedly the record's hardest gut-punch", "one of the most emotional songs on her new album", and one of the two songs described as "its most emotionally wrenching material". I don't think "sentimental" reflects these accurately.
  • "considered it even more emotionally wrought than Adele's previous work". This is an odd use of "wrought"; the word's only common figurative use is in the phrase "wrought up", meaning "in an anxious and upset state". The sources have "Adele takes her signature brand of musical heartache to new depths", "Adele gets vulnerable like never before", "Adele has returned with 30, taking bigger risks and revealing enough hard truths to make this her most powerful album yet" (though this is about the album, not this song in particular), and "The song is profoundly vulnerable, and hearing Adele reassure her son that she loves him conveys a truer sense of sadness than any of her past songs about heartbreak." I think vulnerability is the common thread here, rather than a more generic word such as "emotional".
  • The rest of the paragraph covers individual comments by reviewers about the emotions and honesty of the song. I think this paragraph (and the whole section, looking further down) has the "A said B" problem. I think you and I have talked about this before in reviews, and if I recall correctly you disagree, but I think keeping the full names of both the journalists and source publications in every case, rather than relegating them to the footnotes, makes it very difficult to write engaging prose. Also, why is Lipshutz's comment here? The source has "never been bolder in her song construction"; I don't understand what he means by that, and rephrasing it as "most intrepid song construction ever" is probably not far enough from the original. I think it's one of those vague phrases that's hard to rephrase because of the vagueness. Similarly, why is Mullin's comment in this paragraph? That comment is about thematic evolution, not emotion and vulnerability.
  • I haven't looked at the sources for the second and third paragraphs in as much detail, so I have no comments about the citations to individual reviewers, but the "A said B" problem is definitely there too.

The construction of the section seems sensible to me -- comments about the level of emotion, then the voice notes, then the lyrics. I think if some reviewer and source names were trimmed, and some opinions combined via paraphrase and summarization, it would be shorter, more engaging, and smoother. I am not going to oppose as I have not read the whole article, but I would not be able to support with this section in this form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how is this my first time realizing you wrote WP:CRS. Highly impressive. @Ian Rose and Mike Christie: I have now significantly reworked the article / section in line with MC's comments. The opinions expressed in paragraph 3 are too diverse to be merged in any meaningful way but done on the others. Cheers.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I sometimes think that essay is the most influential thing I've written on Wikipedia; it's nice to see other people refer to it.

Here are two options for improvement. I wrote the first set of notes and then realized it's not what I think is the best choice, so I wrote additional notes. I think if you follow these first suggestions it would help, but what I'd do in your shoes is take the second option.

Option 1

  • The changes are a big improvement but there are a couple of vocabulary choices I'd like to suggest changing. Looking at the sources I think what's happening is that you're making word choice changes to avoid close paraphrasing. It's usually better to restructure to avoid having to do that.
    • I think you could cut "immensely" in the first paragraph -- we don't need an adverb there.
    • How about "love for" instead of "adulation to"? "Adulation" has connotations we don't want here.
    • "imperative addition" -- this is an example of what happens when you try to change words to avoid paraphrasing problems. The source has "isn't a necessary addition to the record"; you have "didn't form an imperative addition to 30". The CLOP example talks about this sort of paraphrase. How about giving the McCormick quote first, and then adding Kaplan's take: "...during bouts of insecurity', and Consequence's Ilana Kaplan agreed that they weren't needed, though they gave an insight into Adele's state of mind."
  • Suggest combining Mapes' and Swann's reviews with "and", moving Petridis before or after them instead of between. They're two very short comments and it would vary the rhythm a bit.
  • I see similarities between the first paragraph and the positive comments in the third paragraph from Sanchez, Murray, and Piatkowski. (In fact Piatkowski's review comments aren't really praise at all.)

Option 2. Here's an alternative to the above comments. I think it would be better to quote a bit less. I can see the attraction of some of the quotes but I think our job in a reception section is to summarize and identify common threads in the review. The topic sentences for the paragraph do that to some degree, and you've also done it in the middle of the paragraphs, but I think more could be done. The third paragraph is almost half quotes, for example, and the second paragraph is about 40% quotes. There's no target number, but given that most of the remaining text is names of reviewers or publications that seems like too much to me. I think the key points from the sources are:

  • naked, honest song-writing -- perhaps excessively so but some found it touching
  • voice notes and closing voicemail -- tells us about Adele's state of mind but some reviewers thought it was excessive
  • another of her trademark heartbreak songs, and an evolution of her previous work
  • praised for creativity, skill, honesty
  • Adele's loneliness and vulnerability

I think if we built a couple of paragraphs that assembled these points into a summary of what reviewers thought, without any quotes at all, then quotes could be re-added for illustration. I think that would give the reader a more natural flow that didn't feel like a list of bullet point quotes. (There are a couple of bits of information such as the Rolling Stone ranking that would have to go in a separate paragraph.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for boiling it down like that. This has been incredibly helpful. I've incorporated both, options 1 and 2, and arrived at a Critical reception section that should hopefully be acceptable. Please feel free to copyedit. Cheers, NØ 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a big improvement. I joined two short and somewhat related paragraphs but otherwise didn't touch the prose. Ian, I'm not going to register a full support on prose as I haven't reviewed the rest of the article but I think this section is now fine. Personally I'd trim some of the reviewer and publication names, but I know not every editor likes that approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review. Marano, Jo-Jo's and Mike's comments and your willingness to take those on board have eliminated some of the initial concerns I had re. the language, but I think there's still a fair bit of room for improvement to get to FA standard. I see issues re. expression, repetition, and overuse of quotes:

  • Critics praised the raw and honest songwriting of "My Little Love" and found it touching. -- "and found it touching" seems tacked on, how about Critics praised "My Little Love" as raw, honest and touching.?
  • Critics thought the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" conveyed Adele's state of mind but was excessive. -- Aside from another paragraph starting with "Critics", this is cited to only two sources, so I'd suggest "Some reviewers" is more appropriate. Further, you repeat "Adele's state of mind" in a quote later. Why not just say Some reviewers felt the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" was excessive." as that appears to be common to both sources?
  • The quote from McCormick could use some trimming: instead of wrote that "the weepy voice notes may be a bit too much. Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child..., consider reducing to wondered "whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child...
  • Reviewers also commented on Adele's expression of loneliness and vulnerability in the closing voicemail, which they thought was uncomfortable to listen. -- Do you mean "uncomfortable to listed to"? I think you could lose that last bit entirely and finish the sentence on "voicemail".
  • ...and more vulnerable than Adele's previous work -- I don't think a work itself can be vulnerable, but you could say it displayed more vulnerability on Adelle's part...
  • They thought it was another one of her trademark heartbreak songs which evolved from her previous work. -- You have stuff on heartbreak songs and her previous work later, you can lose this sentence entirely to avoid the repetition.

I'd have to lean oppose as it reads now, but I can see myself changing that if the above suggestions are acted upon, or if you can convince me it reads better as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All swiftly acted upon. Thanks for helping to polish the prose more. Did this on mobile because I am outside so apologies for any typos. Will correct any when I get home.—NØ 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ian Rose. I think you can go through it now. While initially rewriting this section, I was trying to match the exact wording of Mike's bullet points above. I think all of your suggestions are improvements, and I have incorporated them. Always here to take care of anything else. Cheers, NØ 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've also now ran this through repetition-detector.com and it only detects Adele and the song's name as repetition. I believe the Background and Commercial performance sections are free of repetition and mostly free of quotes. In the Composition section, I think losing Aguirre and Chinen's quotes would be detrimental as the adjectives they used seem integral to conveying the comparisons with Gaye and for integrity; other quotes are too small to seem a problem. Reception has already been extensively covered by you and Mike. To my interpretation, all actionable commentary regarding this oppose vote is now exhausted.--NØ 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks MF, I expect I'll drop the oppose but let me have another read and perhaps finetune -- I had noticed some of the wording in the lead was identical to parts of the reception section but was going to leave that till reception was attended to; you might have also addressed that now in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I felt the lead and reception could still stand a few tweaks and trims but happy to discuss if it seems too much. Don't have time now to go through in further detail and perhaps support, but striking the oppose. For future reference, I really think it's worth trying PR for music (or other pop culture) articles, given the challenge of creating balanced yet engaging content -- the more eyes before FAC the better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for coordinators

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) 27 December 2023 [20].

Teloschistaceae

Nominator(s): Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dive into the colourful world of the Teloschistaceae, the 3rd-largest family of lichen-forming fungi with about 1000 species and more than 100 genera. I think the article is an up-to-date summary – a curated and comprehensive compendium – of the relevant literature space, and, imho, the best single source of information about this topic either online or in print. Please read and comment, and look at the many pictures of attractive orange and yellow lichens! Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • There is a huge amount of whitespace in the Description section
  • Suggest adding alt text
I've reduced the cladogram size slightly, so that should help a little, but am open to other suggestions (whitespace doesn't show up me for unless I drag the window width to be quite large). I could put it in a show/hide template, but perhaps this sort of usage is discouraged? Have corrected the licensing on that image. I'll add alt texts, but the day is coming soon when multi-modal language modelling with image integration is built into browsers and will be able to describe images to viewers in any way they want. Thanks for the image review. Esculenta (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta:, could you move the cladogram up a bit in the article? It would still be in the "Systematics" section of the article, which seems appropriate. MeegsC (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea – done. It now starts where the bulleted summaries of the subfamilies are given, which is a logical placement. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fritz

  • "its their frequent anthraquinone content"
  • "the thallus (the main body of the lichen) is either leaf-like (foliose), bushy or shrub-like (fruticose) to crust-like" this clause is a little confusing to me. Is the thallus leaf-like, bushy, or shrub-like... to crust-like? I'm having a hard time visualizing the different options. Additionally, is there a reason the technical term for crust-like is not given in the same manner as foliose and fruticose?
  • "Teloschistaceae lichens" is there mention of the non-lichens in the lead? I noticed the first sentence says "mostly lichen-forming fungi" but then I didn't see further elaboration on the non-lichens
  • My next question would then be: does the second paragraph refer to all members of the family, or only the "Teloschistaceae lichens"?
  • I think the link for "thalline margins" is broken. Could that just be written "edges of the thallus"?
  • "Several dozen new genera have been added" since 2013? or earlier?
  • "as ongoing molecular studies provide clearer insights into the phylogenetic relationships amongst taxa within this family" is a very dense clause to have in the lead. I think a layperson may have some difficulty here.
  • "Three Teloschistaceae species have been assessed for the global IUCN Red List." This seems very abrupt. I think elaboration on a few threats to their conservation, or other notes on their ecology, may be warranted here.
  • "that shared the typical polar-diblastic spores / now recognised as the family Teloschistaceae" I would split this into two sentences, or cut the latter part
  • "polarilocular or 4-locule ascospores" come again?
  • To what to télos (ends) and -schistós (split) refer? Laying it out for a dummy like me would be nice, even just a brief "referring to the split ends of the lichen in the family" or something of that ilk
  • "independent molecular studies" I only see a single study cited here
  • "which was informally introduced" what does this mean? Was it invalidly published or not published at all?
  • "Despite these results, Kondratyuk and colleagues continue to use these subfamilies" clarify which subfamilies, I thought it were referring to the three original ones until I got to the end of the paragraph
  • I think that the Molecular phylogenetics section could use some work. I would suggest moving the third paragraph to the front. It gives an overview of why phylogenetics are necessary. I think the quote by Gaya and colleagues in P4 is overly long. Perhaps it could be moved to a quotebox, or just rephrased in more simple terms. I also don't see the relevance of much of P2 - I'm honestly having difficulty telling what exactly it's saying.
  • The link for "umbilical" is also not working for me
  • This one works for me; other readers please let me know if this is a common problem. Esculenta (talk)
  • "biatorine or lecideine forms may manifest" what does it mean to manifest? Does that mean develop in a single specimen, or arise evolutionarily within a clade, or something else?
  • "Asexual reproduction within this family, results in the formation of pycnidial conidiomata that yield clear, either bacillar (rod-shaped) to bifusiform (double-spindle-shaped) conidia" some construction/comma issues here
  • This is my personal taste, but as a reader I would prefer if all the lichen-jargon were explained within this description section. I understand I can click the links to find out what each term means, but that leads to an unpleasant and jarring reading experience. A few words that give me a rough understanding of what the hell "paraplectenchymatous" means would be most welcome
  • Is there anything "7-chlorocatenarin" could link to?
  • There are several more terms (like Sedifolia-gray) that have broken links to the glossary. It may be an issue throughout the article, and is one more reason it is good to have brief explanations of in-line text
  • Interestingly, these lichengloss links with a hyphen don't work for me either, and I have no idea why not; the anchors on the glossary page seem to be constructed correctly ... will investigate. For now added a couple more words to give these compounds more context. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessary at all, but a table for the list of genera may improve readability and reduce white space
  • Do any species prey upon Teloschistaceae? I know it was mentioned earlier that some of the chemicals deter herbivory; I'd be interested to know if there are herbivores that are not deterred by that, or if there are species that lack pigments and are consumed more readily.
  • For lichens, this kind of information is generally dealt with in genus and species articles, but since you asked, I was able to pull some tidbits of info applicable to the entire family and made a "Species interactions" subsection for it to reside. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the species on the Red Lists threatened? Are there any broad threats to lichens in the family?

That's all I have for now, thank you for the excellent article; it is a wonderful overview! Fritzmann (message me) 15:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Great to see this here. I spotted the type species myself just two months ago while hiking.

  • reaction of the ascus tip's external layer to iodine – the ascus being the spore-producing structure. – Reads awkward. Maybe "reaction of the ascus, the spore-producing structure, to iodine"? In addition of being less awkward, this is now more simplified, but I would recommend such simplification at least for the lead.
  • up to more than 1000 – we can't have "more than" and "up to" at the same time, this is contradictory.
  • were largely ignored by later contemporaries, – contradictory as well: are they contemporaries, or did they live later?
  • I think that terms in figure captions should be linked.
  • Also, terms that were already linked in the lead should be linked (and preferably explained) in the main body again (according to WP:MOS).
  • ascospores – link terms always at first mention
  • The link "amyloid" to the glossary is unsatisfactory, as the glossary entry does not make sense to me. Why not link to the main article?
  • presence of a strongly amyloid cap-like zone at the tip of the ascus – We need to do more to get the general reader on board, I think. Maybe replace "amyloid" with an explanation, or add such explanation in a bracket?
  • verified the presence of a special ascus type featuring an amyloid outer layer without visible apical structures, and with an irregular dehiscence; she named this the Teloschistes-type – my perspective here is that of a lay person. I honestly think that I am unable to learn much from this sentence. In this context (it is the history section!), it seems to be way too much detail. And even when I follow the links, I still can't really understand the essence, because for this it is not detailed enough. E.g., "irregular dehiscence", irregular in what way? The article dehiscence does not explain what "irregular" means in this context, too. Maybe it would be possible to reduce the detail overall, and focus on getting the main points across?
  • until the molecular era – I was not entirely sure what the molecular era is here. Link to molecular phylogenetics, if this hits your point?
  • including 8 genera, 48 new species – why are only the species "new", but not the genera?
  • Technically some of the genera were "resurrected", i.e. circumscribed a long time ago, forgotten, and then revived due to molecular work that reveals that the name of the old genus is the best placement. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • identifying it as an "artifactual taxon" with "chimeric" data origins – can we translate this to common language? Maybe it could simply be deleted.
  • A subsequent review revealed it to be – "subsequent" to what? This is already the second sentence about a paper that is "subsequent" to the former.
  • Although evidence undermines the phylogenetic legitimacy of these two subfamilies, Kondratyuk's group persists in recognizing them, attributing nine genera to Brownlielloideae and two to Ikaerioideae.[36] – Are we too close to WP:Synth here? This is a sentence that calls for a secondary source, but you only cite the group that you are criticizing, so it reads like original criticism published in Wikipedia, which should not be.
  • used by Ulf Arup and colleagues in their 2013 publication, – I personally consider this excessive detail
  • diverse secondary chemistry – what does that mean?
  • This subfamily was first informally proposed (without a valid diagnosis) – But this seems to apply to the other subfamilies as well, yet you only mention it in this one. Why?
  • Caloplacoideae contains mostly crustose species, and collectively has a wide distribution – what does the "collectively" add here? If you want to refer to the individual species, you should write "which collectively have", but that seems just redundant to me.
  • The widespread application of molecular techniques to the Teloschistaceae has illuminated the variability of many morphological and anatomical characters, demonstrating their unreliability as evolutionary markers.[51] With the advancements in molecular techniques, differentiation of species once considered phenotypically indistinguishable became clearer, as evidenced by the semi-cryptic species group containing the closely named Caloplaca micromarina, C. micromontana, and C. microstepposa.[52] – I think this has similar problems to those I mentioned above:
    • What's the difference between morphological and anatomical characters? Aren't these synonyms?
    • If characters are "variable" in the family (i.e., different from species to species), that does not necessarily mean that they do not carry phylogenetic signal. So I am not sure what you mean.
    • "as evidenced by" – but you do not provide any evidence, you just list three species. This does not help, you could just remove this part.
  • Despite the Teloschistaceae's prominence in GenBank with over 6400 DNA sequences, early molecular studies often faced limitations due to insufficient sampling of representative species. – the relationship in time is not clear. Did the early studies had access to those 644 DNA sequences? If those sequences were added much later, the "despite" seems wrong because that would be irrelevant to those early studies.
  • Historically, genera within Teloschistaceae were distinguished based on attributes like growth form, cortical layer nature, rhizine presence, or spore type. – That sentence would make sense at the beginning of the section.
  • these taxonomic distinctions such as those – "these" bits "such as those"
  • especially given the reliance on previously unreliable characters – So they are no longer unreliable? If they are now reliable, why does this "emphazise" the need for molecular studies?
  • You have a lot of "emphazise", "highlighting", "revealed", "elucidated", "illuminated". Some of these sound like MOS:PEACOCK to me.
  • Given the myriad taxonomic changes – "many", not "myriad". No colloquial speech.
  • In general, I think the writing still needs a lot of work, it is not quite there yet. I recommend to try to
    • reduce the amount of detail that is not precisely to the point/not needed to understand the key points;
    • formulate more concisely without fluff;
    • translate complicated sentences into plain language text that is easier to understand;
    • and add more context information that the reader might need to understand the main points.

Hope this helps so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Corrections are looking good! I continue with the remainder of the article below:
  • anthraquinone – terms should be linked at first mention in the main text (independently from the lead).
  • from the thin, encrusting (crustose) to leaf-like (foliose), or even bushy (fruticose) formations. – "the" is too much; I would maybe also remove the comma behind (foliose).
  • apotheciate – wikilink should be extended to the whole word (using the pipe: |).
  • Their reproductive structures, or ascomata, are usually brightly coloured. – are you now talking about the green algae or the fungi? This is not clear.
  • In most species, apotheciate ascomata have a lecanorine form, in which the apothecial disc is surrounded by a pale rim of tissue known as a thalline margin. Fewer Teloschistaceae species have biatorine or lecideine forms, in which the apothecial disc lacks a thalline margin.[53][1] Reproductive propagules, such as isidia and soredia, can be found in select species. – Any chance to make this more accessible? Maybe some technical terms can be avoided, and others explained?
  • I have clarified what "apotheciate" means, but I think the explanatory text following the commas adequately explain the respective technical terms. Perhaps it might be a good idea to add a small image of an apothecia to make it easier for the reader to envision the "disc" and "margin" that is referred to? I'll see what I can find. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've added an image that I hope will help the reader better understand the terms apothecia, lecanorine, and thalline margins. Esculenta (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • internal apical apparatus – what is that?
  • J+ layer – maybe this technical term can be avoided by replacing it with your explanation that you provided in the bracket?
  • Would prefer to keep this technical term, as it appears in several of the formal descriptions of the family; I've rearranged the text so the explanation is closer and no longer parenthetical. Esculenta (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The translucent (hyaline) ascospores – Not sure if it makes sense to provide technical terms in a bracket (it only makes sense the other way around). Maybe remove the "hyaline" and just wikilink the word "translucent" accordingly?
  • Despite the polarilocular nature of ascospores suggesting Teloschistaceae lineage, these spores are often not overtly distinctive. – I do not really understand this sentence, neither do I understand what it adds that is not stated by the sentence that follows.
  • pycnidia-type conidiomata, producing clear conidia – again, give the reader some idea what this means?
  • loosely paraplectenchymatous structure – again, impossible to understand the sentence without understanding this term; I suggest to add an inline explanation if possible.
  • OK I see that some terms are already explained, but here it was not clear to me that these are explanations (you cannot know that if you do not understand what it means). I suggest to use the same format for explanations throughout the article (e.g., use "meaning that", or put them in brackets, as you do elsewhere in the article) to mark them clearly as explanations rather than additional information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research on Teloschistaceae photobionts has shown that all studied foliose (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and fruticose (Teloschistes) types were affiliated with specific Trebouxia clades. This indicates a degree of specificity at the genus level, where only certain subclades of the Trebouxia clade are seen as suitable partners. This specificity, however, can vary based on the habitat; in extreme climates, lichens might be associated with a broader range of photobionts. – I had to read this several times, I think clarity could be improved. With "types", you mean genera? Who "sees" the subclades as suitable partners, the researchers? Does that mean it is an opinion rather than a solid observation? And do you mean that particular lichen taxa that live in extreme climates show a broader range of photobionts, or that photobionts within a taxon vary according to habitat?
  • I hope this revision makes it clearer: "Studies of photobionts in the Teloschistaceae, including foliose genera (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and a fruticose genus (Teloschistes), reveal a consistent association with specific Trebouxia clades. This finding suggests a genus-level specificity, with only select Trebouxia subclades forming symbiotic relationships. However, this specificity is not absolute and may vary with habitat: lichens in extreme climates have been observed to associate with a broader range of photobionts." Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main group of lichen products – What does "main" mean here? Does this refer to the quantity of the produced substance?
  • Evolutionary innovations in secondary metabolite production allowed the family to broaden its geographical range and transition from shaded, plant-based habitats to sun-exposed, arid environments. The production of protective chemicals is thought to be a direct contributor to the evolutionary success of the familial lineage – The second sentence kind of repeats what the first sentence was saying. You also use both "secondary metabolite" and "protective chemical", which seems to refer to the same thing here (the anthraquinones). This can be confusing, as it may be not evident that "protective chemical" refers to the substances previously mentioned.
  • recovered at a looted Late Holocene aboriginal cairn burial site in South America. – Can we be more specific than "South America"?
  • Caloplaca (in the broad sense) – not even the article on Caloplaca gives a hint what this "broad sense" could be. Can this be simplified?
  • Collectively, the family has a cosmopolitan distribution, – replace with "worldwide distribution" to avoid an unnecessary technical term?
  • In general, the family is moderately to strongly nitrophilous. This suggests a preference of many of its species for habitats that are rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate. – Why not simply "Many species of the family are moderately to strongly nitrophilous, meaning that they prefer habitats rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate"? You are using "suggests", but actually what follows is not a scientific interpretation but an explanation of the term "nitrophilous"?
  • Sun-adapted lichens, such as the Teloschistaceae, have an enhanced ability to upregulate the levels at which they fix carbon from the atmosphere and absorb excess nitrogen. – I don't really understand; what has carbon fixation to do with nitrogen absorption?
  • There are several Teloschistaceae genera that contain lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) species. These originate from subfamily Caloplacoideae: Caloplaca (26 spp.), Gyalolechia (1 sp.), Variospora (1 sp.); from subfamily Teloschistoideae: Catenarina (1 sp.), Sirenophila 1; and from subfamily Xanthorioideae: Flavoplaca (4 spp.), Pachypeltis (1 sp.), and Shackletonia (3 spp.). – I am not sure why it is important to list the genera that contain lichen-dwelling species. You are not doing this for, say, lichen that grow on soil. Are these lichen-dwelling species especially relevant?
  • I've made it more explicit in the lead and in the article that these 40-odd members of the family are fungi (i.e., not lichenised) and are therefore somewhat unusual in a family of predominantly lichenised members (and hence deserve to be highlighted). Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, there is a relatively low diversity of crustose Teloschistaceae in Central Europe. – "Conversely" does not make sense to me here. It would make sense if you would state they are rare in the tropics (as opposed to the polar regions).
  • occur in primarily in sunlit locations – excessive "in"
  • Teloschistaceae species are known to be host to many lichenicolous fungi, with certain fungi like Cercidospora caudata and Stigmidium cerinae displaying a broad range of hosts within this family. Most of these parasitic fungi show a preference for specific Teloschistaceae species or genus. –
  • Is this the same as the lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) lichen discussed earlier, but this time other species growing on Teloschistaceae rather than wise versa? If so, it could have been mentioned earlier that these are parasitic and not sympatric.
  • The first sentence is a bit awkward, especially the use of "displaying". Do they "display" the hosts? Maybe simply "have" is a better choice.
  • Would it be better to combine the "displaying a broad range of hosts within this family" with the second sentence instead, which is about the same topic?
  • late Cretaceous period, – "Late Cretaceous period" (upper case "L")
  • These parasitic fungi seem to be interesting, but as a non-expert, I wonder if these are microscopic, or can be observed by the naked eye? If the latter, is there a photograph that can be shown?
  • Caloplaca pseudopoliotera and C. cupulifera are two crustose species implicated in the slow degradation of the Konark Sun Temple in India. – "Involved" instead of "implicated"? Or even "responsible"?
  • Economic significance – This section is not really about economic significance, but rather about conservation of cultural objects and buildings (which can have economic significance but I think the point here is rather cultural heritage).
  • In Europe during the early modern era, it was boiled in milk to alleviate jaundice – a treatment shared with Polycauliona candelaria – and employed for diarrhea, dysentery, stopping bleeding, as a malaria remedy in lieu of quinine, and for treating hepatitis. – What does "a treatment shared with" means here? Are both used in combination to make this medicine?
  • In Traditional Chinese medicine the lichen has been used as an antibacterial. – You use past tense, but are you sure these are not in use anymore?
  • What is a pollutant tolerance biomonitor? If the lichen can cope with high levels of pollution, it cannot monitor the presence of these pollutants, or can it?
  • and potential invasive species intrusions. – Do you really mean that invasive species are potentially present, or do you mean that they have a potential impact on the lichen?
  • and the presence of invasive species like goats and cows altering the habitat – really invasive species, or rather livestock?

Comments from JM

Fantastic to see this here. Gone are the days of multiple fungal candidates at FAC simultaneously!

  • I don't personally mind it, but I could see someone saying that the second and third sentences of the lead are a bit specialist for so early in the article.
  • "Current" estimates will quickly get out of date; do you have a year for the estimates?
  • Nothing in the lead about uses to humans, cultural significance, etc.
  • I assume Mantissa Plantarum II is the same as Mantissa Plantarum Altera? I've created a redirect; if I'm wrong, please tell me!
  • Is "perforation" jargon?
  • Depends if one knows what "perforate" means or not! It's now a "small hole". 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "later subsequent researchers" Redundancy
  • There's a bit of inconsistency in the use of the Oxford comma. It's fine to use it or not use it, but aim to be consistent.
  • " in his popular Outline of the Ascomycota series" Popular in what way? Is that needed?
  • "Teloschistineae" We don't italicise suborders; or were you meaning to italicise it as a word, rather than as a suborder?
  • "Letrouitineae (containing Brigantiaeaceae and Letrouitiaceae) and its sister clade, Teloschistineae (containing Teloschistaceae and Megalosporaceae)" Are any of these worth linking? Or would they just be properly included within the article on Teloschistales? (If so, might be worth creating redirects and linking anyway.)
  • "Molecular phylogenetics has revolutionised our understanding of the Teloschistaceae" Slightly rhetorical; the use of the first person isn't very Wikipedia!
  • "researchers like Ester Gaya and colleagues in 2012 began" A bit vague/unclear. Maybe you could do something like "researchers (including Ester Gaya and colleagues, publishing in 2012) began". But that's not very elegant either. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at?
  • "Moreover, molecular evidence has helped to map the family's relationship within the class Lecanoromycetes. A 2018 study, for instance, identified the Megalosporaceae as the Teloschistaceae's closest relative.[52]" This feels like editorialising/synthesis. You're making a broad claim but only citing one primary study; or am I misunderstanding?
  • I don't think it's a particularly broad (or surprising) claim. We've suspected for a long time that the Teloschistaceae is part of the class Lecanoromycetes. Molecular phylogenetics is helping us to better understand the specific relationships of this family within the class. Molecular support for Megalosporaceae being the closest relative to Teloschistaceae pretty much conclusively demonstrates what had been long suspected. No dissenting voices (regarding this particular relationshp) have been in the literature published since then. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response to these discoveries, experts like Robert Lücking recommend extensive analysis" Ditto two above points.
  • " are important for" Again, editorialising/non-neutral?
  • Dash use inconsistent. Compare (eg) para one of description to para 2 of molecular phylogenetics to para 2 of description -- three different approaches! See WP:DASH.
  • You mention in the lead that it's not always Trebouxia; but this doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the article.
  • I've gone through the literature again to confirm, and simplified a longer story. Basically, some studies found Asterochloris (a similar green algal genus) to also associate with Teloschistaceae. However, these findings have not been subsequently confirmed, and to make things more complicated, Asterochloris was not validly published by its author, although some still continue to use the invalid species names, while others keep them in genus Trebouxia. But this doesn't need to be explained in this article. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some inconsistency on -ise vs ize. Either acceptable in British English, but be consistent.

Stopping there for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{lichengloss|Sedifolia-grey}} isn't linking where you want it to, because of gray/grey. Is there a way to make a 'redirect'?
  • "bark-dwelling habitats" They didn't have bark-dwelling habitats; they had bark habitats or bark-dwelling habits. (Maybe there are more elegant phrases you could use.)
  • "This section presents a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae, based largely on a 2021 fungal classification review and new reports published since then.[70] Each genus is paired with its taxonomic authority, denoting the first describers using standardised author abbreviations, the publication year, and the number of species." I worry this may be a self reference, which we should avoid -- but I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the guideline.
  • Not sure what to do with this, but I'm quite open to tweaking the wording to address your concern. This is a sort of standard format I've been using to introduce genera and/or species lists in family/genus articles, so I'd appreciate any specific ideas you might have for fixing this (and would use these fixes in other articles to avoid this in the future). Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporary estimates of the number" Again; this will quickly become outdated. You start the section with a reference to 2001; there are many adults alive who were born after that!
  • "Genera are organised here by subfamily:" Another self-reference, perhaps
  • "during the recent restructuring of the family" Another apt-to-become-dated claim; you could easily avoid this by referring to the specific restructuring.
  • "Andina Wilk, Pabijan & Lücking (2021) has been replaced with Wilketalia.[135]" I know this is slightly beyond the scope of this review, but if that's right, our article at Andina citrinoides, which you're linking to, needs updating!
  • Also well beyond the scope of this review, but it's a shame we don't have an article on bipolar species!
  • "in the previous decade" Again, this will quickly become outdated
  • I thought a picture of Tremella caloplacae might be an interesting addition; this article is freely licensed, meaning you could (if you wanted to -- no pressure) add this image.

I think this article's a real achievement. I wish I knew a bit more about lichens than I do, so I really enjoyed reading it. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn, 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) 17:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I haven't had a chance to have a second read-through, so I'm afraid I can't support right now; but I certainly don't oppose, and think this is a very praiseworthy article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images good. No copyright problems. Some are visually stunning. I have 'reviewed' the licenses of a couple of the images taken from Mushroom Observer, which should futureproof them in the unlikely event that they're taken down from the website for some reason. File:Caloplaca aurantia (Pers.) Hellb..jpg has no English language description, and the description on File:Athallia holocarpa Droker.jpg is odd. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your comments and suggestions (those uncommented by me above I've actioned). Thanks for reviewing, and for the extra image validation. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the condition that SchroCat's concerns are resolved. I agree with SC about your use of the Oxford comma. (I note you also have one colonizing, though you otherwise use -ise.) I also agree with SchroCat about your self-references in phrases like 'this section'. But I've just had another quick look through the article, and I think it's fantastic. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review spot-check upon request. Does the Acta Botanica Hungarica have issue numbers? I see that not all authors are linked, e.g Pier Luigi Nimis, Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo, Alexander Zahlbruckner, Sergey Kondratyuk isn't, but I didn't investigate closely who needs linking and who not - it's mostly a minor consistency issue. I see a few ancient sources, but the kind of information sourced to them doesn't seem likely to change over time. I notice that some sources are split by pagenumbers and others have lengthy page ranges given for the same ref, which is inconsistent. I've filed a report about 10.1017/S0269-915X(02)00206-9 being a broken DOI. It looks like otherwise most references are consistently formatted and nothing jumps out as unreliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta, any response to Jo-Jo's source review? FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acta Botanica Hungarica does have issue #'s, but they were all already in the article before the source review. I added more authorlinks, so everyone that has an article should be linked at least once in the citations. Broad page ranges usually means that the cited information is passim in the source, but I'm happy to narrow down page ranges if it is deemed necessary. I filed a report about the broken DOI at least 3 months ago. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to narrow down page ranges, some of them are quite large. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I split a few sources into sfn's to cite specific page #'s, added pointers to some specific pages in broader ranges, added an online archive link for one citation so reader can confirm fact with "find", and added "passim" to some sfn's that had blank page parameters. I think the remaining long page ranges don't need specific page numbers, because more or less the entirety of the cited source supports the stated fact. Esculenta (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I would use the entire page range rather than passim, myself. Clearer for non-Latin anoraks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with risking that the small fraction of a percent of readers who actually check any of the 3 citations where passim is used will either be familiar with it already, or have to experience a new word. I could find other examples of FAs where it is used, if precedent counts. Thanks for the source review! Esculenta (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think other FAs using passim instead of full page ranges probably means they need to have the passim replaced with a page range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best practice, which is what is usually followed at FAC, is to provide clarity by using the actual page ranges. And as with all of Wikipedia, precedent is rarely a useful guide. If it is, I think that the precedent of your previous FA is a good one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Looks pretty good. Looking over now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking.
  • Collectively, the family has a worldwide distribution,... - "collectively" is redundant here (in both places)

Ok, I am a neophyte on lichens - but I can't see any glaring errors..and the prose looks to have struck as best a balance as possible between accessibility and accuracy. So count this as a cautious support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sergey Kondratyuk and his colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)
Drive by comment: That is the reader-friendly version of "et al." ("and others"), replacing the list of co-authors of a paper (i.e., "Main author et al." -> "Main author and colleagues"). "And colleagues" is pretty standard and I used it in all my Wikipedia articles, I can't think about how to make this clearer without adding bloat. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may have, but I would have opposed if I had reviewed and seen it, and I do not consider it "standard". It may be used in scientific papers, but this is an encyclopaedia and there isn't a problem in showing the names on first mention, even if only in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is demonstrably standard in science articles in Wikipedia. Pick any of our dinosaur FAs, for example. You can almost always get the full list of authors when clicking on the inline reference at the end of the sentence. I never have seen an article that provides all those co-author names in-text (these can add-up very quickly), and I probably would oppose an article that does so, because it adds bloat that is barely useful for anybody (and footnotes would just be redundant to the ref-list, where this information is provided anyways). Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You think people should only get details by clicking on the inline reference? No. That's not right at all and it's a method that in my mind does readers a disservice.
Anyway, my comments are to the nominator: I'll let them answer and then decide whether to support, oppose or step away. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Jens explains, its a prose conversion of "et al." and is used on many science-related FACs and GAs. I did replace the first instance of "Arup and colleagues" with the spelled out colleague names, as their 2013 phylogenetics paper was so fundamental to the current structure of the family it makes sense to credit them the first time they're mentioned. I don't think it's needed for the other instances. Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to German lichenologist Robert Lücking": is his nationality of importance? Removing it would probably improve readability and not harm a reader's understanding of the topic (much like you do with "the mycologist Friedrich Wilhelm Zopf and the chemist Oswald Hesse")
  • You have "Xanthodactylon, Xanthopeltis and Xanthoria" but "yellow, orange, and red": probably best to take a spin through to ensure you are consistent in either using or not using the serial comma
  • "Arup and colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)
  • "This section presents": I think that somewhere in the MOS is something that says we don't use language similar to this and it’s certainly something that I've not seen in any successful FAs. The phrasing of this one sentence is enough for me not to support the article as it stands. What is wrong with something along the lines of "A 2021 fungal classification review, and subsequent published studies, produced a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae"?
  • I'm happy to change the wording to comply with WP:SELF, but haven't come up with a fully satisfying alternative. Unfortunately, your suggested phrasing seems a bit awkward (it seems to imply that the review and following studies produced the compilation, but I produced the compilation using these sources ... am I overthinking this?) Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, although I now have a slight concern that there may be OR involved in the compilation (based only on your phrasing here). I suspect it’s not really OR, but can you confirm and clarify please?
    Can you also clarify the source for this list? The text says there are “117 genera and 805 species” which does not tally with what is shown.
    Regardless of either of those points, the opening paragraph needs to be rewritten to avoid breaching SELF. I’ll finish the rest of the review later today. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I removed the first sentence (which seemed to be the major SELF violation) and shuffled some bits around. To clarify how this list of genera was made, I used 2021 Wijayawardene et al. ("Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa – 2021") as a starting point, as it is the most recent compilation of fungal taxa available. From there I added new genera that have been published since that time, and included all of the genera that Wijayawardene et al. place in synonymy, with explanatory footnotes about who thinks what genera should be included or not. The text says "Species Fungorum (in the Catalogue of Life), accepts 117 genera and 805 species", which is true. This does not mean to imply that the entirety of the list comes from that source. The taxonomic situation is fluid, and different authorities have different opinions on what genera should exist, so I've tried to list them all and explain where the sources disagree. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the start of Habitat. More to follow shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Just two points from the remainder:[reply]

  • Diarrhea - > diarrhoea (x2)
  • Is there a reason why FNs 2 and 3 are unsupported?

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes you've made and the work you've done on this overall. I'm not going to be able to support this, but I don't think I can oppose it either. The reasons for my sitting on the fence are as follows:

  • I am personally uncomfortable with the "X and his colleagues" format. I am aware this is common in academic papers, but this is an encyclopaedia to be read by the general public. Calls to "it is used elsewhere on WP" don't cut it for me I'm afraid. Although at FA we try to mimic some aspects of academic publishing, we are an encyclopaedia with a global general readership and I don't think this helps them.
  • Actually, the "X et al." format is common in scientific academic publishing, whereas the "and colleagues" is the "translation" that Wikipedia seems to have taken up. I understand your point (but don't necessarily agree). Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m well aware of the original (and it’s not just scientific, but other disciplines too) and it’s the default on WP in the references for multiple authors when using sfn, but I disagree with its use in the body in a general encyclopaedia. Not everyone who reads this will be familiar with the academic norm and will be confused. -SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is, I think, too densely technical in places. That's not necessarily the fault of the writer(s), but I think overall it runs too close to WP:OVERTECH for me to be happy enough to support. There are areas where the general reader (which includes me!) will just be lost in the terminology. Ditto my comment above on 'global general readership'.
  • The question of the genus list (a list of "117 genera and 805 species" shows 124 genera), which makes me a bit uncomfortable.
  • (Added later): I’m also uncomfortable with the very wide page ranges in the refs: pp. 1–82, 147–203, 132–168, etc. (added at SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

There is nothing I am going to oppose on, but I just don't think I can support either. – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Schro, I realise you're not committing to support or oppose, but can I just check you have nothing further to add, given it appears that Esculenta has done some work on the article since your last comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I think I’ll stay where I am on the !vote side of things. Cheers for the ping. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [21].

1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As FAC reviewers may be getting bored of articles about Gillingham F.C., I thought I would instead nominate an article about New Brompton F.C. Oh, hang on - it's the same club - never mind :-) I am particularly pleased with the number of images I was able to find for this one - it's quite unusual to find match action photos in newspapers of this vintage but the Daily Mirror was kind enough to send a photographer along to one of the team's games in 1907. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • I would wikilink FA Cup in the lead.
  • went on to win 2–1 thanks to a goal scored by Cunliffe. -- Might just be me, but thanks to sounds a bit informal I guess. Perhaps a little tweaking.
  • Godley was making his debut -- made his debut
  • Hartley was absent for the game against Millwall on 27 April, Godley playing in his place. -- perhaprs with Godley playing in his place for better flow
  • even had they finished in the bottom -- might be an English writing I am not familiar with, but could this be phrased as even if they had finished (I could be wrong though)
  • I think the footnote could be split into 2 sentences.
  • Few comments from me. Great work as usual on this series; very well-written. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Is it worthwhile, somewhere in the lede, mentioning the club's current name? Especially since you pipe from it.
Done
Background: Was promotion possible from the Southern League Division One at the time? Or was there a requirement of election to the Football League? Some brief explanation might be useful since NB was not at the top of the football pyramid.
Added a few words to clarify
"the game, which was originally scheduled to be played on Boxing Day but was postponed due to snow" So by the original schedule NB was to play both Christmas Day and Boxing Day? Leaving aside 29 December.
Yes, that's correct. Right up until (I think) the 1950s there was a full programme of professional football in England on both Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and then they usually played on whatever was the next Saturday as well. In fact in 1913 Gillingham played games on the 25th, the 26th, AND the 27th!! Hard to imagine today's prima donna players going along with that :-)
"as no teams were promoted from Division Two." Why?
I've removed that bit completely. I've just discovered a source which indicates that promotion and relegation between the two divisions was not automatic but by election, and that Northampton and Crystal Palace were both re-elected to Division One. So we can't really say what would have happened had NBFC finished in the bottom two.......
In the table for the FA Cup matches, the wrong year is three times given.
That was embarrassing! Fixed now
There seems considerable whitespace in the "Players" section apparently due to the images.
I've tried a few things viz-a-vis the formatting of the table but can't figure out a way to reduce it. Any advice you can give.....?
Multiple image template or moving one to another section?
That's my lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review. Responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • 'wrote that "[w]ith such a list of players': FYI MOS:CONFORM permits this to be 'wrote that "with such a list of players'. It's optional; I mention it in case you weren't aware.
    • Done - thanks for the tip
  • Not an issue for this article, but I see that the nickname "the Hoppers" doesn't get a mention in History of Gillingham F.C.. Should it?
    • I had a look through my various club history books and none mention it being a widely-used or long-lasting nickname for the team
  • Can you tell if Lunn was on the teamsheet for the first game of the season? If so I'd include him in the pre-season section even if Brown doesn't mention him.
    • He made his debut in the match stated at the end of September. I didn't find any sources which indicate that he joined the club before the season started so I presume he joined some time after the first game
  • I overuse semicolons myself so if I'm noticing them there are probably too many. I would suggest trying to remove at least two or three. The "January–April" subsection has nine in three paragraphs. I think it's not so much the number of them as that the sentence structures are a bit repetitive -- very difficult to avoid describing dozens of matches one after the other, I know. Perhaps just changing one or two of them to full stops would do it.
    • Got rid of a whole bunch

That's all I can find to complain about. I made a couple of copyedits; please revert if you disagree with anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • I think we've covered this before, but can you say why rsssf.org is a reliable source? I can't find a discussion of it in the previous reviews I looked at.

Formatting looks good and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF is very highly regarded and its data has been cited by news outlets in India (where it was described as "a reputed organisation of football statistics experts"), the UK, the UK (again),the US and by Reuters. The Guardian newspaper called it "ever-reliable" and it is or was the "official statistical partner" of the Danish Football Association. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear from their introduction page how they validate the data supplied by their members. It does seem that they are not open to everyone -- there's a membership application process which requires submission of some statistics, so that implies a quality control step of some kind. Along with the positive references by other reliable sources I think this just about passes, but if there are any other football statistics databases which have clearer editorial control I'd suggest switching. Or if you can find a clearer description of editorial control for rsssf.org that would also help. For the coords: this is a pass, though I'd welcome further opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: To make things easier, I've just replaced RSSSF in this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that makes the source review an unequivocal pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Is there a way to verify the kit in the infobox? Do we know where "Boots, Balls and Haircuts" was first published? Everything else seems fine, licence-wise. ALT text is passable. Image placement seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The kit is sourced via the final sentence of the "background and pre-season" section. Location added for "Boots, Balls...." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is a pass on the image front. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

@FAC coordinators: - may I start another nom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. FrB.TG (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: - thank you most kindly :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [22].

Brother Jonathan (novel)

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A gargantuan novel of 1,325 pages that required three separate volumes in publication, possibly bigger than any other well into the 20th century. A major financial loss for a shrewd Scottish businessman. A tragically lost opportunity for the author to *finally* overtake James Fenimore Cooper as America's top novelist. Brother Jonathan is a lot of things, but its not good, if only because it is just too many of those things at once: super realistic but also fantastically Gothic? Where John Neal's contemporaneous American readers took offense, British critics saw promise and modern scholars see sparkling gems far advanced for 1825, mired as they are in a thick and confused mess of a plot.

Come take a look for yourself! Should this nomination be approved, it will be my sixth — eighth if you include my featured lists — article I have drafted from scratch on topics surrounding the life of eccentric and influential critic and writer, John Neal. Thank you very much in advance, should you take the time to look this one over and write out some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • I think you wait too long in the second sentence to tell the reader what Brother Jonathan is.
Agreed. That is now fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter loves Edith and feels jealous of her relationship with Jonathan. Jonathan" generally we don't use names back to back if we can avoid it, I believe.
Fix. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Jonathan's departure from Gingertown, " This is, I assume, the setting in Connecticut. I might introduce it by referring in the previous paragraph to Gingertown, Connecticut, not merely Connecticut.
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his rural Connecticut town" This is, I assume, Gingertown. I might omit this phrase. It can be mentioned that either Gingertown or the Harwood house are rural.
I changed "Connecticut town" to "surroundings". The community being rural is relevant to his restlessness, so I want to leave that word in there. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bald Eagle saves him and brings his unconscious friend to the Harwood home. Edith encounters him and they express love for each other and become engaged." Who, in the second paragraph is "him"?
Swapped "him" for "Walter". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He briefly encounters Nathan Hale en route to a New York tavern where Walter meets many upstanding urbanites." This makes it sound like Nathan is also going to the tavern, and it is unclear if that's so.
Reworded to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Walter travels to Portland, Maine, " not Maine yet.
Fair. Changed to District of Maine. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "literally explosive" I'd cut the "literally". The reader gets it, it's the obvious thing to say, and you're pulling your punches if you'd dilute it.
Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also like his earlier novels, the male protagonist demonstrates guilt after committing sexual crimes" What sexual crime? Fornication? Perhaps greater explanation is needed.
Agreed. I added a little more to both the plot summary and to this part of the Themes section to make it clear we're talking about Walter seducing Emma. "Crime" has been downgraded to "misdeed". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackwood allowed him to be less cautious in revising the original manuscript" maybe "Blackwood allowed him to publish something closer to the original manuscript".
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting although I won't be reading it!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I don't blame you! Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this article and to write out your comments. Would you say that this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

Will post some comments here later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "who saw full development via this novel to become the US national emblem" - Do you mean something like "who became the US national emblem as a result of this novel"? The current wording is a bit unclear (in particular, development of what?)
Reworded. Let me know if you think it's still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Period critics reacted poorly to these aspects of the book." - Just the sexual content, or the mixed-race characters too?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Brother Jonathan's early and thorough use of realism in depicting American culture and speech is superlative for the period" - Similarly, superlative in what way?
Reworded to remove "superlative". Let me know if you think the new version is still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "Written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824" - I'd link Baltimore, as it may not be as well known outside the US (unlike something like DC or NYC).
Right. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these initial comments. They are addressed. Looking forward to comments on the rest of the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about this nomination; sorry about that. Additional comments forthcoming in the next day or two. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plot:
  • Para 1: "The novel begins one year before the Battles of Lexington and Concord" - To be more clear, the storyline begins one year before these battles. (When were these battles anyway?)
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself, but he lets Abraham know that he believes Abraham to be fully culpable for the crime. Jonathan is driven away from the community." - It feels awkward to have three sentences in a row beginning with "Jonathan".
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings. His father will not let him leave for New York City. Walter grew up spending time in the forest among Indigenous people, particularly his friend Bald Eagle. When Walter gets caught in a spring flood, Bald Eagle saves him and brings him home. Edith and Walter become engaged." - In my opinion, some of the sentences could probably be combined, as they are quite short. In particular, the first two sentences feel somewhat choppy because of how short they are; maybe something like "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings, and his father will not let him leave for New York City"?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Walter meets a young man named Harry Flemming, who recently met Edith. " - Do you mean to say that Flemming recently met Edith?
Yes. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Walter ends the engagement and develops relationships with other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery." - I'd either cut "other women" altogether, rephrase this to "two other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery.", or (if there were more than two women) "other women, including Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery".
I chose the second option. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter is not actually Abraham's son. Walter's father is a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife." - Maybe condense this to something like "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter's father is not Abraham but, rather, a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife"?
Replacement accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 7: "The colonel looks like Jonathan, which bothers Walter. Walter learns from Indigenous friends and from a letter from Edith that Warwick is actually Jonathan and that he has sinister reasons for joining the army." - If Walter's feeling of being bothered comes right before Walter's discovery that the colonel is Jonathan, I'd consider combining these sentences.
Combined. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 8: "She makes a contradictory statement regarding whether or not Walter should marry Edith, then she dies." - I would change "whether or not" to just "whether" and change the last part to "then dies" for concision.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 9: "Walter learns that Jonathan and Benedict Arnold are traitors together" - Minor point, but did he learn that they are traitors who are working together, or just that both of them were traitors?
Together. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
  • Para 1: "Writing in 1958, scholar Lillie Deming Loshe considered it the longest work of early American fiction and possibly longer than any other since." - Regarding "considered it the longest work of early American fiction", was there any dispute over whether this was the longest work of early American fiction? In this sentence, I get the sense that there is uncertainty over whether any other book would be considered longer.
I don't know how disputed titles like "longest work of early American fiction" or "longest American fiction work until at least 1958" are. Page numbers are mathematically comparable, but word count is a better determinant. Because Brother Jonathan has never been digitized, an accurate word count is not at hand. Until someone comes up with a word count for this novel, I think those two claims ought to be attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "There are no other works of American fiction comparable in scope, length, and complexity until the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy by James Fenimore Cooper twenty years later." - The previous and next sentences are both past tense, so I'd also change this to past tense. Also, 20 years after Loshe's review, or 20 years after Brother Jonathan was published?
Modified to past tense and Littlepage publication dates added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "In 1823, he was at a dinner party with an English friend who quoted Sydney Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark, "in the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?" - The phrase "Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark" seems awkward to me. I can't pinpoint why, but I feel that "Smith's then-notorious 1820 remark" would flow a lot better.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Less than a month later on December 15, 1823, he left Baltimore on a UK-bound ship" - I wonder why this sentence gives an exact date, whereas the previous sentence (presumably talking about a party in November) only gives the year.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "The working title was The Yankee" - I'd add a comma after this because, similar to the examples given in WP:CINS, this clause can theoretically stand alone as a sentence.
Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "His financial situation was becoming desperate[22] when William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal in April to become a regular contributor to Blackwood's Magazine.[23]" - Do we know how dire his financial situation was? Additionally, I'd say "when, in April, William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal to...", putting "April" next to "when".
I haven't found any additional detail on his economic situation at that moment. The source I cite says "His situation was desperate when on April 20, William Blackwood responded." "April" is moved.
  • Para 4: I know Neal was the one who wrote to Blackwood, but "He sent him the manuscript" is a bit awkward.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Based on feedback from both Blackwood and his associate David Macbeth Moir, Neal revised the novel and submitted a second draft in March 1825. Based on that draft, Blackwood agreed to publish, but requested one more round of revisions, to which Neal agreed" - Likewise, two consecutive sentences beginning with "Based on" also feels awkward.
I removed the second "based on". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 5: "Only 500 copies sold before Blackwood deemed the venture a failure and the two men's relationship broke down" - Do we know when the breakdown happened? In addition, "the two men's" is somewhat redundant since it is already implied that only Blackwood and Neal were involved.
"Two men's" reworded. Timeline added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, did the book become more popular later? The last paragraph of the Background section addresses only how many copies were sold before Blackwood and Neal broke off their partnership, but it never mentions anything about later sales, if they even happened.
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional comments! I should be able to address these by November 21. Feel free to add more before then if you have them. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I believe all your comments so far are addressed. There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824. Let me know if you think either issue warrants more discussion. Otherwise, what other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824.", no problem - I understand that some changes may not be possible due to a lack of reliable sources. I'll look at the "Themes" section now (I was planning to do this earlier today). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Themes:
  • In general, I would suggest adding a few subheaders for readability. From what I'm understanding:
    • Para 1 is about Neal's efforts to portray Americans,
    • Para 2 is about Brother Jonathan as an emblem/allegory,
    • Para 3 is about Walter's coming of age as an allegory,
    • Para 4 is about allegorical representations of egalitarianism,
    • Para 5 is about cultural diversity,
    • Para 6 is about racial aspects/tensions, and
    • Para 7 is about sexual aspects/relations. Am I correct in that regard?
I just added four subheaders. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "anglophile world" - Just to double-check, did you deliberately write "anglophile" (English-loving), or did you mean "anglophone" (English-speaking)?
Thank you for asking! Anglophone is really what I meant. I swapped it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Many American readers resented the portrayals and reacted poorly in print and in person upon Neal's return to the US." - Incidentally, that would have been quite an interesting reaction. Do the sources mention the nature of the reaction (e.g. protests, boycotts, angry letters)?
Yes, but I removed this sentence to avoid repetition and added this requested detail in the part of the "Depiction of Americans" section that also discusses it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Though initially considered to personify just the New England states, Neal advocated for Americans to accept Brother Jonathan as a representation for the entire country" - There is a dangling modifier here. Presumably it was Brother Jonathan, not Neal, who was initially considered to personify just the New England states. May I suggest "Though Brother Jonathan was initially..."?
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "about the protagonist Walter Harwood" - You already mentioned that Walter was the protagonist in the previous paragraph.
Walter's name deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "This exemplifies Neal's belief that people are their truest selves when at home" - Might be good to mention who says that, since otherwise it seems like we're saying this in wikivoice (rather than a single author making this observation).
On second thought, the idea in this sentence is poorly connected to the previous one, so I deleted it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "The stage coach that transported him to New York also exemplifies this natural American republicanism" - Similar to the above, you may want to mention who said this.
Attribution added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 5: "he is an unclear entity who may be one of two different men" - I would say that "may be one of two different men" makes the phrase "he is an unclear entity" redundant.
Redundancy removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: "But unlike the mass death scene at the end of Neal's earlier novel Logan" - I don't recommend starting the sentence with "but", as it feels a little choppy.
Swapped for "However,". Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: "This may be interpreted as Neal's take" - It may also be good to say who interprets the ending of Brother Jonathan that way.
Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 7: "The story explores the consequences of those actions for both men and women." - Any specific examples of said consequences? It's OK if you don't have any.
Nope. Both cited sources are pretty vague on this point. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 7: I noticed that the last half of this paragraph is mostly quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, it may be advisable to summarize some of the quotes. For example, you could summarize the Blackwood quote by saying something like "he disapproved of the seductive images and predicted that the vast majority of readers would not read it as a result".
Two quotes replaced with narrative summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for these! I believe all your comments above are addressed. What other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving these issues so quickly Dugan Murphy. This article looks to be in pretty good shape so far, though I will probably have my final comments up by Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Just checking in since Thursday came and went and you didn't post any new comments. Yours is the only comment thread on this nomination that is still active. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy, sorry about that, I completely forgot about commenting here on Thursday due to the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm leaning toward supporting the FAC, since my remaining concerns are all minor, but will have my final comments shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Style:
  • Para 1: "Walter's dialogue in the first volume may be the earliest attempt in American literature to use a child's natural speech patterns to express a wide range of emotion." - The "may be" part is according to Martin, right?
Yup. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Literature scholar and biographer Benjamin Lease" and "the compilers of the Dictionary of American English" - Are these two the same?
Nope. Lease pointed out in his 1972 book that the people who put together the dictionary earlier that century had referenced three of Neal's novels. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary critique:
  • "as did readers in general, who largely ignored it" - Two things. I assume these readers are in the UK because you say that US critics took little notice; is that correct? Also, do you know if they ignored the novel because it was puzzling?
I realize I'm repeating here the thing about American readers ignoring the book because the previous sentence is supposed to be about readers in both countries. The source for your pulled quote (Sears 1978, pp. 73–74) says "No wonder that the reading public did not know what to make of the sprawling, brawling work, and ended by ignoring it." This seems to indicate that readers ignored it because it was puzzling, but I think it would be safer to stick to the point that they ignored it. I've reworded the last two sentences of this paragraph with all this in mind. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depiction of Americans:
  • Para 1: "Among American readers and critics aware of Brother Jonathan" - I would probably change this to "Among the American readers and critics who were aware of Brother Jonathan" to clarify that, while most American critics and readers didn't take notice of the novel, those who did were angered by it.
Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "In contrast, Sumner Lincoln Fairfield of the New York Literary Gazette specifically praised the novel as a "great success"" - Out of curiosity, do we need this word? "Specifically" in this context could be a little ambiguous, as it could be modifying either Fairfield, the praise, or the novel, so maybe this can be cut.
"Specifically" is deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "On the other hand, Jeremy Bentham, according to John Bowring, assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."" - I'd rephrase this to something like "On the other hand, John Bowring claimed that Jeremy Bentham assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."", since this claim is refuted by Neal in the next sentence.
Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual content:
  • No issues.
Excessive but powerful:
  • Para 1: "The New Monthly Magazine ... The Monthly Review" - I presume these are both British? (Sorry, I'm just nitpicking at this point, as the article is pretty well written.)
Yes. Language added to that effect. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "The British Critic focused on what that critic" - Are you referring to the British Critic's critic?
Yes. I reworded to make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "full or vigour and originality" - Full of vigour and originality, I assume, because the sentence would not make much sense otherwise.
Good catch! Typo fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Moir praised: 'It is extremely powerful...'" - Usually, "praised" is a transitive verb, so you'd say something like "Moir praised the novel as 'extremely powerful...'"
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern views:
  • "Twenty-first-century readers are generally unaware of Brother Jonathan" - Is there anything available about 20th century views? You mention some reviews from the 20th century in the following sections.
My source for this statement is Richter in 2009 saying Brother Jonathan is "virtually unknown today". Per MOS:DATED, I chose the wording you quoted here. None of the 20th-century scholars I read said anything similar about readers in that century, even though clearly the novel has been obscure almost since it was published. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that makes sense. If the 20th-century scholars don't say anything about readers in that century, it wouldn't do us any good to basically add original research about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realism:
  • No issues.
Complexity:
  • Para 1: "The plot was "brilliant yet exasperating" according to biographer Donald A. Sears.[2] Morgan used the term "overstuffed".[116]" - Similarly to the previous sentence about Richards and Fleischmann, I'd suggest just combining these two sentences.
Combined.
That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for reading through the rest of the article! I have responded to all your comments. Do you feel any of them warrant further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I will support this FAC now. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

A la Epic. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself" I know you have to be cognizant of size constraints, but why would Jonathan implicate Abraham and then implicate himself?
Reasonable question. I re-read that section of the novel and some scholarly analysis of it and clarified accordingly. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is nursed by their daughter" I'm not sure who 'their' refers to in this context
She's the daughter of the Quaker hosts. I reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting that heterogenous egalitarianism might have explosive consequences for the nation" A line like this raises the question for me of whether Neal said that, or literary scholars have proposed that? Most of what you mention (ie it was a coming of age story) I think is fine, but in this case I would attribute-- since I don't think it would necessarily be agreed by all.
Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many American readers resented the portrayals and reacted poorly in print and in person upon Neal's return to the US" I'd be curious to hear more about this... feels almost contradicted by "In the US, critics and readers took little notice" later
Come to think of it, this sentence doesn't really say anything that doesn't come up later in the "Depiction of Americans" section. I added an extra sentence down there to satisfy your curiosity. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the novel features colloquialism and accents" -- not clear which novel is referred to here
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " generation's predominant concept of the United States as a unified nation" Is this really the case? My impression (not my area of expertise by any means) is that Americans of the early 19th century might have considered themselves on a more regional/state basis than national
The cited Pethers source says "...Neal increasingly begins to manifest through what we may call a vocalization (rather than a narration) of national diversity. In this respect, ... Neal's mature works of the 1820s ... contain within themselves multiple and contesting dialects which advance the project of transcending the Revolutionary era's political nationalism. Inverting the national motto of E pluribus unum to allow for sundry forms of cultural affiliation, the polyvocality of Brother Jonathan (1825) and Rachel Dyer simply reiterates the ideological intention of Neal's semiautobiographical novels in a different key." The cited Richter source says "Under the ironic title of Brother Jonathan, the diverse linguistic styles subvert the fiction of a unified, national whole." So it looks like neither claim predominance of the national unity idea, but just that Neal challenged it. Thus, I edited "his generation's predominant" to "the". Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depicts American Indians as a people vanishing to make way " we have an article on Vanishing Indian, which needs a lot of work but may be worth linking
Agreed. Looks like this article didn't exist when I was first drafting this section! It is now linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When reviewing a Cooper novel four years later, the same magazine claimed Logan, Seventy-Six, and Brother Jonathan to be "full of faults, but still full of power" and successful at positioning Neal as Cooper's chief competitor" if the novel was published in 1825, and authorship attributed in 1830, how did the magazine do this?
The first two were already linked because Seventy-Six was attributed to "the author of Logan". I can't find a reliable source saying this, but I think there were so few books published in the UK by Americans about the US, and Neal's style is so distinct, I guess this critic felt safe attributing Brother Jonathan to the same author. So I think the most I could add here is that those other two novels were already connected by the title page of Seventy-six. (But since you mentioned it, the "four years later" line was in reference to Seventy-six's 1823 publication, so I just changed it to in 1827".) Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-reading your comment here, the original British review, and my summary of it. Here's the original 1827 review: "If we except Brown ... and the unknown author of Logan, Seventy-Six (which contained some most vivid sketches of scenes during the American war,) and Brother Jonathan, three of about as extraordinary works as ever appeared–full of faults, but still full of power; if we except these, there is no rival near Mr. Cooper’s throne." I think changing "positioning Neal" to "positioning the author" is warranted and speaks to your concern, because the critic didn't mention Neal by name. I just made that change. The article doesn't say that the review positioned Neal. It says the reviewer felt that the three books together positioned their author (who happened to be Neal). The question remains why the critic felt comfortable attributing all three novels to the same author. Regardless, he did attribute all three to the same author. That is clearly factual. What are your thoughts here? Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a perfectly logical solution, thanks for your diligence! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " blame it for many of the plot's inconsistencies." Do you ever highlight what these are?
I just added a couple of examples in the "Complexity" section. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre-Uncle Sam national emblem of the US in part because of this novel. " Not convinced the article establishes this, especially the "in part because of this novel" part
How about this this sentence in the "Themes" section? "The emblem had been developing for decades as a minor self-referential device in American literature, but saw full development in this novel into the personification of American national character." Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just having a bit of trouble parsing the transition from Brother Jonathan, a book that seems to not have been particularly popular to a broader conceptualization of Brother Jonathan as an emblem. Does the sourcing consider Neal's argument to have influenced popular perception? Eddie891 Talk Work 03:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't explicit about connecting the novel to popular opinion. I think it's more about looking at the emblem's development through a historic lens. As such, I removed that language from the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "society around him both come of age through the American Revolution. " I get what you're trying to say, but it's not really the society coming of age-- what would it come of age to? Society itself didn't necessarily change a whole lot over the course of the book. Maybe like the nation or something?
I swapped society for nation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Martin found the representation of American Indian English more likely accurate than found in books by contemporaries like James Fenimore Cooper" Is one scholar's opinion sufficient to then say in the lead of the article that the depiction was definitely likely more accurate? Also do you mean "More likely accurate" or "likely more accurate".
I changed the sentence in the lead section to omit mention of contemporaneous literature. Conversely, in the "Style" section, I added another scholar's opinion to support Martin's on this topic. Given this rewording, your last question in this bullet point is now moot. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These elements of the novel were praised in the UK but derided in the US. " You never really establish that the depiction of a child's speaking was particularly derided in the US (or praised in the UK), I thought it was more the other regional differences depicted
You're right. I've reworded this sentence in the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a first round, really interesting article you've got. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and for the comments! I am still working on them. The only one so far that may warrant more discussion is the comment about Neal's anonymity. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: And now I feel your comments are fully addressed. Thank you again for developing this list and typing it out. Do you think your comments about Neal's anonymity and Brother Jonathan as an emblem (or any of your other comments) need further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt responses. Not sure yet about authorship. I have a response about Brother Jonathan above, shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Thank you for the additional responses. I think the issue about Brother Jonathan the personification/emblem is now resolved. I also added another response to the anonymity thread. Let me know if that needs more discussion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Vat

I don't think I can commit to a comprehensive look at the entire article, but I can do images :)

Image review is, as you might expect, a pass. All images are PD by virtue of age (and pd-text for the title page additionally), and have been properly prepared for FAC by addressing all complex nuances. Alt text is present and usable. I'll take the opportunity to note, though, that adding the "upright" parameter with no number unintuitively sets it to "upright=0.75" rather than the expected default of 1 -- some images might be worth double-checking to see if they're displaying as intended (a couple of the landscapes look small). Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping! I appreciate the tip about the upright parameter. I just looked at the MOS and it says that using that parameter without a number is deprecated, so I removed it from the two portraits. I increased the size of the three landscape images on your suggestion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • "an 1825 historical fiction novel": I think it would be more natural to make this "an 1825 historical novel", and link "historical novel" to historical fiction. "Historical fiction novel" sounds quite unnatural to me.
Fair. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824, he revised it": mismatching referents; "written while" refers to the novel so the pronoun "he" is incorrect. Perhaps "Neal revised it in London" would work?
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot section is well over 1,000 words. I think it would be worth trimming this a bit, but I have to say it's concisely written, so I leave it to your judgement if there's anything that could be cut.
Oh my gosh, I know. It turns out 1,324 pages doesn't fit easily into the 700-word max recommended by MOS:PLOTLENGTH. I just trimmed it from 1,078 words to 877. At this point, it is little more than plainly-stated, basic plot points, so I'm stopping there under the plea that this famously long novel with a famously too-complicated plot deserves special permission to exceed the recommended plot summary word limit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starts developing relationships with other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery, whom he met through Harry, but who knows Edith from childhood": "whom" appears to refer to both women so this is easy to misparse. Suggest rephrasing.
I agree. Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while observing debauchery": a bit unspecific. I assume the book itself is not particularly explicit if this included any sexual behaviour, but can we say whether this refers only to drunken revelry or to sexual escapades as well?
Changed "debauchery" to "riotous behavior" for lack of sexual escapades. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dedicated large expanses of Brother Jonathan": "expanses" is an unusual metaphor for part of a book -- perhaps "long sections" or "long passages"?
Changed to "a large proportion". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to step away from the computer for a bit, but will look at the remaining comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism, but in this regard, Brother Jonathan is considered by many scholars as the best and most extensive attempt": suggest "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism, but Brother Jonathan is considered by many scholars as Neal's best and most extensive attempt in this regard."
Accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:DASH you can have unspaced em dashes, or spaced en dashes, but not unspaced em dashes.
I only have one dash use in the regular prose, which is spaced, so I made it an en dash. All the other dash uses (aside from number ranges) are in quoted text, I standardized the quotes with fully or partially spaced dashes to en dashes and the fully unspaced ones to em dashes. I also noticed an inconsistent use of en vs em dashes in number ranges, so I changed those all to en dashes per MOS:RANGE.
  • It seems out of sequence to have the background after the themes section; any reason not to reverse those?
No good reason. I moved Background to follow the plot summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had Blackwood allowed him to a story closer to the original manuscript": looks like a missing word?
Precisely! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the subsection "Complexity" is a sequence of short sentences, which gives a very staccato effect to the reader. Can we combine a couple of these, just with an "and" or something equally anodyne, to vary the flow?
I hear what you're saying. I combined two and reversed the sequence of another. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is in excellent shape; these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the compliment and for taking the time to read through the article and write out comments. I believe I have addressed them all. Would you say this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the fixes look good except for the dashes. Per MOS:CONFORM we regularize dash use in quotes. You have many dashes in quoted material -- e.g. "Walter and Edith were happy: and Warwick Savage – alias, Jonathan Peters – alias, Robert Evans – he, though not happy, was no longer bad, or foolish" which uses spaced en dashes. You have unspaced em dashes in "not because of their being worse—but because of their being better" and the Connecticut farmer's speech, and the quote box showing phonetic stuttering is a mixture. There are others. There's an exception in CONFORM: "provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text". I think you might argue that the quotes of the farmer and the drunk are important to show as Neal had them, but is it clear whether he had em or en dashes, or that it would make a difference? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not thinking about MOS:CONFORM! Thank you for bringing that in. I standardized to the standard of spaced en dashes per MOS:DASH, with the only exception being the semi-spaced en dashes in the quote box and the unspaced em dashes in the farmer dialogue. As you suggested, I see the purpose of including those text quotes as demonstrating Neal's unique experiments in punctuation. I think they need to reflect the original text in order to not "obscure meaning or intent of the text". It's valuable to demonstrate how Neal's use of dashes was irregular. That means that the only em dashes left in the article are in the farmer quote. The only en dashes not fully spaced are in the quote box. @Mike Christie: What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is justified, but judging from this, which seems to be a first edition, the drunk quotes should be spaced em dashes. I couldn't find the other quote but I'd guess you can; worth checking if we're going to argue that the exact typography is important. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! You know, now I'm thinking that the drunk quote is my transcription of somebody else's transcription instead of the original text. The farmer quote certainly is. Here's the original. Based on this fresh look at the original publication, I just standardized those two quotes to spaced en dashes like the rest of the article. Now adherence to MOS:CONFORM is complete! Thank you for keeping on this and helping me figure it out. @Mike Christie: Anything else? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think everything looks good now; glad we ran that one to ground. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

I am partway through compiling my comments on this article. I will update this once I'm done. TompaDompa (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • There is something of a tendency to structure sentences in a comparatively intricate way that at times impedes readability. I have given some specific examples below.
Lead
  • "Period critics reacted poorly to the book's sexual themes." – this is a fairly conspicuous use of "period" in this sense. I would go for the much more common "contemporary" (or phrase it along the lines of "critics at the time").
Sure! Changed to contemporary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "Contemporary critics reacted poorly to the book's sexual themes. They were explicit for the period, addressing female sexual virtue and male guilt for sexual misdeeds." – "They" in the second sentence refers to the themes, but the intuitive parsing is that it refers to the subject of the preceding sentence, i.e. the critics. There are several different possible ways to address this, for instance merging the sentences. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good eye. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked it a bit further myself. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Using phonetic transcriptions, the dialogue documents a wide range of regional accents and colloquialism." – that should presumably be "colloquialisms", plural (or else it should be rephrased to avoid the intuitive parsing of "a wide range of" modifying "colloquialism" as well as "regional accents"). Or even simpler: change it to "colloquial speech". I would also link the term (colloquialism).
Changed to colloquialisms. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This included" – inconsistent verb tense.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Written while he was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824, Neal revised the novel in London many times over and convinced [...]" – this adjusted phrasing still doesn't quite work; Neal wasn't written. I would suggest the simpler phrasing "The novel was written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic, and he revised it in London many times over before convincing [...]".
    That's funny you should point this out, because I think you know that I already reworded this sentence for the reason you are raising here. My rewording did not achieve its purpose! I just reworded again and I'm confident it is now grammatically correct. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, hence "this adjusted phrasing". TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mid 1825" – missing hyphen.
Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: The body twice mentions plot inconsistencies. If the plot is generally considered to have a significant amount of inconsistencies, this should probably also be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. If nothing else, it would prepare readers of this article that the "Plot" section might be expected to be a bit difficult to follow. The lead does mention that the novel is viewed as "too complex to be considered good" by many scholars, but a complex novel is not necessarily the same thing as an inconsistent (or even just difficult-to-follow) plot – for instance, The Lord of the Rings is fairly often described as a complex work in a positive sense, i.e. a carefully and intricately constructed narrative, without this being regarded as having a negative impact on its readability. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "Twenty-first century readers are generally unaware of the book and scholars who are familiar with it generally consider it too complex to be considered good." – not a dealbreaker in any way, but the sentence would probably read better if one of the two instances of "generally" were swapped for a different word. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "the consensus among scholars is that the plot is too fractured and complex to be considered good" is a significantly stronger statement, and in particular, it's a stronger statement than the body makes (or indeed we have sourcing for, unless there is a source that explicitly states this to be the case). TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to summarize the last two paragraphs of the article in the second half of the last sentence of the lead. I just reworded to something closer to where I had it your last comment on this topic. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself" – maybe there's something I'm missing, but that seems contradictory to me. Update: Resolved while I was compiling my comments.
  • I can't say I see what the 1761 image of New York City adds.
    It's the closest I think I can get to illustrating what New York City looked like when Walter Harwood was there. Much of the novel takes place there. Do you think the article would be better off without it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. I don't think it illustrates what it looked like at the time particularly well, and because it is so wide it has an undesirable effect on the text layout (depending on screen width and settings, and so on). It's not a big problem, but I do think it's a net negative. TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not irreversibly attached to it. Consider it deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Quaker household" – I would link Quaker.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his family home seized by Tories" – is there a strong reason to refer to them as "Tories" rather than, say, "British Loyalists"? "Tory" has rather different associations to me, and I suspect most readers.
Tory is the term used in the novel and it was common in revolutionary America, but I agree that British Loyalist would likely enhance clarity for all anglophones. Term is swapped. I'll look at your other comments in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She seduces him and they sleep together" – She seduces Walter, right? I would clarify that since Harry was also mentioned in the preceding sentence.
Yes! Name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter learns from Indigenous friends and from a letter from Edith that Warwick is actually Jonathan" – I might add "scare quotes" to "Warwick" here. I might also add something along the lines of "in disguise" or "using a false identity" to make it a bit clearer, even if it is not that difficult for the reader to piece it together, so to speak.
    If I was to introduce this convention, I think staying consistent with it would feel annoying to the reader. Once you read the whole plot summary, you realize Abraham is not Walter's father, that Warwick is actually Jonathan, and that Warwick is actually Robert. Adding "using a false identity" would be fine, though, so I did that. Do you have more thoughts on this? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way it's done now works just fine; I wrote "I might" for a reason. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ruth Ashley, who has held unrequited romantic feelings for him since he arrived in New York" – I might give a rough indication as to the amount of time.
Sure. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert is his real father but thought Walter was Abraham's son and responsible for the accidental infant death of Robert's other son." – the "and" is ambiguous. Did Robert think Walter was responsible or is Robert responsible?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "At more than 1,300 pages over three volumes" – I would write "across three volumes".
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm referring here to the lesser known infant novelist. But really, good point. I moved the parenthetical. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The novel that became Brother Jonathan he hoped would boost his reputation to surpass Cooper's." – a bit awkward phrasing.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the US, its language, and customs" – a bit odd to have "its" in front of "language" but not "customs" like this. I might either say "the US, its language, and its customs" or "the US, and its language and customs, [...]".
Good point. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
  • "cultural recognition of the US within the anglophile world" – Anglophile or anglophone? According to my dictionary, the former should be capitalized and the latter should not, so this is wrong either way. (Update: This part was resolved while I was compiling my comments.) I would also link it.
Linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brother Jonathan is partly a coming-of-age story about the protagonist Walter Harwood growing into manhood and about the new American nation as it is born in the American Revolution." – if the intended reading is that it is a coming-of-age story both with regard to Walter and the US, "partly" confuses that somewhat and using the word "both" somewhere in the sentence would make it clearer.
    "Both" is added. "Partly" is kept because the novel is famously much more than a coming-of-age story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Partly" can mean "in part" in the sense of "among other things", but it much more commonly means "not entirely". TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "naiveté" – use either "naïveté" or "naivety". This spelling is neither fish nor fowl.
I see! Changed to "naivety". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to cultural studies researcher Jörg Thomas Richter, the stage coach that transported him to New York" – the added attribution makes it sound like the stage coach transported Richter rather than Walter.
Walter's name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heterogenous" – heterogeneous. "Heterogenous" means that something originates from without (as opposed to from within), whereas "heterogeneous" means that something is diverse (and intermixed, usually).
You're really good at picking up on these almost-the-right-words. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also includes a character on the stage coach smoking a pipe dangerously close to a keg of gunpowder, suggesting that heterogenous egalitarianism might have explosive consequences for the nation." – this is the type of media analysis where it's pretty important whether this interpretation comes from the author or not. If it does, that should be made explicit. If it does not, it should be indicated whether this comes from a particular person's reading of the text or is a generally accepted interpretation. Update: The preceding sentence is now attributed to Richter. If we are to infer that this is also Richter's view, it needs to be clarified ("He" in this sentence refers to Neal).
Fair. Richter is now attributed in both sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the novel features colloquialism and accents specific to [...]" – is that "colloquialism [in general] and accents specific to [...]" or "[colloquialism and accents] specific to [...]"? If the latter, it should be "colloquialisms", plural. If the former, it should be rephrased to avoid the latter reading.
Colloquialisms it is. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter seduces Emma, and like many of Neal's earlier novels, the male protagonist demonstrates guilt after committing sexual misdeeds." – like in many of Neal's earlier novels. The male protagonist here does not do the same thing as the other novels, but the same thing as the corresponding characters in the other novels.
"In" added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Style
  • "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism" – or should it be "dialects and colloquialisms", plural?
I guess plural is more appropriate given that Neal stresses polyvocality in so many of his works. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an early example of documented American colloquialism" – again, it seems to me like it should be plural.
Pluralized. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinct of British precedent" – maybe this is an WP:ENGVAR thing, but I would definitely say "distinct from" (which is also what the WP:LEAD says).
Changed to "from". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The novel's prodigious use" – prolific?
    What's wrong with prodigious? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not wrong, per se, but this is presumably intended to be a statement about quantity. While "prodigious" can be strictly about quantity, it is usually a statement about quality (with or without also being a statement about quantity). "Prolific", on the other hand, is always strictly about quantity. In other words, with "prodigious" the sentence would likely be parsed as "The novel's extensive and skillful use [...]" rather than just "The novel's extensive use [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying. I switched to "prolific". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accent marks, italics, and diacritics" – accent marks and diacritics?
"Accent marks" removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This experiment comes after Neal played with" – verb tense.
Changed to "came". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Period critique
  • As above, I would avoid using "period" here in favour of e.g. "contemporary".
Sure. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception of Brother Jonathan was mixed but mostly warm. Most of the positive criticism is qualified" – inconsistent verb tense.
Changed "is" to "was". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] commentary on the novel's shortcomings, such as The Ladies' Monthly Museum published: [...]" – this is rather difficult to parse. "Such as" is usually in the sense of "for instance", but here it seems to be in the sense of "of the kind [that]"?
I meant the latter, but anticipating others experiencing the difficulty you did, I added "what" to change it to the former. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compared to them" – those?
Word swapped. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as did readership in general, who largely ignored it" – this is either a sense of "readership" that I am unfamiliar with, or it should be plain "readers" (or possibly "the readership"?). At any rate, articles are supposed to be accessible to most readers, so I would suggest rephrasing this.
"Readers" is a fitting substitute. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "characterization of Americans". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern views

Ping Dugan Murphy. TompaDompa (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you for applying your fine-tooth clarity comb to this article! I believe all your comments are addressed and the article is better as a result. The only ones I believe may warrant further discussion are your comments on the NYC skyline, scare quotes, coming-of-age, and prodigious. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I addressed your new comments, so I believe the only standing comments that may need more discussion are the ones about coming of age and the use of "prodigious". What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: Those are indeed the only remaining issues that need to be addressed, apart from a couple of comments that I have just added. See above for my responses to those specific issues and the handful of new ones. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Great. I believe I have resolved all the new and old issues you have raised. As long as you think my replacement for "partly" is appropriate. Tell me your thoughts. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: We're certainly getting there. I spotted one new issue and replied to another. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I made a couple more tweaks and issued a couple more responses. I think we may be done here. How do you like the last sentence of the lead? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

...working... ——Serial 19:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I can see that some reviewers could have been put off by the amount of black ink thrown up; but it's worse than it looks. That in the cites section are solely due to the use of =N, quote; the comma delineates two items. There's nothing wrong with noting who one's source is quoting, by the way—a good reading of WP:V. But, tbh, I'd go either further or back; if you are going to specify a quoted source, why not the page number as well? After all, the Literary Gazette—fn93, for example—was a weekly publication at its height, so if the reader wants to confirm your quote, they appear to have no small search ahead of them. And precision would not seem to be furthered by a pageless source being not only pageless, but only 'ostensibly' so (fn96). I suggest keeping it simple. I see several works from (random cut-off date for modern scholarship) pre-1970, but they are not overly used, and the most commonly used are modern works. In any case, there's undoubtedly little wrong with the University of Wisconsin or The New England Quarterly. It's a pretty niche topic, and a search of several databases suggests that nothing that should be used here has been overlooked. Couple of other points.

Regarding citation 93 and others like it: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase? If you're saying that I should find what page in what issue of The Literary Gazette is being quoted by Cairns, I don't see why that is necessary. I'm not citing The Literary Gazette. I'm citing Cairns. I'm just making clear that the quote is not Cairns's words, though I got the quote from Cairns. Let me know if you think this should be discussed further. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as yours is a high-quality and independent reliable source, we don't need to know who they cite. You cite what you read; you only need to cite who they cite when you read the second thing through the first. See WP:SAYWHERE: 'follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones'.
Ok. I removed all the references within inline citations to who is being quoted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gale is a reputable publisher, we don't need to be told it's an A Cengage Company.
Sure! I literally copied how it was written on the title page. I deleted that part. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're citing a chapter in Watts & Carlson, that's the required cite; the complete monograph is unnecessary. Likewise DiMercurio. It's the authors of what you cite the reader needs, not who edited it.
If I understand what you're saying here, then the source listings for chapters in Watts & Carlson and DiMercurio don't need a title parameter. Unfortunately, when I delete those title parameters, those source listings render with an error message. I've left them as-is for now. But if what you're saying is that I should delete the listings for these two books, then see my response to your last comment. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Responded there. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cambridge, England'. UK, I think. Also re. Spiller.
Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schumacher, Merlob, need publisher/location info for consistency.
Merlob, Pethers, Sivils, Richter, and Schumacher are all book chapters. Each of these source listings include a link at the end to refer to the full book listing. It is designed that way to avoid repeating the same information over and over again in the chapter listings. This is the format settled upon during the FAC review for John Neal (writer) three years ago, which also cites chapters in the same two books. So I've been following that precedent ever since. Do you feel strongly about this format choice? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As book chapters, they need to be cited within the context of who they are published. See WP:HOWCITE, which basically shows that everything you've got in your chapter cites should be augmented with what you have for the rest of the book. Yes, this might result in the same book being cited several times. This is good, as the reader needs to know where the material is to find on each occasion. And using the full book citation on its own makes it appear as you're using the whole book, which you're not.
Ok. DiMercurio and Watts & Carlson are removed from the source list and their publication information is added to the relevant chapters. That means that I changed all the Richter 2009 inline citations to Richter 2018 to keep them linked to the proper source listing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
——Serial 20:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Thank you for reviewing my sources! I responded to your comments about handling chapters vs books and attributing quotes. Do you think either point needs more discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Dugan Murphy, and apologies for the delay getting back to you. I hope I have clarified my queries while emphasizing the importance of following an English Wikipedia content guideline, WP:REF, in this case, an extension of policy, WP:V. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I believe all your comments are fully addressed. Thank you for helping me improve the article! Would you say that this article has passed your review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you Dugan Murphy for providing me with a really interesting read. You've clearly put a lot of work into the topic. Congratulations  :) and yes, "consistency being key", etc., @FAC coordinators: I'm happy to pass the source review. Cheers, ——Serial 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 November 2023 [23].

Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In September 1999, Alexander McQueen staged Eye in the middle of a hurricane threatening New York Fashion Week. Other designers cancelled, but McQueen forged onward with a controversial collection that crossed Middle Eastern traditions with Western sports and fetishwear. Jeweller and frequent McQueen collaborator Shaun Leane notably chimed in with a yashmak veil forged from chainmail. Reception was mixed: the overly-theatrical show overshadowed the clothing, and the theme predictably drew accusations of misogyny and cultural appropriation. In retrospect, Eye remains one of McQueen's lesser-regarded collections, outdone by much of the rest of his body of work. Nevertheless, I find it of interest, if mostly as a reminder that not all of his experiments succeeded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • There are a few spots where four citations are used. It may be best to do citation bundling or another solution to avoid citation overkill.
    • Normally I try to avoid going over 3, but I think the couple of times I've gone with 4 are reasonably justified (mostly where I'm making a broad statement about opinions and a couple times for sentences that compress details from multiple sources). I tried doing a cite bundle, but with the sfns, it creates a third layer that people have to click/hover through if they want to see the full ref, so I'd prefer to avoid those if you don't mind
  • I believe well-known cities such as New York City are not supposed to be linked. I also believe the following links are unnecessary, (film, history, nature, world religions, art).
    • Mmmmm...I'll ditch the others but arguably New York City is contextually relevant and someone might want to click through, so I'm going to keep it
      • From my experience, I believe it is strongly discouraged to link well-known cities with New York City being a common example, but I do not have a strong opinion about it myself so it will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Some items had prints resembling traditional Islamic art.) Did the source provide any examples or go into further detail on how the items resembled traditional Islamic art? It is understandable obviously if further detail is not available, but I did pause here and ask myself this question so I wanted to ask you.
    • Unfortunately it's an offhand comment that doesn't really go into detail - it mentions garments with "Moorish white and blue prints". It's an obvious reference to Islamic geometric patterns / Zellij, but I didn't want to get that specific in the text given the reviewer didn't.
      • Thank you for the response. I got the impression from reading this part that the reviewer did not go into further specifics, but I wanted to clarify that just to be sure. The current wording makes sense then and reflects the source well. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Lisa Armstrong at The Times of London speculated there was also an element of spite towards the British Fashion Council.) Would it be possible to briefly expand on why this would be considered an element of spite?
    • I had a hard time with wording this because she's speculating about his beliefs, and I didn't want to wind up in a "she thinks he thought they thought" chain of silliness. How's it look now?
  • Apologies for the nitpick, but I do not believe the "crunch time" quote is really necessary. It is not really clear who is saying this quote and rather than attribute it, I think this could be more easily paraphrased.
    • Yeah fair, I reworded a bit, I guess it's a common enough term
  • I do not think US$ and £ need be linked multiple times in the article.
    • Me neither, but the conversion templates force it and I've never been able to figure out how to turn it off.
  • I have a quick question about this part, (The show was staged at 9:00 p.m.). Would it be necessary to clarify the time zone, which I believe in this case would be EST. I do not believe this was done in the other articles so it is likely fine here (and to be blunt, it was not something I thought about), but I just thought about it now so I wanted to ask you anyway.
    • No idea. I don't think it's necessary? But if someone else weighs in to suggest it is, then I don't mind adding it.
      • It probably is not necessary since the location is already well-established at this point. I would think the time zone would only be necessary for like a television show or something where it could vary depending on region, etc. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence, (The show's soundtrack was described by one reviewer as "ominous disco".), why not name the reviewer and publication since it seems to be known since the citation has a name and publication?
    • Unfortunately no one else described the music so I'm stuck with just the one quote, but name/publication didn't really feel like a necessary detail. I do it for reviews and analysis because it gives context to the opinion, but here it doesn't add much
      • I would still more clearly attribute the quote (in this instance being from Alex Kuczynski of The New York Times) as I do not see any reason to be vague about it by not naming the reviewer or publication and instead opting for "one reviewer". I found this part to be unclear, particularly when two citations are used for this sentence so it is even less clear where this quote is coming from. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance for this nitpick-y question, but is the following sentence entirely necessary: (The show reportedly received a standing ovation.)? If it is not entirely clear if this really happened or not, I am not sure if it really adds anything. Also, is applause a rather normal part of a fashion show? My primary concern though is the "reportedly" part though just to be clear.
    • Weeeeeeell, only one reviewer saw fit to comment on it, so I threw in a "reportedly" just in case. I can take it out if you think it's fine without. Applause happens at some fashion shows (I'm assuming more common now as crowds tend to be more expressive these days), but standing ovations are relatively rare in fashion
  • I have a comment for the following quote: "The bad boy [McQueen] did good." I do not think the additional McQueen is necessary as I believe it is already clear in context, and I think it would be best to stick to preserving the original quote.
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (dismissed Eye as a retread of things McQueen had done before). Did they provide any examples of how this was a retread?
    • Basically all of it, lol, which is why I went with a broad summary. McDowell haaaaaaated Eye. He hated the water gimmick and he hated the acrobats and he summed up the clothes as, essentially, a bunch of ugly junk that McQueen had done before. I could get into more detail in the article if you feel it's warranted
  • In the "Reception" section, Hilary Alexander's full name is used multiple times throughout, although for other critics, only their last names are used after the first instance.
    • I initially did that because I felt there might be some confusion as her last name is McQueen's first name, but on review it's not really necessary, so, fixed
  • I believe in both instances here, (The Met) and (originally staged in 2011 at The Met), the "The" should not be capitalized.
  • For the "Analysis" section, would it be more beneficial to put the Clarissa M. Esguerra and Michaela Hansen paragraph before the Ana Finel Honigman paragraph? I only ask this because I think it could be better to put the Between comparisons in the same paragraph, and Esguerra and Hansen's discussion on turquerie could more naturally lead into Honigman's part on cultural appropriation. This is just an idea of course.
    • I tried a few versions of this part, but ultimately I settled on separate paragraphs because E&H's analysis is so much more rounded. Honigman doesn't have much more to say than I've summarized, and I think it would read awkwardly if I chopped her sentences into E&H's larger paragraph.
  • This is not required for a FAC or a FA, but I always think archiving web citations is helpful, especially to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot or death.
    • Tried it a couple times but kept getting gateway timeouts :( I'll try again later.
      • I understand. The IABot has been acting up for me for a while so I've gone back to doing it manually, but there are still issue with that. As I said above, this is not a requirement for a FAC or a FA so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Wonderful work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Aoba! I'm always happy to have your thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the response. I just have one point remaining. I still believe the "ominous disco" quote should be more clearly attributed in the prose. I always believe that quotes should be clearly attributed when information like the author and publication are known to give readers a more complete picture of where this information is coming from and who said it. Once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

Why is dailyartmagazine a high quality RS? The editorial team looks semi-pro at best to me and "She dreams of becoming a curator but works in the miniature industry." doesn't give me much hope. Not really a sign but only 4k twitter followers is a red flag.

  • I chucked it, on review I didn't need it anyway

What are your thoughts on the use of the via field? Part of me wonders if Gale and Newspapers.com should get tagged.

  • I'm ambivalent about it, but I will mildly protest that I haven't been asked to use it at most previous FACs, so I don't believe it's standard

The video of the show needs an access date. I'm not sure if the fact should be mentioned if you need a primary source, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

  • Normally I wouldn't bother, but I think it's worth it for the transition between the wacky acrobat show and McQueen coming out to drop trou

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The comments are largely around BrEng bits, with a couple of other bits mixed in.

  • fetishwear" -> "fetish wear"
    • Is this BrEng? I've always seen it as one word, like "sportswear"
  • "pants" -> trousers. To Brits "pants" are underwear
    • I always forget this
  • "taxicab" -> taxi
  • fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
    • Same as above
  • "Harem pants" -> harem trousers
    • Do you mind terribly if I keep it as-is? "Harem pants" is the generic term, and immediately afterward I describe them as trousers, so it ought to be clear enough
  • You refer to "boxing shorts" in sportswear, but link to boxer shorts, a type of underwear. When I think boxer shorts, I think this sort of thing, rather than this sort of thing. Although one developed from the other, they are now quite different.
    • This is extremely annoying because we don't have an actual article on boxer shorts and the boxing article doesn't really get into them. That being said, retargeted to boxing as the least useless option
  • "didn't" -> did not
  • "prompting a time crunch": I'm not sure what this is saying, and I don't think it's encyclopaedic in tone – may be worth reframing?
    • Really? I thought it was a common phrase, but okay.
  • "Rumors" -> Rumours
  • "£500,000 (US$800,000) to £1 million (US$1.62 million)": you don't need the links on the other three sets of currencies
    • I've tried that and it continues to produce links - it's producing them in your comment, even. The link=no parameter simply doesn't work on this template, I don't know why and frankly I'm too dumb to fix it.
  • "Runway show": you've got two headers with the same name, which I think may be an MOS no-no
    • Revised
  • "utilised" – "used"?
    • Why?
      • Because 99 times out of a hundred "utilise" is greatly inferior to "use"; the other one time it is just inferior. That and Orwell: never use a longer word where a shorter one will do! - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok
  • "pantsuit" -> "trouser suit" – and link
  • "couldn't" -> "could not" (twice)
    • Above two done
  • fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
    • Same as first time
  • "finesse": do we need the scare quotes on this?
    • I'm using the exact word the guy used, hence quote marks
  • "harem-style pants" -> "harem-style trousers"
  • "niqab" -> Niqāb (or niqaab) – but def linked
    • Done

Interesting work, as always. That's my lot, and I hope it's useful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

Time to give the copy a bath... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • It was inspired by the culture of the Middle East, particularly Islamic clothing, as well as the oppression of women in Islamic culture, and their resistance to it. Remove last comma
  • Sixty-eight looks were presented in the main show, after which, a bed of nails rose up from the water on the floor for the show's finale. No comma needed after "which"
Concept
  • Inspired by Turkish music McQueen heard in a taxicab, and the London Arab community, the collection Remove comma after taxicab
  • McQueen stated that he wished to examine the oppression of women in Islamic culture, and their resistance to it. Remove comma
  • To this end, the collection crossed traditional Middle Eastern and Islamic garments such as harem pants, baggy trousers fitted to the ankle; the yashmak, a type of veil; and the burqa, which fully covers the body and the face; with elements drawn from Western fashion such as sportswear and fetishwear. I am unsure if the last semicolon coming out of the list should just be a comma.
    • Revised the sentence a bit
      • This looks good.
  • body conscious silhouettes hyphenate "body-conscious"
  • Another longtime associate, jeweller Shaun Leane, created a yashmak made to look like chainmail, from aluminium plates inset with red Swarovski crystal cabochons. Is the comma after "chainmail" needed?
    • Revised the wording a bit but I think yes.
      • The changed wording justifies the comma.
Runway show
  • He viewed this as a step toward developing the brand internationally. He was clear from the outset that he intended to return to England the following season. Two sentences in a row starting with "he".
    • Merged them
  • Sponsor American Express, in their third year as McQueen's backer contributed Complete the appositive with a comma after "backer"
  • De Beers contributed an unspecified amount of funding, and lent a 1,220-diamond necklace and a 407-diamond pin for the runway show. remove comma, obvious WP:CINS issue.
  • The show was staged at 9:00 p.m. in a Pier 94 warehouse on 16 September 1999 maybe The show was staged in a Pier 94 warehouse at 9:00 p.m. on 16 September 1999, to put the time and date together
Reception
  • Similarly, Givhan wrote that McQueen had created not fashion, but "a collection of costumes for a fascinating theatrical event" Remove comma after "fashion"
  • Menkes gave "high marks for showmanship", but wrote that and Fox was not sure whether Americans would appreciate the gesture or not, but noted and Quintanilla felt that most of the clothes were "pure fantasy", but found the coats and dresses to be "standout pieces." and Both Givhan and Suzy Menkes ... appreciated these more commercial pieces, but felt and Scott found that the runway items "defied description, if not reasoning", but noted that McQueen's retail clothing was usually "more realistically wearable". and Jean Fraser of the Edmonton Journal enjoyed the performance, but wrote of the designs: Remove comma, CINS
  • Horyn found the clothing less impactful than the runway show, remarking that "the clothes didn't break new ground", but that one had to respect McQueen's vision nonetheless. A bit awkward. A verb after "but" would help here.
    • "respect" is the verb in this context.
      • It still doesn't work the way it's structured. I took out the second comma which does.
Analysis
  • Curator Soyoung Lee wrote that the yashmak "signals mystery and forbiddance" by concealing the wearer's body and face, yet possesses a "sensuous fluidity" in its movements. Remove comma, CINS
Legacy
  • $1,875 USD maybe US$1,875? This would be consistent with the only other monetary figures in the article.
And it would comply with the MoS. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, but fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie: Image review

There are seven images. Two are public domain. Three are CC-BY-SA 4.0 from the Musée des beaux-arts du Québec exhibition. Another image is of a burqa in a French museum. The only non-free image is the yashmak, for which an appropriate NFCC has been provided. The original is no longer in existence, and it is talked about enough including critique to merit the use.

The yashmak image lacks alt text. Alt text is present and adequate for the other images, though maybe a little more detail could help on some of the other look images. All images have suitable captions and placement.

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello PMC. Each time I've seen one of these McQueen collections at FAC, it has been promoted before I got there, so with the admission that my only knowledge of the industry is from watching this!, here are my comments, suggestions and questions...

  • short description - move to top

lede

  • eponymous fashion house - intentional redirect from brand?
    • Somebody moved it at some point and I don't really care enough to move it back one way or another. Does it matter? It gets to the right article.
  • made from chainmail. - link chainmail
    • Linked

Concept and creative process

  • Inspired by Turkish music McQueen heard in a taxicab and the London Arab community, the collection explored - is this saying he heard the music in cab and in the London Arab community or inspired by two separate things? If separate, suggest reword to 'McQueen heard in a taxicab and by the London Arab community' (or similar)
    • Tweaked
  • football jerseys bearing red crescent moons - this juxtaposition could possibly be emphasized by a link ie [[Star and crescent|crescent moons]] but maybe it's obvious enough?
    • Linked
  • There were also a number of draped dresses - was also a number of? or is that the Engvar thing I can't get used to?
    • Remove the middle words and try it. "there was dresses" vs "there were dresses" - were is correct.
  • provided by milliner and - the milliner
    • nope. I fall on the pro-false title side of this debate
  • made to look like chainmail - link chainmail

Runway show

  • personnel who didn't attend - tweak contraction
  • Rumors from before the show - rumours
  • Runway show is used as two diff level headers - is that OK?
    • Fixed
  • Pier 94 - could link North River (Hudson River)#Status (that calls it the "UnConvention Center", the second-largest exhibition hall in New York City) - not mentioned in sources?
  • weather, more than 1,000 guests attended - invited guests? How do people get 'tickets' to these shows?
    • They're invited, it's not like a concert where the public can buy tickets.

Reception

  • couldn't decide whether - tweak contraction
  • Menkes gave "high marks - move her name and links up to here
    • Done
  • Writing for The Detroit News, Nicola Volta Avery wrote that - swap "wrote" to 'said' or 'opined' or similar as already said "writing"
    • Done
  • whether Americans would appreciate the gesture or not - not sure if "or not" is needed when "whether" is already present?
    • Removed
  • felt it indicated that he had "undoubtedly - maybe swap "he" to McQueen?
    • I think it's evident from context
  • and said he couldn't imagine other - tweak contraction

Analysis

  • but exposed the genitals - nipples and buttocks aren't genitals?
    • I was trying not to use her exact wording but fair
  • Hilary had similar thoughts, saying - add surname Alexander
    • Fixed
  • sexualised niqab designs - link niqab
    • Done
  • Curator Soyoung Lee wrote - add link
    • Done

Images

  • caption ...The headpiece in the front ensemble is a 2021 creation by Michael Schmidt - link Michael Schmidt (designer)
  • alt=A garment made of plates of metal joined together, adorned with small red gemstones. It covers the entire face, torso, and arms, except for the eyes. - reorder to 'covers the entire torso, arms and face, except for the eyes.'
    • Done both

Refs

  • 13 Bethune 2015, p. 304–311. - pp
  • 41 "Has the bottom fallen out of london fashion week?" - cap L at least?
    • lol oops

Bibliography

  • Lee, Soyoung (2018). "The Resplendant Body: Jewelry on the Edge - authorlink and typo Resplendent
    • Fixed

Consistency

  • the New York Times v The New York Times
    • Fixed
  • boxing shorts v boxer shorts
    • They're different (albeit related) garments so I'm differentiating textually. It would be easier if we had an article on boxing shorts, but we don't - see Schro's comment above about links to it. Boxing shorts are the kind of shiny nylon boxing shorts that boxers wear in the ring - think this type of thing. Boxer shorts are soft, usually cotton, and are meant to be worn as undergarments - think this. The girls in the show had athletic-style boxing shorts, McQueen showed off his undies

Misc

  • For the show's finale, a bed of nails rose up from the water on the floor. Strobe lighting played while acrobats dressed in robes resembling burqas descended from the ceiling suspended from wires, - so no-one interpreted this? What does it all mean:) - fly away to freedom from the torturous and black place? Guess we'll never know.
    • Honestly, this is one of McQueen's dumber concepts and I think everyone wrote it off as such. I don't even think he knew what he was trying to say with it. In comparison, better finales like the illusion of Kate Moss drew enough analysis that I got an FA out of it alone.
  • Knowing next to nothing about runway shows, are they just one-offs? McQueen didn't then repeat the show back in London?
    • They're generally one-offs; that he reprised Banshee and Dante is genuinely weird. I'm not aware of him doing so for any other show.
  • No comment from Wintour?
    • Not that I found in any source, but that doesn't really surprise me

That's all from me. I know so much more now, so thanks! JennyOz (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (no spotcheck)

Bibliography

  • There are no sfns pointing towards Bolton 2018
    • Oops, that was a leftover - removed
  • On the Victoria and Albert Museum video, add the media type and put YouTube in the via parameter
    • Via parameter done, but it isn't any of the applicable media types, so that wasn't done
  • The Internet Archive link to Thomas 2015 is locked- that is, the borrow is unavailable to most, so you could cut the link or add the lock icon next to it
    • Ditto Wilson 2015
      • I'm gonna keep them in case they become available again, I generally haven't bothered with locks for paywalled/restricted sources as it's not mandatory and would be a huge amount of work for minimal benefit

Refs

  • Ref 12 is dead
    • Good thing there's an archive
  • Citations that are housed at Newspapers.com often have that site in their via parameters- same for Gale and ProQuest sources, but this is a suggestion, it's not required
    • I don't bother, generally; I got told somewhere along the line not to do this, but
  • Ref 57: International Herald Tribune is the wire agency, but NYTimes is the publication- switch
    • I don't think so. IHT was its own newspaper that happened to be owned by NYT; as a resullt its archives are now hosted on NYT. The bottom of the article even says "A version of this article appears in print on   in The International Herald Tribune."
  • Ref 59: add YouTube to via
    • Done
  • Ref 82: quotes in the citation title should use apostrophes per WP:QINQ
    • I've italicised it instead for consistency since what was in quotes is a major work

Premeditated Chaos, that's all, lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • "Eye (Spring/Summer 2000) was the fifteenth collection made by British fashion designer Alexander McQueen". Suggest deleting "made".
  • "the collection's most well-known design". Suggest "most well-known" → 'best-known'.
    • Above two done
  • "Bibliography": you only need to link Metropolitan Museum of Art at first mention.
    • I've been told to link each instance of a publisher, because readers won't necessarily be reading the bibliography from top to bottom.
A little to my surprise, that is a not unreasonable interpretation of MOS:REFLINK. I am not a fan, but that is irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2023 [24].

Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a skyscraper in New York City that, until a decade ago, was the tallest in Brooklyn and the only real skyscraper in its neighborhood. The exterior has extensive amounts of sculpture, an enormous clock tower, and a dome (leading some to compare it to a phallus), while the interior has an extremely elaborate banking room. Developed as an office building, the tower later housed dozens of dentists' offices before being converted to residences.

This page became a Good Article a year ago after a Good Article review by Ganesha811, for which I am very grateful. Following a copy edit from voorts, to whom I'm also indebted, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review PASS (no spot checks)

Working on it now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'll type out more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the comments above, the citations and sources appear to be formatted properly, the sources seem reliable, and the links go to the right places. Of the academic publications, I see mostly broad surveys of NYC architecture. There aren't any academic sources more focused on this building, are there? As a collection, these sources represent a pretty wide breadth of publications from a wide span of time, so notwithstanding my question about academic sources, the list looks comprehensive. Well done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Images are all under free-use license or creative commons
  • Infobox image needs alt and a proper caption
  • In fact, all the other images are missing alt.

ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed for image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZKang123

I shall review.

Lead:

  • "There is also a lobby in the basement, leading to Atlantic Terminal and the Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station" – "A basement lobby leads to..."
  • "The bank occupied the lowest floors when the building opened on April 1, 1929. The remaining stories were rented as offices." – suggest combining with a semicolon
  • "By the late 20th century, much of the building contained dentists' offices." – This statement is a little trivia for me to be included in the lead.
  • "similarly designated" – "later designated"

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZKang123, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was rather busy with my studies for the past few days so I haven't been able to give this a proper look through. But I won't be opposed if others' consensus finds this article worthy of FA.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123, do you have any additional comments about this article? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Like I said, if others find this article worthy of FA, I won't be opposed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ZKang123. I have done all of these except for the dentists' offices, which is described in some detail later on in the article. I've also fixed the image issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

Recusing to do a review.

  • Prose:
    • Lead:
      • This may just be me, but measurements start getting in the way of reading text, especially when you have the conversions as well, so I'd try and limit them, especially in the lead. The height is the overarchingly important stat; I'm not so sure the size of the clocks or the size of the banking room are so important they need to be mentioned here.
      • It seems odd to me we mention the previous banking headquarters specifically in the second paragraph, but then follow back on it in the third when giving the history.
    • I know that you've put out a lot of these articles with a similar structure, but I wonder just from a limiting repeating information sense, if it would make a bit more sense to put the context and history for the building (or at least its construction) up before the long description of the site. We mention the 175 Broadway headquarters a bunch, for instance, before it gets properly introduced in the history.
      Yeah, that might make more sense. Swapping the history and architecture sections might be the best thing to do here; I'll do this shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thoughts on the stats talk likewise relate to the article as a whole; sometimes it just feels like we're getting smacked with random factoids and conversions for long passages. Is the height of the center of the clock from street height really so important it needs to be mentioned? We can convey the size and mass of the clock hands without three separate sentences giving specific figures. Where possible some more summarization would I think make it read a bit better, especially when we're giving exact dimensions or exact numbers of things (the number of rectangles in a grid, the number of window bays, etc.) It's appropriate for the LPC designation, I'm not sure it's appropriate for an overview like this.
      • I've tried to condense the description slightly. I do acknowledge that the description may have been overly detailed - Ganesha811 removed much of this excessive detail during his GA review, but maybe some of the extra detail was retained unnecessarily. I've trimmed the exterior section slightly and the interior section more significantly. I don't want to give too little detail (for example, the fact that there are three huge arched windows is mentioned prominently in a few sources), but in hindsight we really did not need three subsections for the banking room section. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Due to the height of the five-story banking room, as well as empty spaces on the topmost floors, the building has been described as having as few as 34 stories." Honestly this feels like it's not important enough to note, especially if it's apparently not commonly done.
      • I included this sentence because I felt that the reader would benefit from an explanation of the conflicting floor counts. Would you prefer that I remove this completely, or is it fine if I move this to a footnote? Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per this and the below note, I think that's definitely something that should get mentioned in prose as "generally X stories, some stuff counts differently" and then use any further mentions/the LPC stuff in a footnote the first time it's relevant. I don't think repeating the footnote every time you hit another floor number comes up is necessary (it's mostly just distracting and adds to the refspacing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Good point as well. I have removed these extra footnotes. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of ease of reading, I think you should just pick a story-numbering scheme and stick to it, rather than "at the 30th story (floor 26)" stuff. Especially since we're talking about the exterior, the interior numbering isn't all that important.
    • "Embedded in the wall are square bas-reliefs, one on the right of a burglar," I assume this is supposed to mean one of the bas reliefs is of a burglar, but the way it's phrased makes it kind of sound like the reliefs are on the right of a burglar.
    • "On the south side of the ground story, leading from the center of the Hanson Place frontage, is an entrance vestibule.[33] The doors from the south lead from Hanson Place. " This seems redundant?
    • "it had 158 depositors and $15,000 in assets" what's the timeframe for this statement?
    • It's unclear if the architects had to modify the plans after the department rejected them or not, since it only says the completion date was pushed back.
    • There's a lot about the building's dentists.
    • The critical commentary on the building feels pretty thin, especially since there's not really a source directly speaking to generally positive critiques of the building. At the least I don't really see where the height record stuff and symbolism should be divorced from what comes before it.
      • I have removed the part about positive critiques. Given I wasn't really able to find too much critical commentary on the building, I have combined the symbolism and critical commentary sections. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments David Fuchs. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Johnson did not initially plan to include affordable housing in the converted building, prompting criticism from community groups" — so what came of this? Did affordable housing get added as implied, or not?
        • I haven't heard anything about affordable housing being built (in fact, the sources I've found indicate that all of the residences there are luxury condos). I've rephrased the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Impact section is a little better, but it still feels a bit like a laundry list of quotes rather than a summary. I will take a look and see if I can find anything else that might go there.
Drive-by comment: to my mind it also 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". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but on the flip side, MOS:QUOTEPOV says that quotes could be used "to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice", which some of these quotations truly are. I've paraphrased the other unnecessary quotations, but it's quite hard to paraphrase an opinion while staying faithful to what the source actually says. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • "The windows' ornate decorations contrasted with the spare ornamentation of the piers on which the arches rested." Why is this sentence is past tense? Are the arches no longer there? Same for "The metal included brass, bronze, copper, silver, and both cast and wrought steel." (Everything around it is present tense.)
      • Otherwise, prose looks fairly good. I've made some edits and I will probably want to do a final pass later, but it's looking much more readable. Will be looking over other criteria presently.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why these were in past tense, but I've fixed this now. Thanks for following up David. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on source review. While there's no major issues I found on my spot-check, I did appear to find a number of minor issues with figures, timing, etc. that seem to be prevalent throughout and need a fine-tooth comb to check for. Some might just be me nitpicking to a pedantic degree, but I think enough are plain that it needs addressing. I Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 56, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 75, 79, 81, 86, 93, 96, 104, 120, 121, 139, 141, 142, 145, 148, 164, 172, 178, 180, and 184.

    • Ref 14: text says "there were eight buildings on the lot", the source itself is a little less definitive and says "about eight".
    • Ref 19: text says " The bank had 139,000 depositors and $212 million in assets in 1928". The source says "139K depositors but $210 million in assets.
    • Refs 29, 30, and 31 are used to source the bank protests. The text says "Though they were joined by six other banks" (aka eight banks in total, including the aforementioned City Savings and Dime Savings), but ref 31 gives a total of ten (City Savings, Dime Savings, "and eight others".)
    • Ref 34: text says "The William Kennedy Construction Company was awarded the general contract for the new building in December 1926, at which point the building was planned to cost $3 million" but the source is from December 1927.
    • Ref 36: text says "and a chimney for the church was integrated into the new bank building". The LPC designation says that the tower provides heat to the church in lieu of a chimney, it technically doesn't say there's a chimney expressly for the church.
    • Ref 39: text says "and the bank announced that it would begin clearing the site" [later that month, I.e. January 1927], but the source says that they would be clearing it next month.
      • The statement is correct because the bank made the announcement in January 1927. Grammatically, January 1927 refers to "announced", not to "clearing". If I had meant to say that "the bank would begin clearing the site the same month", I would have said so, but this is incorrect. Maybe "the bank announced that it would, in the following month, begin clearing the site" would convey what I meant to say. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 70: mentions the closure in the late 1970s, but doesn't support the observation deck having been open to the public up until that point.
      • The source says the deck "has been closed to the public since the late 1970s", so that part is correct. I've removed the implication that it operated continuously since the building opened, if that was what your concern was. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 86: source text says "The building's name was not changed,[88][89] and residents unofficially continued to call it the Williamsburgh Tower", but it's talking about its unofficial name up to that point; it can't really be used to prove the future point that residents continued to call it that.
      • The sources from 1990 (after the merger) do mention that the building's official name remained the same, but I've removed the commentary about whether the unofficial name remained after the merger. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 104: Text mentions landmarked banks being converted, but the reference doesn't mention landmark status (and only some of the banks mentioned therein are landmarked.)
    • Ref 141: Text says "At the 30th story is an open loggia of arched windows, topped by another horizontal band of terracotta" but the landmark report doesn't mention the loggia.
    • Ref 172: Text says "while the Brooklyn Times-Union stated that the building's construction would unite Brooklyn's and Manhattan's skylines" but the Times-Union article says that "our skyline and that of Manhattan were merging" (they have already united), it's that as the skyline migrates north in Manhattan, it's also spreading outward in Brooklyn (such as the Williamsburgh Bank Tower.)
      • I've also commented below with regards to this point. However, now that I think of it, the merger of the skylines isn't what the source is really focused on—rather, it is the effect on property values and the fact that the tower was an "architectural triumph", as the source puts it. Accordingly I will be modifying the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the spot checks. However, with all due respect, I think some of these issues are not as major as they seem to be. Here are a few examples I'd like to quickly address:
    • The issue with reference 14 (that the source says "about eight" while the article says "eight") is a matter of wording - it's not possible for there to be about eight buildings. There's either exactly eight buildings, or there's seven or nine, unless somehow half a building wasn't replaced. I went with "eight" since saying "around eight" would make it sound like we don't know whether it's eight full buildings or not, while "exactly eight" would not be correct. MOS:UNCERTAINTY seems to indicate that numbers "rounded in a normal and expected way" should be rounded in this fashion.
    • Ref 104: technically, all three banks mentioned there are landmarked (the Apple Bank Building and the New York County National Bank Building are city landmarks). Yes, it's also true that the NY Times report doesn't explicitly mention "landmarked" bank buildings, but this is also verifiable using the LPC's website (and something I didn't think I needed to explicitly spell out).
    • Ref 141: The report mentions arched windows. Again, I agree that it doesn't specifically mention a loggia, but it does source the windows and everything else in that paragraph. (I described the windows as a "loggia" because that's how they physically appear, so I guess that might have been skirting the OR line.)
    • Ref 172: The source says that the skylines were merging but that "the skyscraper section is spreading", which indicates to me that the merger isn't complete yet, especially judging by the fact that the skyscraper boom was just hitting Brooklyn. As it turns out, this isn't even the main point of that article. Let me go back and change it.
  • I will comb through the article to fix these issues (and more) later. I do feel that some concerns are slightly nitpicky, but I do appreciate the comments nonetheless and will try to eliminate all potential text-source integrity issues. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a cursory scan, I identified a few more text–source issues that I've now fixed. I will scan through the remaining issues over the rest of the week. I don't think there should be any major failures of verification, but it's clear that a few sources may have been misinterpreted or misread. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs, as a quick note, I've just thoroughly examined the History section and removed some items that failed verification. Like I said above, I am willing to scrutinize this entire article with a fine-tooth comb over the rest of the week, and i hope that you will reconsider after I finish analyzing the rest of the page. It would be a shame if the FAC were to be archived because I sloppily misread a few sources; I had a similar problem earlier this year but was able to weed out the minor issues in that article as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Such things crop up, especially with very detailed or lengthy articles like this, it's just good to be mindful of it. I've withdrawn my oppose pending another check once you've done one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you @David Fuchs. I should be able to suss out any lingering issues during the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Still working through this article, but I hope to fix all the remaining issues by Thursday or Friday. I already fixed several other errors.
      I'm unsure about a few sentences there and am thinking of erring on the side of caution. For example, the History section contains the sentence "The bank was originally housed in the basement of a church in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,[5][19] at Bedford Avenue and South 3rd Street". This is sourced to a few refs, none of which specifically pinpoint Bedford and South 3rd as being in Williamsburg. I know it's in Williamsburg, and you probably know that as well, but this might still be on the borderline of SYNTH if none of the sources say it. (I ultimately cut the intersection altogether, but there's a few other sentences like that in the article that I still have to check.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, this is taking longer than I expected. I should be finished in a few more days. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs, I've finished looking through the article and fixing the rest of the issues that I found. Some of these inaccuracies were my fault, while others were preexisting text that wasn't supported by the source and have now been removed. Given the length of the article, though, I've tried to fix as many of these issues as I could. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of doing another checkthrough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "From the time of its construction until 2009," Are anything other than the last two words required?
  • The lead says constructed from 1927 to 1929, and the body says the same, but the groundbreaking was in 1928 per infobox? This seems to be the date the cornerstone was laid. I'm not sure a groundbreaking and a cornerstone laying are the same thing.
    • You're right, though I couldn't find a parameter for cornerstone laying. For such a tall building as this, it doesn't make sense to have the cornerstone laid three months before the topping-out. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the fourth-largest in the United States.[5]" Fourth largest bank or savings bank? And by what metric?
  • "The approval was contingent on the fact that a temporary branch, which was planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, would shut down when the permanent building was finished." This sentence is rather awkward. Perhaps "The approval was contingent on the closing of a temporary branch that the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, once the permanent building was finished.
  • "In January 1927, the Williamsburgh Savings Bank opened a temporary location at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues." Since the plans for said temporary branch have been mentioned, perhaps "the" instead of "a". Do we have any info on its closure?
  • "The banking hall also hosted events such as an American Revolutionary War exhibit by the Long Island Historical Society in 1976.[70]" I would assume this had something to do with the United States Bicentennial?
  • "U.S. representative Fred Richmond" I would simply call him a Congressman and cap it and let it go at that.
  • "Basketball player Magic Johnson " I believe Mr. Johnson had retired by then, so a "former" might be good.
  • "The dentists had used large amounts of mercury vapor in their offices, " more likely they used mercury amalgams that generated vapor.
  • "the tallest building in Brooklyn from 1929 until 2009.[139][137][138]" refs out of order? Ditto "and motifs representing Brooklyn and its history.[146][145][163]"
  • 1916 Zoning Resolution is linked on second use.
  • "Near the corner is an inscription in all capital letters." Saying what? Maybe in a footnote?
  • "with a bronze sign reading "Subway"s.[147]: 7 " It says Subways? Or Subway?
  • "The roof contains an abandoned public observation deck at the 30th-story setback." Is this the one mentioned as being on the 26th floor under history? If so, perhaps try for consistency and also phrase as if you've mentioned it before.
    • Indeed it is, and I changed the first mention of "floor 26" to the "30th floor". There is a whole footnote about how the floor numbers inside the building (which I'll call "interior stories") don't match up with the physical stories outside the building (which I'll call "construction stories"), because the banking room is five floors tall. Hence, interior story 2 is actually the sixth construction story from the ground, and so on for all of the upper stories. In this article, I'm using construction stories, rather than interior stories. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basement lobby leads to the bank's vaults and the subway lobby.[144]" Maybe "led"?
  • "The depositors' vault was sealed by 60-short-ton (54-long-ton; 54 t) doors, measuring 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and 5 feet (1.5 m) thick, which were open for inspection during banking hours.[94]" Presumably you had to be a box holder to gain admittance? Thus "open for inspection" sounds a bit odd.
    • I changed this to "open to clients" (I think it should be clear that the clients are that of the bank, since I mention clients in an earlier subsection, but I'm willing to change this if it's unclear). Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Wehwalt. I have now addressed all of the points you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

I'll take a read-through after David's concerns are resolved (feel free to ping me back here). No point in reading through if things are just gonna get mixed up again. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891, thanks. I've finished looking through all of the issues that David pointed out, and I've fixed some other issues that I found myself, if you would like to take a look. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the thick of finals week, but there's some light at the end of the tunnel after wednesday, at which point I should be able to comment on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will read through by Saturday, hopefully today or tomorrow. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York's superintendent of banks moved to allow the Williamsburgh to open a Downtown Brooklyn branch" I'm not grasping from the context why a superintendent wouldn't allow them to open a branch
    • Basically, ten banks opposed the Williamsburgh's decision to open a branch in Downtown Brooklyn, but the superintendent allowed it anyway. In theory, the superintendent could have also denied the Williamsburgh's application for a new bank branch because of the other banks' opposition. I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""The approval was contingent on the closure of a temporary branch, which the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues," I think it might be clearer to put the plans to open a temporary branch earlier in this paragraph, rather than interrupting the sentence, especially if the plans were announced at the same time as the headquarters plans
  • "saying that they violated the provisions of the" Do we know why?
    • The source said "Article 3 of Sections 8G and 9B of the Zoning Resolution of 1916". The actual zoning resolution document doesn't indicate what 8G is, but 9B has to do with the height of a building at the corner of a wide street and a narrow street. Because 8G is not described in the document, I decided not to describe what it was.
  • Did the ensuing Great Depression have no impact on the building?
    • Not that I could find; the building was already almost fully leased by the time the Depression hit. However, the Depression did have an effect on other buildings (or rather, the lack of them), since no other skyscrapers were built in the neighborhood as a result. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A life insurance sales department opened at both of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank's branches in 1941" Is this relevant to this building?
  • "An office for discharged service members" a government office or?
  • "The building was also deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places" 'deemed' eligible by who (if it didn't end up getting listed)?
    Is there any reason it couldn’t have been added if the city landmark designation did not pass? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891, no. Buildings in NYC can be added to the NRHP even if they aren't city landmarks (the adjacent Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station is one example of this). It's just that it's easier for a building to be added to the NRHP if it already has city landmark protection, since the city landmark designation is more strict than the NRHP designation—for example, the windows theoretically could be changed without permission if the building were listed only on the NRHP, but not if it were a city landmark. I do not know why Spatt used this specific wording, though, and the source does not elaborate. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District on September 26, 1978" why was it not initially included?
  • "one story for data-processing equipment." data-processing for who?
  • "The Williamsburgh Savings Bank started replacing windows in 1983 after finding that some were severely deteriorated." Is this really relevant? presumably it was not an uncommon occurrence to replace windows?
    • Typically, no, but this provides context for what happened next. Because the building was a city landmark, the bank needed permission from the LPC to replace the windows, which they did not have. This led to what the NYT described as the largest violation of New York City's landmarks law at the time, a detail that is noteworthy. Presumably other windows were replaced in later years, but these all received LPC permission and so aren't mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the remaining space was 96 percent occupied by 2002" Maybe "in 2002" -- unless there was a point where it was 0 percent occupied?
  • "One potential buyer wanted to operate the building as an office structure, but he reneged because of concerns that he would not be able to outbid residential developers" relevance? I'm sure many people would have liked to buy the building but couldn't afford it
    • I have removed this, as it's probably run-of-the-mill for reasons you mentioned. I only included this detail because the residential boom in Downtown Brooklyn was, at the time, unusual for a neighborhood that was mostly composed of office structures. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Through history so far. Nice reading. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Eddie891. I've responded to all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " from thirty miles away" -- conversion figure?
  • " that "if it's a minute off, the people telephone immediately"" -- does this imply that they *didn't* rely on it, but instead just used it, considering that they had other clocks and noticed that it was off?
    • The source said that Brooklyn residents depended on this clock. Presumably some people had more accurate clocks, but I think this may be an exaggeration by the building manager. Nonetheless, there were at least some who may have used the clock as their main method of telling time, as evinced by the anecdote of the woman who missed a dentist's appointment because the clock was off. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bank officials required that the dome be included" In this tower or the 175 broadway one?
  • "these lights faded into each other, " I'm not sure what this means
    • The lights are in several different colors. As one light gradually turned off, another light (in another color) gradually turned on, giving the impression that one color was fading into another. However I don't think this detail is too important, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " features Cosmati rectangles in a grid" what are cosmati rectangles?
  • I'm wondering if some of the smaller phrases are not overcited-- for instance, why do you need three for " It was installed by Ravenna Mosaics" or "The mosaic, created by Angelo Magnanti"?
  • and the author Jonathan Ames created a "Most Phallic Building" I don't think this is the best choice for linking 'phallic architecture', especially because it gives the impression of being a link to the competition itself
  • "The tower was intended as the first of a series of skyscrapers near Downtown Brooklyn" intended by who?
    • I probably used a poor choice of words there. There was no master plan to speak of; several developers, not identified in the source, proposed skyscrapers in the vicinity. I've changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it from me Eddie891 Talk Work 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie891. I've addressed all of these except the overcite thing, which I'll get to later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support overall, I would like to see some of the shorter phrases that don't need multiple citations pared down a bit, but that by itself isn't terrible (I'd rather have over than under verification) Eddie891 Talk Work 15:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2023 [25].

Mount Berlin

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Antarctica, and the only one in Marie Byrd Land with ongoing geothermal activity. In the past, especially before about 10,000 years, a number of volcanic eruptions have taken place there and have dispersed tephra across Antarctica. The volcano partly developed under ice and features ice-volcanic landforms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
(t · c) buidhe 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

'assessed'? 'evaluated'? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yup these would be better, I was expecting you to say it was prospected by the US or similar Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus a few quick replies Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did I miss this?! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support on prose Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Which means that having said "which is variously interpreted as a rift[29] or as a plate boundary" you immediately describe it as a rift in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps 'This feature ...' or something similarly neutral?
?
Sorry, missed that. At least on Wikipedia Rift is uppercase, and in light of this example I would not categorically assume that putting it in uppercase implies that it must be a rift. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "The rift" is saying that it is a rift, 'The Rift' is merely referring to its common name.
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking.
  • Just to be clear, there are no known eruptions between 2.7 million 571,000 years ago?
    Aye. There probably was activity, but its output was buried under more recent eruptions or eroded away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 25,500 years ago it shifted to Mount Berlin proper". Would "it" refer to the activity which "also occurred on the flanks of Mount Berlin", ie as well as the activity on Merrem Peak, or to the activity which "then took place at Merrem Peak between 571,000 and 141,000 years ago"? PS Or, I suppose, both.
    Volcanic activity in general, but I already used "activity". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I think 'activity shifted to Mount Berlin proper' works in this case, and it removes the ambiguity.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a word can be included in an article which even the author can't define. How about 'Distinctive layers in ice cores have ...' or similar?
Did an impromptu translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I never bother, on a "sky is blue" basis, and have never been challenged. I also find it faster and usually faster to generate my own maps. My notes at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps may help if you want to trial this. (Both of the maps there are from FAs.)
I've put in such a map taking inspiration from yours, using Wikipedia's own coordinates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and well written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a couple of queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the map. Just the rift issue left. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Comments by Esculenta

  • "Mount Berlin is a 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) high" This phrasing meeds an adjectival form (parameter adj=on). There are several examples through the article, please audit.
    I think I got all of these, although I am not sure if that's grammatically correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "a c. 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi)" uses "c." for circa, which is commonly used in historical contexts. For the average reader (to which this lead should be geared) it's probably better expressed as "approximately" or "about" for clarity.
    Done and also the occurrence in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mountain with parasitic vents that consists of two coalesced volcanoes; Berlin proper with the" it's grammatically incorrect with a semicolon there (colon would work), but maybe the sentence would benefit from restructuring …
  • … "Berlin proper with the 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater and Merrem Peak with a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) wide crater, 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away from Berlin." This sentence might be reformulated for better readability. For instance: "Berlin proper features the 2-kilometre (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater, while Merrem Peak, located 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away, has a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) crater."
    The colon is in now. Going to need a second opinion on splitting, though, as it seems like it would be considerably wordier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has a volume of 2,000 km3" What does "It" refer to? The last thing discussed is trachyte, the dominant volcanic rock.
    Rearranged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a tephra? Yeah, I see there's a link, but this is the lead and there shouldn't be undefined/low context words in there that the reader has to click away to learn.
    Footnoted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tephra layers were formed by explosive eruptions/Plinian eruptions" this and/or slash to describe the eruption seems awkward; could it not be written more elegantly?
    Tried it, but I can't find a formulation that isn't either SYNTH or cherry-picks sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something like this: "The tephra layers were formed through a combination of effusive and intense explosive or Plinian eruptions, which were particularly active over the last 100,000 years, producing high eruption columns and distributing tephra widely across Antarctica and the southern Pacific Ocean."
    Mmm, the effusive eruptions didn't generate tephra layers. Upon reflection, I went for a different solution, it's somewhat cherry-picky but Plinian eruptions are a type of explosive eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link volcanic rock, and BCE in the 2nd image caption
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead image has me confused – are we looking at the highest point, or from the highest point?
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead says that MB is 210 km from the Amundsen sea (what part of the Amundsen Sea, it doesn't say), but this distance is not given in the article text, which says it's 100 kilometres inland from the Hobbs Coast of the Amundsen Sea. Shouldn't be in the lead if it's not in the article, cited.
  • it's interesting how 2,000 km3 = 500 cu mi in the lead, but when dealing with a tenth of that number, 200 cubic kilometres = 48 cu mi.
    Wow. No idea how I didn't notice this error before; fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this article in AE ("hypothesized") or BE ("metres")?
    It's supposed to be the latter, but I am ESL and so don't always notice the spelling differences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to parasitic vent and its redirect to "parasitic cone" bugs me. As I'm sure you well know, the vent is the opening through which volcanic materials are expelled, while the cone is the structure that forms around the vent due to the ejected material. So the interested reader who wants to know more about the cool-sounding "parasitic vent" gets led to the parasitic cone article, where the phrase "parasitic vent" does not occur (yep that article's crap), and leads to newbie reader not knowing if the terms are equivalent (the crap article mentions vents, but what's "parasitic" about them?). You seem to be one of the geology/volcano experts around here – perhaps you could use your powers to fix that problem for your future article links, and future readers? (I know, not strictly FAC-related, but a general suggestion)
    There is apparently space for a dedicated article but I tend to write more on specific volcanoes than such general articles. It seems like maybe swapping the article and the redirect would be warranted, seeing as a parasitic cone is by necessity built on a parasitic vent; what say you Volcanoguy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable but volcanic vent also redirects to volcano. Volcanoguy 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, volcano is a very broad-scope article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just from the lead. I see from a quick read that the entire article could use a thorough copyedit for nits like these, but to prevent this from becoming a lengthy peer review I'll end my commentary here and wish the nominator luck. Issues aren't enough to oppose, but I'm generally underwhelmed by the article quality. Esculenta (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered the issues and also attempted to mend some others. Do you think that The volcano is covered by glaciers, and thus only a few rocky outcrops occur on the mountain, although the volcano is considered to be well-exposed compared to other volcanoes in the region can be split in some way? Same question for and generated distinct deposits when eruption characteristics changed. Also I can't tell how to make the "in" go away in "1 metre (3 ft 3 in)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, sentences can be readily simplified by splitting them, so the newbie reader doesn't have to parse so much info in one gulp. "The volcano is covered by glaciers, resulting in only a few rocky outcrops being visible on the mountain. Despite this, the volcano is considered to be well-exposed in comparison to other volcanoes in the region." and another split: "They were formed by pyroclastic fallout during eruptions, which mantled the topography. As eruption characteristics changed, these processes generated distinct deposits." BTW "mantled" is not a common verb (outside of geological discussions), so it would be good if there's a stop there for the reader to assimilate that. Esculenta (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And is this what you mean: 1 metre (3 ft)? Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm here, another pet peeve: "about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)" there's no reason for there to be two significant figures in the output if the input is "about 1"; the answer implies a false precision. Esculenta (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was what I meant. Installed it for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Dealt with some potential nits in the description section) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esculenta, 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) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really only reviewed the lead in full, so I can't support. I've got a full plate on wiki and IRL, so can't commit to a full review at this time. I'll perhaps revisit for a complete review if I find a chunk of time to dig into the article, but can't guarantee it. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Volcanoguy

I might not be able to review this article due to computer issues but I'm putting this here just in case. Volcanoguy 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volcanoguy, this nom has been open a month so quick check if you'd still like to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre (11,411 ft) high glacier-covered volcano". Should this be "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre-high (11,411 ft), glacier-covered volcano"?
    Mm, not sure that we can assume knowledge of what the meters mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously referring to the elevation. Volcanoguy 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I prefer the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's problematic how it is but maybe it should be clarified that 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) is the elevation. Height can mean several things. Volcanoguy 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but this is a marginal thing IMHO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano began erupting during the Pliocene and was active into the late Pleistocene-Holocene." Why not use "late Quaternary" instead of "late Pleistocene-Holocene"?
    Quaternary is a very broad term that has also been applied to purely Pleistocene volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the Holocene and late Pleistocene are late Quaternary. The article already makes it clear that Mount Berlin was active during the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Volcanoguy 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying late Quaternary however does not make it clear that activity lasted into the Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "late Pleistocene-Holocene" supposed to mean Mount Berlin was active at the boundary of these two epochs or that Mount Berlin was active during both late Pleistocene and Holocene? Volcanoguy 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, but both interpretations are factually correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology
According to WP:DASH, dashes are used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • "Many of these volcanoes form distinct volcanic chains, such as the Executive Committee Range where volcanic activity has shifted at a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.4 in/year)." Is there a specific direction this volcanic activity has been shifting?
  • Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years." I would suggest slightly rewording this sentence to "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary; argon-argon dating has yielded ages as young as 8,200 years."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four volcanoes in the Marie Byrd Land volcanic province". Missing the capitalization of "volcanic province".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The West Antarctic Rift has been volcanically and tectonically active over the past 30-25 million years." En dash instead of hyphen?
    Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a hyphen between "long" and "term". Volcanoguy 20:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
Last eruption and present-day activity
  • "The date of the last eruption of Mount Berlin is unclear but the Global Volcanism Program gives 10,300±5,300 BP as the date of the last eruption." "Last eruption" and "last known eruption" are not particularly synonymous.
    While I think last known is implicit in the GVP indication, I am not sure it's explicit enough to say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there could have been more recent eruptions that haven't been identified. Given the fact that Mount Berlin is mostly covered with ice there could very well be younger volcanic rocks that haven't been found or dated. So to say that 10,300 ± 5,300 BP is the date of the last eruption may not be the case. Volcanoguy 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but I don't know whether GVP knows or has reasons to treat it as the last eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't; the GVP treats it as the "last known eruption" is what I'm trying to get at here. Volcanoguy 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All this time, and I didn't notice that the GVP pages say last "known" eruption; correction now in in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These geothermal environments may host geothermal habitats similar to these in Victoria Land and at Deception Island". Similar to "those" in Victoria Land and at Deception Island.
    Forgot to note that this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, have you addressed all of these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending feedback from Volcanoguy on some, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Volcanoguy 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • "It is a about 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi) mountain": looks like some editing debris?
    Yeah, something happened to the lead. I've cleared it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest removing the self-links to Berlin Crater
  • "The edifice emerges 2.1 kilometres (1.3 mi)[11] from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." I don't know what this distance refers to. The associated note says that the ice sheet is piled up against the side of the volcanic, so there appears to be no horizontal distance between them.
    Aye, but there is a vertical distance between the summit of Berlin and the WAIS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but the text doesn't make it clear that that's the distance being given. I would take "the edifice emerges" to refer to the point where the rock emerges from the ice. Since the note clarifies the relationship between the edifice and the WAIS, I don't think you need this at all, but if you keep it it should be clear what it refers to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to me "emerging X meters" is clearly meant to refer to the emergence i.e the vertical coordinate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I follow you. The volcano has an elevation of 3.478 km at its peak; the highest point of WAIS on its flank is 1.4 km; so the difference between those two is 2.1km. How about "Mount Berlin's peak is 2.1 km above the highest local elevation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, OK, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These craters are aligned in east-west direction": suggest either "These craters are aligned east-west", or "These craters are aligned in an east-west direction".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire edifice has a length of about 20 kilometres (12 mi)." Given that we said it consists of two edifices, suggest making this "The entire combined edifice".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some lava flows feature levees." What does this refer to? The link goes to an an article that does not explain the term's use in this context.
    Expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tendency towards more primitive magma compositions": I had a look at the magma article to try to understand this use of "primitive"; as far as I can tell it refers to the composition of the original melt. Is that correct? If so, how can that apply when it appears there is no single magma chamber?
    Footnoted this, it's a technical term to define magma chemistry and is strictly speaking a spectrum rather than a yes-no thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Activity began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years": It wouldn't hurt to make it clear these dates don't apply specifically to Mount Berlin. Perhaps "Activity in the province" to address the first part, and give the location of the dating in the second half?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really necessary, but it would be interesting to know if the tephra layers have been found in ice cores in the northern hemisphere.
    Yes, but not from Antarctic volcanoes. Oruanui might have produced a bi-polar tephra layer, though, but it's in New Zealand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the eruptions in the "Chronology" section are more or less chronological; any reason not to switch the first two entries to make them conform?
    Can't think of one, so that's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 443,000±52,000 lava" seems an abbreviated form of words?
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "7,768 BCE": all your other dates are essentially BP dates; I think it would be better to be consistent. There's another BC date in the final section.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have a similar composition even if no exact match is found": the phrasing seems odd. I assume this means "have a similar composition though no exact match has been found"; if so I'd use that form of words.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been evaluated for the potential to obtain geothermal power": any interesting conclusions from the evaluation?
    No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me like this statement from the same page (p.120) could be summarized as a conclusion: "Being isolated and extensively covered with ice, these volcanoes are unlikely to have any significant economic value as geothermal resources" (rather than leaving the reader hanging). Esculenta (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with Esculenta that a brief summary statement to the effect that there is little chance of exploiting the volcanoes for geothermal power would be helpful but that's not worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2023 [26].

Argosy (magazine)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential magazines in American history. Argosy was the first pulp magazine and spawned hundreds of imitators and an entire industry that lasted almost sixty years. It was the first brick in the publishing empire built by Frank Munsey, an often-reviled publishing mogul of the early 20th century. It outlasted Munsey, who died in 1925, but the magazine eventually succumbed in 1978, though it has been revived several times since then.

The article has one unusual feature. In researching the history of its editors, I found that none of the secondary sources listed them correctly for a short period in 1942. I sent a correction to one of the sources, and they accepted it and have updated the relevant pages, which the article now cites. I don't think this is a COI in any way but thought I should mention it. It's an example of what we often tell new editors -- if you have original information, get it published and then we can include it in a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I've ever actually had to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

Saw that the peer review closed without any comments. I'll try to find the time to review this, though I make no promises. Leaving this here for now at least. TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TompaDompa, I think this could do with some TLC if you have the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find the time in the next few days or so. TompaDompa (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • The article is rather light on links. It's of course a matter of preference, but I would probably include a fair number of additional links to things like serial (literature) and World War I.
    I've linked those two, and will keep an eye out for more possibilities as I respond to your other points, but if you see others you consider to be omissions please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WWI and WWII are classic MOS:OVERLINKage; everyone knows what they are, and no one will click on them from this article. Such links add to the WP:SEAOFBLUE, and diminish the value of links relevant to the article. (Not a significant matter relative to FA status, just something to consider.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can agree to disagree about that specific example, but it is indeed a balance between including too many links and not including enough. I generally lean in favour of including fairly many. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I would likely go for more WP:REDLINKS.
    I've added a couple. I assume you're thinking of some of the early stories, which might have commentary? I think some are likely to be too obscure to have standalone articles so I'm reluctant to start linking the titles, but if you feel confident that some are independently notable then go ahead, or let me know which ones you think deserve the links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Publication history
Contents and reception
Men's magazine era
  • "In 1942, in an attempt to revive the magazine's fortunes, the all-fiction format was abandoned and articles about the war" – I can figure out that this refers to World War II, as can likely most readers, but I think it should be made explicit.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argosy's citation from the Post Office listed stories considered to be obscene; the list included The G-String Murders, a serial by Rose Louise Hovick that began in May 1942, and "How Paris Apaches Terrorize Nazis in Girl Orgies" and "Sex Outrages by Jap Soldiers", articles in the July and August 1942 issues." – no feedback here, I just find it amusing that those titles sound like something someone would make up to poke fun at tabloid headlines.
    I agree -- I thought it was worth including by way of illustration. Incidentally, the link for Rose Louise Hovick goes to Gypsy Rose Lee, which many more readers will recognize. The credit in the magazine itself was to Hovick, but do you think it would be worth mentioning her stage name in this article because of the recognition factor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll defer to your judgment here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; much appreciated. I've responded to some of the ones I could deal with quickly; will continue this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, all replied to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, I've dealt with the two additional comments you left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. The article looks good, but I am unfortunately not sufficiently confident in my own ability to discern whether an article on this topic is up to WP:Featured article standards or falls short of them to be comfortable endorsing this unequivocally. I have no particular misgivings about the article, I just don't feel qualified enough to assess its quality to such a high standard to give an unreserved appraisal. TompaDompa (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Frank_Munsey.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    The LoC link says it's part of the Bains collection, and the rights description link, here, says there are no known copyright restrictions but gives no more details. I had a look around to see if I could find the source but haven't been able to. Is the LoC description not definite enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I've added a photo of Gypsy Rose Lee, FYI, in case you see any issues with the licensing there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

References

  • Reference numbers are from this version.
  • Ordinarily I would suggest linking the short cites to the bibliography (e.g., by using {{sfn}} cites). Though it's normally a matter of preference, here, given the prevalence of anonymous sources, I would strongly encourage doing so.
    I understand the benefits of sfn but dislike it as an editor. I may try switching to it as some point but for this article I'd rather see if I can get the cites in order without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are archived versions of Galactic Central being linked to in the first instance? It looks like the site is still live.
    All the pages from that site that have numerals in the URL are subject to change every quarter as the site is reindexed to take into account new content. The URLs will never go dead, but they'll unpredictably change so that the citation information is no longer on that page. I've handled this by marking them as dead immediately and giving an archive link. I agree it's not a great solution but I don't know of a better way to deal with the issue. I'm open to suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense; that's a better solution than letting them get out of date. The only other thing I can think of would be to email the guy behind the website—I can't see why it would be in his interest for links to his website (whether from Wikipedia or anywhere else) to get dated every quarter. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He does have a method of permalinking, but the last time I tried to use it (a month or two ago) it was broken. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the cites to websites (there are many) appear to incorrectly give the access date as the source date.
    For Galactic Central there are no source dates that I can find -- I think the rule is to give the access date for that parameter in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would just be confusing, because you wouldn't know what the date actually meant. Looking at Help:Citation Style 1 § Dates, the rule is "When a source does not have a publication date, use |date=n.d. or |date=nd". (News to me too—I've just been leaving them blank.) {{cite web}} also gives the intel that "The date of a Web page, PDF, etc. with no visible date can sometimes be established by searching the page source or document code for a created or updated date". The second is certainly not required, but I would do the first, or at least remove the dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this one is still remaining. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, missed this. I'm removing the access dates now. The template documentation for cite web for the source date field says "Full date when the source was published; if unknown, use access-date instead; do not wikilink"; I always interpreted that as meaning "put in the access date", but perhaps it meant "ignore this parameter in favour of the access date". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernameunique: I think I've cleaned them all up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #12, #121, #123 — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #170 — What is this ("Anonymous (December 1942), p. 20") citing to? There's no anonymous work from December 1942 in the Sources, and the only December 1942 works there are a) have identified authors and b) don't include page 20. (This is another good example of why linked short cites would be better, by the way.)
    Fixed -- three separate errors on my part here: it was by Harriet Bradfield, not anonymous; it was 1943, not 1942; and I had not even added that source to the list of sources. Should be OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Also made a few minor edits while checking. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- I've responded to a couple of things tonight but may have to wait till tomorrow or Tuesday to finish. Thanks for the helpful copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, I think I've now responded to all points -- sorry about the delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, sorry for letting this slip. I saw one lingering retrieval date given as source date (#19), which I trust you'll clean up—you might want to double check, too, just in case there's another one or two. But it looks good overall, and I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that one and looked through again but couldn't find others. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Argosy
The Argosy
Dewart, Popular Publications

Done to the start of Contents and reception; more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more to add. Just one comment in the Science fiction and fantasy section:

  • "Argosy did print" and "Barsoom series had begun", had appeared': any reason why not "Argosy printed" and "Barsoom series began"?
    I changed the first one. For the second, the series began in All-Story, which is in the past at the point the article is talking about it, so I think the past perfect is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • "Munsey kept to the weekly schedule without missing an issue". This seems to be saying the same thing twice.
    The key point is that he didn't miss an issue, but I think "Munsey managed to avoid missing an issue" wouldn't read as naturally. I've made it "Munsey managed to keep to the weekly schedule"; does that convey the point still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. If you want a little more emphasis, maybe 'Munsey managed to maintain the regular weekly schedule' or similar?
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 sample issues". I had to reread that to get the point. Maybe 'Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 free-sample issues' or 'Over five months the campaign gave away 11,500,000 sample issues'?
    I took the second option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Argosy" section: perhaps a date before the third sentence?
    Done, but I'm not sure that reads more smoothly -- what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am clearly missing something. The first date in that section is still in the third sentence.
    I misunderstood your comment, though in retrospect it's quite clear. For some reason I thought you wanted me to move the date in the third sentence up to the start of the third sentence. I've reverted that change and added the year to the first sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine briefly" → 'which was briefly retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine'?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1925 Munsey died." A little more detail would be nice, if only his age and the cause of death.
    Done. Britt doesn't say he died of appendicitis; it was probably complications of that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least four issues between Fall 1977 and Summer 1978". I don't think you need upper-case initial letters when not referring to specific issues.
    Those are the issue dates so I reworded to make that more natural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazine has been revived three times since then." This came as a shock. I had to back track through the previous two paragraphs to realise that you had implied, without expressly stating, that the magazine had ceased publication.
    Reworded the earlier paragraph to make it clearer that it (temporarily) ceased publication.
    Mike, could you quote this for me, my wheels are clearly spinning. I have just reread the three paragraphs in question three times and it still seems to leap from "Argosy's circulation remained over a million until at least 1973" to "The magazine has been revived three times since then" giving me a real 'whaaa ...?' feeling.
    I just realized that "The magazine" is confusing, coming as it does after mentions of the spinoffs, so I've changed that to "Argosy". Perhaps that paragraph should be first in that small section? Here's the sequence of events. Popular ceased to publish the magazine in 1978. Four more issues appeared from Lifetime Wholesalers, dated August through November 1979. I have no information at all about those issues -- presumably Lifetime Wholesalers bought the title from Popular and quickly discovered it was an unprofitable venture. The magazine ceased publication then until the first of the revivals, in 1989. The spinoffs are not issues of Argosy; they're covered here as that's how the secondary sources discuss them. Do the edits I just made help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed. How would you feel about "The last issue was dated November 1979." → 'The last issue was dated November 1979, after which regular publication ceased.'?
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bittner's comments in 1928 asked for "any good clean story with sound plot, rapid-fire action and strong masculine appeal will be considered" ". The grammar seems out here.
    Fixed by trimming the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- all responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am down to the start of "Other genres" and will try to finish the review later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argosy briefly lost its permit as a result, but did not miss any issues." This seems to beg a question. Having lost its permit, how was it reinstated before an issue was missed?
    The sources don't say. The main source for this is Barbas, linked in the article; she goes into great detail on the case affecting Esquire, which (she argues) was a free speech landmark. From this page it's apparent Esquire didn't miss an issue either, so presumably either the magazines agreed to clean themselves up until the appeals were over or else the removal of the permits was stayed pending the appeal results, but Barbas gives no details for Argosy and I don't see those details for Esquire either (though I might have missed them). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might be inclined to add 'the reasons for this are unclear' or similar, but that is very much optional.
I'm always hesitant to add notes like that, since I don't want to imply in Wikipedia's voice that "nobody knows the answer". Perhaps the answer is in some source I haven't seen yet. I would have thought the trade journals of the day would have covered it, but I haven't found anything like that yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. A classic. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2023 [27].

The Firebird

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back for another ballet (and popular orchestral work)! A personal favorite and choreographic masterpiece, this work was Stravinsky's breakthrough in the international music scene, setting the stage for Petrushka and The Rite of Spring. This article was promoted to GA in March with a review by Chiswick Chap, rewritten in July per an inquiry by Wretchskull. Just recently it received a PR by Corachow and Schminnte, and now here we are! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

Sorry, I missed the PR. As usually I'll look at lead last, but know already that the plot is too detailed for my taste, while I miss more about first reception, later performances and recordings.

Infobox

  • What I usually do for works with a foreign title which didn't make it to common name is still put it on top of the infobox, with the translation below, - here the French. I wonder if the French name should come before the Russian in the Native names, as it was for a premiere in France.
  • Caption: I doubt that the image had an English title. As the image caption is the first thing people will look at, it's perhaps worth saying that it is a sketch for a costume in the premiere, - the person is not mentioned in the lead.

Background

  • I like the concise para for Fokine much better that the composer's which I find overly detailed. Is it relevant that his father was a bass, or that he studied law, for examples? - need sleep --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed, and no worries over the PR, very glad to have you here! Thanks for all thus far! Also, somewhat unrelated- I saw The Company of Heaven in your stories list on your user page and gave it a listen out of curiosity, what a wonderful work! Britten's vocal music is glorious and diverse, and this one was no exception! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - resuming (and if you follow my stories you may have met Firebird "on the side", - a suite was played in the concert of the NWPh right after the Invasion of Ukraine, dedicated to the victims by (then) conductor Jonathon Heyward.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Thank you for some trimming. We have now R.-K. twice in short succession. I don't think we need to say "major works" when they also carry "first performed" and such.
  • I suggest to begin a new para for Diaghilev's background ("D. had founded ...")
  • *Koschei, the immortal king, and the captive Princess" reads like three characters.
  • watch out for ref order (after "deadline", for example)
  • "to the Rimsky-Korsakov household with Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov, the son of Stravinsky's teacher, and to whom Stravinsky dedicated the score" - split?
  • "While the composer worked, Diaghilev arranged ..." - I don't see one working, the other arranging simultaneously, - does it mean it was arranged before the work was finished?

Development

  • "April", - as this is a new section, where readers may arrive per toc, please provide a year (which is also not the year of December.
  • I wonder if "rehearsals began" should come before the two dress rehearsals.
  • I wonder further if there could be a section with narration of the plot and a list of roles, not in the lead, but before rehearsals.
    • Well
  • I see some contradiction between the Firebird first just described as classical, and then as revolutionary.

Premieres

Subsequent

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few minutes. Thank you for resolving the above! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Only after finding the Stravinsky background too long did I see that the equivalent passage of The Rite of Spring is much more elaborate. I like it short, but do as you see fit.

Structure

  • I don't see "Synopsis" justified, and Structure would be redundant to the header.
  • why Original Episodes Titles? vs. French episodes titles? (same for English)
  • if all these are titles, why not italic?

Instrumentation

  • on my display, the five completely normal strings occupy space with a lot of white space next to them.

Music

  • "call the princesses back into the palace, but when Ivan pursues her" - plural - singular
  • "Before Koschei turns Ivan into stone" sounds as if he does.

Suites

  • The titles of the first two suites have different capitalisation, - intentionally?

The article leaves me a bit curious about dates, people and styles of further recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is modeled after The Rite, but I think you were right on the extensive bio. For synopsis: I'm not sure what you mean, there's no header with '"Synopsis" since that's part of "Music and plot". Also, are you suggesting the table with episode titles be cut?
As for dates and people, I'm not sure what you mean. There are numerous names mentioned since many people were involved, and I tried to keep the ones focused on to a minimum so it wasn't confusing. The main three subjects here are Stravinsky, Diaghilev, and Fokine, as shown in "Background". Lastly, on the topic of recordings: I cannot find any reliable sources about the history of video recordings of The Firebird. I can find a few questionable reviews (like this) but I'm not comfortable citing that, and none of the book sources/journal articles seem to be very up to date with recordings. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping for @Gerda Arendt (also, to clarify, there is one sentence about a film version of the ballet under "Recordings") MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies to right above
  • The title of the table is "Synopsis and structure ", - I don't think we need any. Sorry that it wasn't clear.
  • I don't see any dates and people mentioned for the many recordings. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have no idea if any stand out. Gramophone usually has good reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you will probably have to be quite selective, as a Google Search for site:www.gramophone.co.uk "Firebird" + "Stravinsky" gives over 170 results, although there are some false positives. Schminnte [talk to me] 15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I let Google do the picking by a more generic question, this one comes first. I agree with you, MyCat, that classical.net is rather useless for the purpose. I'd like musicweb-international.com better. There are also newspapers, such as TNYT. And most recent is fun ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the synopsis and structure table should likely be incorporated into the prose. The plot section should mention the significant scenes. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for the input, I now see what @Gerda Arendt meant. That being said, I'm not sure that adding more is necessary. The "Recordings" section as it stands discusses the pianola rolls, names the first recordings, and briefly touches on the film version- much like The Rite, which this article is modeled after. Much of the commentary there is Stravinsky commenting on recordings, but I don't find this particularly important to the reader; understanding which recordings came first is important to the history, but knowing Stravinsky's favorite doesn't seem very notable. Also, there are numerous dates and names- the reason there aren't names of conductors is because the sources do not list them. Thanks for the specificity, though, always looking for ways to improve an article's readibility. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taken so far. As usual, lead last. You said you took The Rite of Spring as a model.

  • There, the plot is a half-sentence, - I suggest you move the detailed plot further down in the article, and leave just what's essential.
  • There, we have the last sentence about influence and recordings, while the many recordings of the Firebird are not mentioned in the lead, and popularity is only given for the suites.
  • There, Firebird is mentioned as preceeding, and similarly, the Firebird lead might look foreward at Sacre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, thanks again for the comparisons. Cut down plot in the lead, added a bit more about recordings. The mention of how Firebird looks forward to The Rite is in the last sentence of lead para 1. Thank you again! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trimming the lead, but where did the nice table go?
In the lead, I'd like even less, believing that a list of the characters - as in Appalachian Spring, with a specific note about how unusual the Firebird role was at the time.
In the article, I'd like even more of a plot than we had in the lead before (again as in AS, and compare FAs about operas, such as Falstaff), and the best place for it would be after the table. The table offers the original names, valuable for some readers, and their English counterparts. coming again in the and those not interested can easily skip the section.
Regarding the points below, the technical term word for performing a role in opera and ballet the first time is "create", but some readers misunderstand that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested cutting the table. I don't have strong feelings about it, however, so @MyCatIsAChonk should feel free to put it back in. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, I've shuffled the lead around, let me know what you think. For the table, thanks for the clarification voorts- I do agree that this table is mildly unnecessary, as I only included it because it was present before the revision. Gerda, regarding the plot, I'm not sure there's much more to add. One difficulty I had in writing the "Music and plot" section was that there is no clear definition of the plot as recorded by Fomine/Stravinsky that I could find. Whereas Falstaff has a thorough plot explanation in many program booklets and websites, I can't find the same for Firebird- most sites give only a sentence or two about the plot, and I was lucky to find the explanations that I found in Philip 2018 and the three sites. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and understand. I miss the table, but so be it if I'm the only one. Support. I suggest you move - in the lead - the sentence about the music before later performances, but won't change my mind overall ;) --(didn't complete signing yesterday but better sign the support) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger

I'm think I've heard music from this and liked it so... here goes nothing?

And that's all from me. Good luck, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from voorts

  • "had recently come to love" - change "come to love"; feels a bit informal
  • "Benois recalled that Pyotr Petrovich Potyomkin, a poet and ballet enthusiast in Diaghilev's circle, brought forth the subject of the Firebird, citing [or reciting if he actually read it aloud] with the 1844 poem "A Winter's Journey" by Yakov Polonsky, which includes the lines" - "brought forth" when?; in what context; to whom?
  • "Fokine read much Fokine drew on the stark contrast between good and evil in skazki (Russian fairy tales) in developing the ballet's characters. to find suitable tales; in writing the characters, Fokine displayed a stark contrast of good and evil commonly seen in fairy tales.
  • "Originally, Tcherepnin was to compose the music, as he had previously worked on Le Pavillon d'Armide with Fokine and Benois, but he withdrew from the project soon after." - is there a specific date for when "originally" and "soon after" were?
  • "fearing public disappointment from the public."
  • "portraying ideas of expressiveness, naturalism, vitality, and stylistic consistency." I'm not sure how these are "ideas" that have been "portrayed", rather than descriptions of the choreography.
  • "was revolutionary to thefor ballet scene"
  • "However, Russian audiences had less favorable views towards the work, and the Russian premiere was not well-received by much of the audience" (not well-received seems like an understatement).
  • "which Stravinsky took his family to from their home in Ustilug." - which production? do you have a date (or month and year)?
  • "Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov quickly traveled to Paris to see the ballet, and he later praised the production in a letter to his mother." - this is in the section about subsequent productions, but seems related to the initial production.
  • "it was impossible to mistake the genius of the composer, or of the artist who had designed the setting...'" - remove ellipsis at end of quote.
  • "inon the Iberian peninsula"
  • I would recommend moving the first paragraph of the "General character" subsection to the bottom of "Music" in its own subsection called "Critical reception". Also, is there any more recent criticism, particularly in scholarly works?
    • You raise a very good point- I moved it to a new subsection called 'Musical legacy'. As for modern critiques, not too sure about that- yes, there's a bit of commentary on the music itself, but not many modern analyses of The Firebirds lasting legacy, which is rather disappointing since it's such a seminal work in Stravinsky's repertoire. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You cite several sources regarding the choreography in the final paragraph of the "Development" section. Do those sources also comment on the choreography? Have you located any more contemporary sources that cite those works? If you're not sure about whether there's more modern analyses of the choreography / design / music, then I'd be concerned about whether the article meets FA's comprehensiveness requirement. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Voorts, fixed the other two. For this, I entirely forgot about the choreo, my mind was focused on the musical analysis... I'll try to expand upon this soon, thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schminnte

I had my say at the peer review, where my prose comments were promptly dealt with. The only outstanding comment I had during the peer review was that I personally would like to see a more technical detailing of the music; in retrospect I think the level of detail is fine. I believe the article meets the FA criteria, so I'm happy to support. Schminnte [talk to me] 23:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @Schminnte, hope to review A (For 100 Cars) soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

Image licence, sourcing etc. look fine for me. Placement seems reasonable too. I did not review the song things in the "Music and plot" section.

Source wise, spot-check only upon request. Don't think we need to archive Google Books links. Is the New York Public Library really the author of "Stravinsky and the Dance: A Survey of Ballet Productions"? Except for Presto Classical we seem to be talking high-profile sources every time - famous orchestras, noted authors and reputable university presses. Source formatting is consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I believe Presto is ok to cite here, as it is cited the same way in another FA, The Rite of Spring. For Stravinsky and the Dance; The author is Selma Jeanne Cohen, but I believe that the NYPL is the publisher- the first pages of the book give little information. Cut archive links for Google Books- if I missed any, let me know. Thank you very much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, who authors Presto and what reputation do they have? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Presto is an online retailer for recordings and other music things. If I'm understanding WP:VENDOR correctly, I believe using the page just to see the number of commercially available recordings is appropriate. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OKish, although I notice that the linked webpage does not directly reference the number. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, not sure if it shows up on your device, but I see "Showing 1 - 10 of 181 results" in the top left corner. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me it says 197, and does that number mean what we are interpreting it as? Search hits can mean a number of things, not all of them relevant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, ah, now I see what you mean. Cut the source and preceding claim. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a pass, source and image wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry (flaming auto correct): you need to check dashes on page ranges, as there are hyphens mixed in there - possibly only one, but there may be others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few others:
  • There is some inconsistent formatting in having some books in with the refs (59 and 74) and the rest in sources
  • Ditto with journals - why are some in the refs and some in the sources?
  • Griffiths: as he's contributor and editor, you need detail of which essays the cites are from
  • Hamilton: space for W.W. on publisher
  • White (1957) needs an oclc
  • Not part of a source review, but I noticed some LQ issues too ," instead of ",
- SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, fixed page ranges. The justification for having some sources in the refs rather than the sources is that they were only used once. If I cited a book/article and I cited different pages for different things, it went in sources- If I cited one page from one book/article and that was it for that source, there was no need to use sfns. Griffiths: how would I clarify which one it came from? The various citations through come from many different essays. Fixed Hamilton. Added ISBN to White 1957. What's LQ mean? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK for the sources/refs, but FNs 81 (Howerton) 82 (Papanikolaou) and 100 (Macaulay) don't have a page number at all (just the page ranges); these should have a page number(s)
  • For Griffiths you can do it the same way you do for Carbonneau. Separate entries for each chapter used. At the moment it just says he's the editor, which looks a little odd
  • LQ: See WP:LQ - it's logical quotations, having the quote marks inside the punctuation, rather than outside.
- SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, fixed Griffiths source and quotations. I see the confusion about those three sources: for those, I found them online databases like Brill or ProQuest, where just the text was present without page numbers, and those databases are linked in the refs. The page ranges are the article's actual location within the printed material, but I didn't get the sources from the book- therefore, page range. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, no problems for the Brill/ProQuest refs
  • Just the LQ point to sort out for all those non-sentences with full stops ( a "delicious musician.", "sudden crash.", played on a piano." etc)
- SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, forgot about the periods- fixed. Thanks for the thorough review even outside of sourcing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review as this was one of the works that got me hooked on modern classical, thanks to my mother, a big ballet fan. Also I recall with pleasure reviewing Brian Boulton's Rite of Spring article, so high time for the piece that broke Stravinsky onto the world stage...

  • Copyedited as I reviewed, so pls let me know any concerns. Outstanding points:
    • Stravinsky finished The Firebird in about six months, and had it fully orchestrated by April 1910; the orchestration was finished mid-May -- what's the distinction between "fully orchestrated" and "the orchestration was finished"?
    • When the company arrived in Paris, the ballet was not finished, causing Fokine to extend rehearsals -- can we be more specific here, e.g. is it the choreography that was incomplete, since I gather the music was all ready and orchestrated?
    • After the premiere and subsequent performances, Stravinsky claimed to have met numerous figures in the Paris art scene, including Marcel Proust, Sarah Bernhardt, Jean Cocteau, Maurice Ravel, André Gide, and Princesse Edmond de Polignac. -- not sure of the significance of this, at least the way it's written, and especially if it's only "a claim"...

That's it for now, hope to get the remainder before long... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, thanks for the review! Point one, I've no idea where that confusion came from, all fixed. Point two, the source does not elaborate further, just saying that ballet was unfinished and not saying why. Point three, I believe listing these people is important because it shows his popularity, and they all had some effect on Stravinsky: Princesse Edmond de Polignac commissioned numerous works of his, Gide was the librettist for Persephone, Cocteau was the librettist for Oedipus rex (opera), etc. Thanks for the CE- the entire article reads much better now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks re. point one. Re. point two, I can wear that for now at least. Re. point three, I understand, although without the clarification you've just given the significance might be lost on the average reader; ideally that bit might best come straight after Diaghilev's "eve of celebrity" quote, though chronologically it probably wouldn't work. If you keep it, think you at least need to re-phrase slightly and say Stravinsky recalled that after the premiere and subsequent performances he met many figures in the Paris art scene..., assuming that's all cited to his autobiography (you might chuck the relevant citation to the end of that sentence as well). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming...

  • Backtracking a bit, re. Stravinsky arrived in Paris around the beginning of June for the premiere. It was his first visit to the city and the premiere of his first stage work. -- mentioning the premiere twice really did make it appear the premiere was like, now, when in fact it didn't happen till a few weeks later. Can we re-phrase to Stravinsky arrived in Paris around the beginning of June to attend the premiere of his first stage work; it was his first visit to Paris.?
  • Rimsky-Korsakov's Sinfonietta on Russian Themes -- can we link, or at least date, this piece?
  • Re. the 1919 Suite, The score contained many errors -- I think an example or two might not go astray here...
  • The 1961 Columbia recording -- is this one conducted by Stravinsky himself? If so, worth mentioning that.

I think that's it for prose and coverage -- although I found a bit to edit, it generally flows well and doesn't seem to omit much, while also not being overly detailed. After we deal with the above I'll take another look top to bottom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, many thanks again, especially for the ce! Rephrased the sentence about Proust et al.
Point one: used your rephrasing. Point two: added date. Point three: source doesn't clarify, but I expanded the Stravinsky quote a bit. Point four: the source is no longer available on internet archive (lawsuit, probably) and I cannot access the page on Google Books, so I don't know. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for all those. Re. the last point, I double-checked my copy of Stravinsky conducting Firebird and it is the CBS in 1961; to make things simpler citation-wise, I managed to find the relevant pages in Hamilton on Google Books and have tweaked the text accordingly. That said, I'd be very surprised if the 1961 recording was the first of the complete ballet score: Hamilton seems to be listing only Stravinsky's recordings of his works, so I don't think we can use that as a source to state unequivocally that his was the first complete recording. Unless you want to go scouring sources for someone reliable saying which was the first full score recording -- or even the first 1945 score recording, to be safe -- I'd alter that sentence to Stravinsky recorded the 1945 suite with the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra of New York in 1946, and the complete ballet with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra in 1961.
Ian Rose, that's much better, thanks for rephrasing and clarifying- all fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discrepancy between the source and the original text of that sentence re. the 1946 and 1961 recordings rang a small alarm bell and made me want to spotcheck a few things to see that it was an isolated case, with the following result:
  • FN18a/b -- okay
  • FN61 -- okay
  • FN84b -- okay
  • FN88b -- issue: source mentions dungarees but I can't see anything about a Chinese Communist connection
  • FN91 -- okay
  • FN103 -- okay

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, cut issue with 88b, not sure where that came from- thanks for the spotcheck MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Corachow

My comments in the PR on the dance side of things were dealt with swiftly, though I'd like the following to be addressed:

  • In subsequent performances, considering adding a sentence to say that many more choreographers made their own version, not just the one listed here. Maybe named a few of them as well?
  • The only filmed recording mention is the Sadler's Wells / Fonteyn in 1959. I assume it's actually the first filmed performance? Online, I found DVDs of Firebird performed by Royal Ballet, Mariinsky and National Ballet of Canada (I believe the former two are filmed performance and the latter made for the camera). And I also recall watching the Paris Opera Ballet performing the Béjart version on video.

Personally I'd also like more details on the dancing side of things but I think it is acceptable here and I understand the difficulties with accessing sources. I'm also very sorry to have missed the Appalachian Spring review. Corachow (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Corachow, no worries about Spring- you being at the PR for this and that was immensely helpful, and it likely would've failed the comprehensiveness criteria without your comments! Point one: see the last sentence of the section, and most choreographers in Au 1998 are already listed in the section, so relisting them would be redundant. Point two: Gerda had a comment about the film versions too, but the conclusion was that there's little to no reliable coverage of this subject; I could only find sketchy sites like this. Having effective coverage of every film version would be difficult, since I cannot find a source that lists film versions, and even then, reviews of these films are few and far between. If there are any sources you're aware of, that'd be most appreciated, but my own searches have come up inconclusive. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The Oxford Dictionary of Dance (Google Books) listed several more versions, several made after Au 1998 was published, but did not go in detail on each one. Several well-known choreographers there, though their own takes aren't necessary the best known versions of Firebird and/or best known works in their careers. There's also one version by Alexei Ratmansky that was made quite recently. Corachow (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Corachow, thanks for finding that- added some names and companies. I'm not sure how helpful the addition is (see the end of "Subsequent productions") but it ensures coverage of modern choreographies too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Though all these new versions are all with completely new choreography and not Fokine. Please link Tetley and Taras. I also encourage you to add Ratmansky for American Ballet Theatre in 2012 (New York Times review), for a bit more modern coverage, and also because Ratmansky is one of the most important ballet choreographers working today. Corachow (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Corachow added- for the future, don't hesitate to add some things yourself if you deem them necessary, I trust your intuition on what's notable in ballet vs what's not. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is a support from me. In the future if I come across a source with information noteworthy I'll add them to the article. Corachow (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 5 December 2023 [28].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article began in the olden days of WP:WPTC and was one of our earlier FAs. Over the decade plus following its promotion, it suffered from article rot. It also fell far below our present standards for a FA and was demoted accordingly. With Hurricane Katrina being one of the most notable tropical cyclones in modern times, it goes without saying the meteorological aspect of it is of great interest and deserves an article of quality. After much research, I believe I have put together the most comprehensive and hopefully digestible piece on the meteorological aspects of Katrina. This article covers the storm's entire life cycle from its complicated origins across the Atlantic basin, to its record intensity in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent catastrophic landfall, and its ultimate dissipation thereafter. Being a sub-article of the much broader Category:Hurricane Katrina (which spans 190 articles, inclusive of sub-categories), it goes quite in-depth. While a heavy article, I do hope it's an enjoyable read and one that can be understood by most. Thank you all in advance for your time and input. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

I will probably not have enough free time for a full review for the next week or two, but I hope these comments will be helpful:

This completes my content review (unless I notice anything else later of course.) -- Mirokado (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review, Mirokado! I think I got to everything except the CS1 errors which is confusing me. I'm not the most tech savvy so I'm having issues here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's OK. Here are the warnings. They indicate citations which are not referenced by a callout in the article content. The citations could be, for example, previously-referenced citations which are no longer needed, general references supporting lots of the content in the article, or items which would be helpful for further reading. I would have one list for the citations a reader jumps to from the References section and another (or others) for anything else, since both: the status of the citations is clear to the reader; and this makes maintenance and completeness checking easier.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDidlake_Jr._and_Houze_Jr.2009.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGreen_et_al.2011.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHowden_et_al.2008.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMcTaggart-Cowan_et_al._(Part_2)2007.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRogers_et_al.2006.
    You are free to decide how you organise the citations, but it does help if we can tell that there are none which should have been removed. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cyclonebiskit, any response for Mirokado? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: I've been drained from work but I should be able to get to things tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mirokado: I've expanded upon information from two of these sources and moved the other three to a "further reading" section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this is what I was hoping you would be able to do. I have moved Didlake & Houze to §Further reading, which I think from the above is what you intended. -- Mirokado (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes while looking at the source:

And a couple more comments:

Support. This article is a fairly intense read, but there are inline explanations, notes and lots of wikilinks to help the general reader. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

Conditional support - I gave the article a thorough review before Cyclonebiskit nominated the article. I agree that this is the most comprehensive and most digestible writeup on the subject matter, which is one of my most important criteria for something being an FA (along with spelling and formatting). The only thing the article needs is to make sure all of the images have working URLs for their links. The Katrina in Florida and the NASA one of the GoM loop current aren't working right now. Also, check the formatting of ref 63. There is a broken bracket. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

CCI check

Hi Cyclonebiskit, any response for Sandy? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia: I believe this decision is up to FAC coordinators. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonebiskit, has there been a check ? WIAFA 1f says Featured articles must comply with copyright policy, and since the article (well, the entire suite of articles) is subject to a CCI, it would need to be cleared. That means going back to check for any old copying within or unattributed PD, as I did here to clear this one at FAR. It's a lot of work (although I've gotten better/faster at it), so I'd rather not engage it until/unless it looks like the article is in promote territory. Let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. Cyclone, this has been open for four weeks and has only limited indications that it is moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is appreciable further movement over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclone, if it does end up being archived, then I could do the CCI check at my leisure before you re-approach FAC ... be sure to ping me either way. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I expect to support once the remaining two comments above are resolved and would appreciate the opportunity to finish with a definite conclusion. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update; if things continue to progress well here, and nothing hits me IRL, I should have time on Friday 17 to do the CCI work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed most of the work, and added a {{Copied}} to article talk pages for Copying within Wikipedia that dates to 2005. (It has become faster for me to check these articles as I've become more familiar with where and how to look, and now having a base of knowledge about which editors historically frequently failed to attribute.) Once the dead links mentioned below at #Citation checks are cleared up, I can run a final Earwig, and mark this article cleared at the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final earwig pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation checks

Checking for citation consistency and correctness here. User:Cyclonebiskit, please deal with Sandy's comments first (and as "straight away" as possible) since they involve the CCI check. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other citation problems:

  • Bender III et al. 2010: The page range is 1012–1028, see the Bibcode etc. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chen et al. 2018: The page range is 287–306, see the Bibcode etc.
  • Green, Benjamin W.; Zhang, Fuqing; Markowsk, Paul (December 2011): Markowsk --> Markowski. -- Mirokado (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaimes & Shay 2009: The journal is Monthly Weather Review according to Bibcode and Doi.
  • Kafatos et al. 2006: Geophysical Research Letters uses a CiteID (in this case L17802) to locate each article, and page numbers such as 1–5 for pages within the article. This is an ID within the journal, so not suitable for the |id= parameter which is for unique identifiers. I think it would be OK to use |page=L17802 for this citation. The 1–5 page numbers for the ref callouts are fine. Same applies to other GRL citations. See "In-source locations" in the cite journal documentation.
  • Needham and Keim 2014: The S2CID is 262380488.
  • Rappaport et al. 2010: It looks as if we should say "Rappaport, Edward N." for consistency with the other authors who have second initials, see Bibcode.
  • The {{sfn}} invocations for Jaimes & Shay 2009, Needham and Keim 2014 are inconsistent. {{sfn|Jaimes|Shay|2009|p=4195}} is the more conventional usage, so I would go for that. Please make all the two-author sfn invocations consistent. -- Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please update the callouts and citations such as Bender III et al., Didlake Jr. et al., Lee et al. (those are the three I have noticed) to conform with MOS:JR:
    • "When the surname is shown first, the suffix follows the given name", without an extra preceding comma, thus for our citations: Didlake, Anthony C. Jr.; ...
    • "When the given name is omitted, omit the suffix ... except where the context requires disambiguation", thus for our callouts: Bender et al. 2010. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knabb, Richard D. (August 24, 2005): The date in the article is August 23, 2005).
  • Hurricane Katrina: A National Still Unprepared: National --> Nation. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beven, Jack L.; Berg, Robbie; Hagen, Andrew H. (May 17, 2019): the article lists the authors as: "John L. Beven II, Robbie Berg, and Andrew Hagen".
  • Williams, Jack (September 7, 2012): this should be marked "registration required". The archive is free to read. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2023 [29].

Israeli citizenship law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that recent events have brought this region of the world top of mind for many of us, I wanted to put this article forward for FAC again. This article is about the history and regulations of Israeli citizenship, unique with its basically immediate grants to Jewish immigrants from any part of the world. I completely rewrote this article two years ago and took it through a GA nomination successfully at that time. This article obviously covers a sensitive topic (even more so at this current time) so if there is anything even remotely close to not being sufficiently neutral, please point that out.

Thank you @Artem.G: for your review on the GAN and @BigDom: for your feedback on the first FAC, would be grateful for any further comments you had this time as well. Horserice (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a455bcd9

Hi, a few comments:

  • Lede: All male and female Jewish citizens, as well as male citizens of Druze and Circassian descent must perform compulsory military service; other non-Jewish citizens and Haredi Jews are exempt from conscription.: how does this relate to the topic? Especially in the lede? We're not going to mention all obligations of Israeli citizens. (same for the "Rights and obligations of citizens" section?)
  • Removed.
  • Other states imposed quotas on the number of Jews who could immigrate from the Soviet Union at the request of the Israeli government: which states?
  • Specified the US and Germany as destination countries.
  • The Supreme Court further elaborated on this in 1970, when it determined that persons who are born to Jewish mothers but do not practice Judaism are considered to be part of the Jewish people as long as they have not converted to another religion. and Both the Chief Rabbinate and Supreme Court consider followers of Messianic Judaism as Christians and specifically bar them from right of return,[44] unless they otherwise have sufficient Jewish descent. seem contradictory to me. Did I misunderstand something?
  • These regulations can be a little strange but this is not contradictory. If a Jew or someone descended from a Jew converts to Messianic Judaism, they would be ineligible for the right of return. However, Messianic Jews descended from Jews and who have never been adherents of Judaism themselves would be eligible because they never actively converted away from Judaism.
  • Children born overseas are Israeli citizens by descent if either parent is a citizen, limited to the first generation born abroad.: what if kids from the second generation are born in a country without jus soli: they're stateless?
  • Added detail on second generation births.
  • Do we have data on the number of people who become citizens per year and per route (Law of Return vs Naturalized non-Jews?)
  • No, the Israeli government only provides information on the number of immigrants arriving in the country rather than the number of new citizens, so there is no information on the number of naturalised non-Jews.
  • Do we have data revocation based on citizenship "fraudulently acquired"?
  • This information also doesn't appear to be disclosed anywhere.
  • Between 2003 and 2015, there were 8,308 people who renounced their Israeli citizenship.: do we know their reasons?
  • Added reasons.
  • Male spouses under the age of 35 and female spouses under 25 originating from the Palestinian territories are prohibited from obtaining citizenship and residency.: what does "originating from the Palestinian territories" mean? If a French citizen born in Ramallah marries an Israeli citizen, can they get Israeli citizenship? What if the spouse "originating from the Palestinian territories" converts to Judaism? What if the spouse has Palestinian Authority passport even though they were born outside Palestine and/or have another passport? What about Palestinian spouses who want to immigrate to Israel at the same time as their Jewish spouses?
  • Added more specific language describing that the restriction is on anyone ordinarily resident in those areas.
  • Added the number of affected Palestinian spouses and briefly elaborated on legal challenges to this legislation. Since there is already an existing article on the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, additional coverage on the views of concerned parties would more appropriately be added there. Horserice (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for all the edits. It looks good to me, although I don't know enough about the topic to support. (also: super interesting article!) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I found these sources that may be interesting:
    • Just 5 Percent of E. Jerusalem Palestinians Have Received Israeli Citizenship Since 1967
    • REPORT ON CITIZENSHIP LAW: ISRAEL (already cited but there are other interesting bits): "there are several restrictions on dual citizens. First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. Second, dual citizens cannot serve as members of the Knesset or fill sensitive security positions. [...] Third, dual citizens must enter Israel with their Israeli passport." "The total number of dual citizens in Israel (with all countries) can be estimated at between 800,000 and 900,000 - about 10% of the country’s population" "For decades, the Druze population of the Golan Heights (about 21,000 persons today) has retained its ties to Syria and its Syrian citizenship. The Golan Druze may apply for Israeli citizenship through naturalisation. Traditionally, very few have done so for fear of being labelled as traitors to Syria. In recent years, however, there is evidence of growing - albeit still small - interest in Israeli citizenship." "East Jerusalem Palestinians may apply to be naturalised as Israeli citizens. Since 1967, however, relatively few of them have done so. This is explained not only by the difficulty of the naturalisation process - which requires knowledge of Hebrew and numerous documents - but mostly by a nationalist-inspired resistance to ‘normalising’ and accepting Israeli control of Jerusalem. [...] Since the mid-2000s, demand for Israeli citizenship has dramatically increased. By 2017, about 20,000 of the 300,000 Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem have become Israeli citizens, and there is a long backlog of citizenship applications (Shaham 2018)." "Since the 1990s, the number of ‘illegal’ workers has steadily increased, as did the number of children who were born and raised in Israel to labour migrant parents (Kemp 2007; Elias and Kemp 2010). These Israeli-raised, Hebrew-speaking children are referred to as ‘sabra-ghost’ children (Willen 2005): sabra [prickly pear] is a slang term that denotes native Israelis, and the ‘ghost’ refers to their non-recognition by the state where they reside. In response to the increase of these children and civic activism against their deportation, the state formulated two ‘one-time’ naturalisation arrangements in 2005 and 2010, which legalised about 1,000 children."
    • Non-Jewish Minorities and Their Access to Israeli Citizenship
    • The New Second Generation: Non-Jewish Olim, Black Jews and Children of Migrant Workers in Israel: about labour migrants and their kids
    a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will get around to adding in honorary citizenship info but wanted to answer this question first about enemy states first. If you look at the end of the "Relinquishment and deprivation" section in the article, you'll find the relevent info there. Israel recognizes that there should be a Palestinian state established but does not recognize the current governing authority as a legitimate state, and so would not be listed under the current definition of "enemy state" in Israeli law. Horserice (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. So do Israelis have the right to travel to Palestine or to obtain Palestinian nationality?
    Also: Israeli citizenship may also be revoked from citizens who illegally travel to countries officially declared as enemy states (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran): what does "illegally" mean here? Can Israelis legally travel to these enemy countries without risking to lose their citizenship? And what happens to Syrian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Iraqi Jews, and Persian Jews when they move to Israel and get Israeli citizenship: do they have to renounce their other citizenship? Can they still visit their relatives or friends in their home country? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So do Israelis have the right to travel to Palestine?
Normal Israeli citizens cannot enter the Gaza Strip or Area A of the West Bank. Israeli settlements in Area C of the West Bank function as if they were part of Israel proper, even if are supposedly intended to be gradually transfered to Palestinian control under the Oslo II Accords. So the answer depends on the definition of Palestine in the context of the discussion, but I don't believe this content falls in the scope of this article.
What does "illegally" mean here? Can Israelis legally travel to these enemy countries without risking to lose their citizenship? Do they have to renounce their other citizenship? Can they still visit their relatives or friends in their home country?
You would need exceptional authorization from the governments in question (i.e. you're a diplomat). Even if a normal Israeli citizen could get authorization, considering that they were chased out of these countries in the mid-20th century, their presence does not seem welcome. And no, they wouldn't have to renounce their citizenship because these individuals would have acquired Israeli citizenship by right of return, which does not require renouncing previous nationalities. Horserice (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You wrote "And no, they wouldn't have to renounce their citizenship because these individuals would have acquired Israeli citizenship by right of return, which does not require renouncing previous nationalities." but the REPORT ON CITIZENSHIP LAW: ISRAEL says: there are several restrictions on dual citizens. First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. Second, dual citizens cannot serve as members of the Knesset or fill sensitive security positions.
I get that acquisition of citizenship by right of return does not require renouncing previous nationalities but how is this applied with the ban on dual citizenship with enemy countries (which I assume only applies to those who emigrated via the Law of Return as others cannot benefit from any kind of dual citizenship anyway).
Another question: does the obligation to renounce any foreign nationalities apply only in the past or also in the future? Can a naturalized Israeli citizen get a foreign citizenship later? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ban is on newly acquiring citizenship of those countries, as stated in section 11a of the Citizenship Law. This is more intended to prevent Arab Israelis from receiving citizenship from those places. The condition to renounce foreign nationalities to acquire Israeli citizenship is only a requirement at the time of acquisition; naturalized Israelis are free to acquire foreign citizenships if desired. Horserice (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification.
Regarding the infobox:
  • Ugh this is not actually dead, but it seems the Knesset site now requires connecting from an Israeli IP. Unclear if temporary but probably related to the war.
  • Title: "Citizenship Law, 5712-1952", even though the article is broader then just this piece of legislation (especially the 1950 Law of Return?)
  • Yeah I think it's fine. It's the main piece of legislation concerning this subject. The Law of Return technically contains nothing on citizenship requirements and almost all other laws covered in scope are just amendments to the Citizenship Law.
  • "Repeals Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925": is this legally correct? I don't think so as The Order remained in effect until 14 May 1948, when the British withdrew from the Mandate, and Palestinian citizenship came to an end. ("related_legislation =" could be used instead?)
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Process discussion moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered: are there discussions about reforming/changing the law? (for instance people who want to apply the law of return only to the first generation?) Do RS also address how the law would be impacted by a one-state solution or two-state solution? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

  • Article looks good to me.
  • ☺
  • Obligatory typo: "fradulently"
  • Fixed.
  • Is there a difference between Law of Return and Right of Return?
  • The Law of Return is the piece of legislation granting the entitlement for all Jews to enter Israel as olim. This entitlement is described as the "right of return".
  • "This law was amended several times" To what end?
  • Changed content to describe changes.
  • Done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • "a specific meaning encompassing the national constituency": I think this means something like "a broader definition of what qualifies a person as an Israeli national"; is that right? I don't think this is very clear as written to those unfamiliar with the topic. If I have that right, the next sentence gives the relevant details so perhaps this whole sentence could be cut to "In the Israeli context, nationality is not linked to a person's origin from a particular territory but is more broadly defined".
  • Rephrased.
  • "Any person born outside of these conditions who held no other nationality and were": tense mismatch between "any person" and "were".
  • Fixed.
  • "Despite Britain's sovereignty over Palestinian territory, domestic law treated the mandate as foreign territory." Suggest "British domestic law" to avoid a reader initially assuming this refers to Palestinian domestic law.
  • Rephrased.
  • Is the 1952 Citizenship Law worth a red link?
  • Hmmm I lean towards not doing this since I think that overlap with this article would be quite high.
  • The sentence starting "Male spouses under the age of 35 ..." doesn't make it clear if this restriction ceases to apply once the spouse exceeds the given age, or if this is defined as of the age at marriage.
  • Added "until the relevant age".
  • How did the 2003 prevent cohabitation for those couples? Surely all it could do was make it illegal, or discourage it by applying penalties?
  • Added elaboration.
  • "which would lapse on the death of their spouses or if they fail to receive": tense/mood mismatch. "or if they were to fail" would work.
  • Fixed.
  • " The court further ruled that because Israel was in a state of war with the Palestinian National Authority ..., that Israel held a right to": the second "that" is redundant. Cutting it would make the sentence hard to parse so a rephrase is probably in order.
  • Rephrased.
  • "until the law's expiration in July 2021, before later being reimplemented in March 2022." Suggest "before being reimplemented by a new law in March 2022", to make it clear this was a legislative reimplementation. And "later" is redundant since you give dates.
  • Rephrased.

Overall this looks in very good shape and I expect to support once these minor issues are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Horserice (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image & source review

Is File:British Colonial passport for Palestine issued by Albert Montefiore Hyamson in 1929.jpg a work by the Israeli or by the UK government? ALT text, placement and licencing are OK. Viz sources, it seems like the article is using distinct types of sources so different source informations are to be expected. Some sources have only a JSTOR and others both DOI and JSTOR. It seems like the sources seem to be appropriate ... but I can't help but notice that the article has very little discussion on commentary on the law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually unsure how you would classify the image since it would have been a work of the government of the British mandate in Palestine. The Israeli government obviously didn't exist at the time but is a successor state to the mandate.
Regarding the note about commentary, any particular area you think would benefit from more color? Horserice (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, critiques or support for the law, change proposals and who makes them, why and who supports or opposes them, etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Israel was formerly administered by the British Empire as part of a League of Nations mandate for Palestine". This is unclear. 1. It does not make sense to say that Israel was part of a mandate. If I understand correctly, it was part of the territory covered by the mandate, which also covered what is now Jordan. 2. Presumably modern Israel is larger than the area which was under the mandate. This is obviously not for the lead, but should be briefly covered in the main text.
  • Slightly changed lead and added sentences on the application/exclusion of the mandate on Jordan and French mandate on the Golan Heights.
  • "citizenship refers to the set of rights and duties a person has in that nation". This seems to me misleading. You can say that someone holds joint citizenship in Sweden and Peru or that someone has joint Swedish and Peruvian nationality. Dictionaries show the words as near synomyms in their primary meaning but with different secondary meanings. This does not apply of course to their specific Israeli usage.
  • Which is why the preceding sentence mentions that this usage varies by country. For example, you could not say that someone holds dual UK/US citizenship as a synonym for dual UK/US nationality since it is possible to hold both UK and US nationality without being citizens of either place.
  • 'Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption' section. This section presumably applies only to non-Jewish citizens. This should be clarified.
  • The descent portion applies to Jewish Israeli citizens born overseas. Regulations on adoption would still apply in cases where an adoptee is Jewish because the new parents still have to establish themselves as parents.
  • "Male spouses under 35 and female spouses under 25 ordinarily resident in the Judea and Samaria Area or the Gaza Strip (excluding Israeli settlements within those areas)". This is out of date as there have been no settlements in the Gaza Strip since 2005. Also, very few non-Israelis will understand Judea and Samaria Area, so it would be helpful to add "(West Bank)". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

Not sure this is actionable, and while I realise this is an article on legal status, I find it very dry and lacking context. The page lists a lot of judgement, but does examine the reasoning. This is not an oppose, just a question on scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To note have been closely following the FAC (since requested to cmt by the nominator), and have made minor edits, and think it is FAC worthy as is, but just think that more historical and political context would move it from "good" to "really good" status. Sorry for the relatively vague demand! Ceoil (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: FYI still doing some reading to try to add more color to the article. It was relatively easier with the Irish nationality law article since a lot of the disputes with Britain specifically dealt with citizenship, but with Israel it’s a bit harder to do so without sounding biased so this will take a bit of time. Horserice (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did feel lost at times, wondering what drove particular rulings. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the above, Support on the FAC criteria. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe

I believe the reference to the Golan Heights is misleading. It is administered by Israel and was purportedly annexed by Israel (the correct term to use in terms of international law—eg see here), but its claim is not considered valid by virtually every other country in the world. It is even less correct to refer to it as part of Israel as referring to Crimea as part of Russia. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Horserice, any response? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Slipped through the cracks, my bad.
@Buidhe: I've added some elaboration on the status of these areas. Horserice (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement, but it is also the case that Israel's purported annexation of East Jerusalem is not generally recognized by the international community either. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence mentions both territories. Is that not sufficient? Horserice (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2023 [30].

Hypericum sechmenii

Nominator(s): Fritzmann (message me) 01:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very obscure Turkish plant species in the genus Hypericum, which is where most of my editing experience lies. It's my first attempt at FAC, so I wanted to have an article with very narrow coverage that I could be confident I had completely encapsulated. I've worked on the article on and off for several years, gotten it through a "very thorough review" at GAN, and received more granular feedback from Chiswick Chap and Cas Liber. I now believe it is as ready as it can get, and am excited to receive feedback and finish my first (of hopefully many) FA. Fritzmann (message me) 01:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

Good to see a plant here! Comments below:

  • Its appearance and characteristics were first described in 2009 – It seems to me that not only the apparance and characteristics, but the entire species was first described in 2009? So this is potentially confusing.
    • I was previously advised that a technical term like "species description" shouldn't be in the lede, but I concur that it makes more sense to use the terminology - it is pretty self-evident
  • You could link "first described" to Species description.
    • Done
  • The taxonbox lacks the year of description behind the author names.
    • Per the ICBN, plant species are not supposed to have the publication year after the author names; I haven't been able to find a Wikipedia policy that countermands that standard but please let me know if there is one
  • After this description, – Somehow seems redundant, maybe remove.
    • Rewritten
  • the species was incorporated into the organization of the genus Hypericum – not sure what this means. Was the species previously referred to a different genus?
    • Ocak and Koyuncu described the species and assigned it to Hypericum. The genus is subdivided quite rigorously, however, because of its wide diversity. Robson was the one to incorporate H. sechmenii into that subdivision by assigning it to a section and subsection. I've rewritten the sentence to hopefully make it more clear, but it may still need some tweaking.
  • typically 3–6 cm,[2] sometimes to 8 cm. – In height? In diameter?
    • Tall, fixed
  • I wonder if it is worth trying and emailing the describers of the species and asking for better pictures for Wikipedia.
    • I've already done that, several times actually. I received one response but it was garbled and just redirected me back to the papers I already had, and subsequent attempts went unanswered.
  • Directly beneath the cuticle are one to two bark-like layers of periderm which are composed of several layers of dead cells. Beneath the periderm are several layers of thin-walled tissue cells called a cortex. The tissue of the roots is completely covered in elements of water transport tissue called xylem. – I am not sure here if you are describing general plant anatomy or if all of this is specific for this species? (I do not mean to say that everything has to be species specific, not at all – but you should make clear to which taxon this information applies). I see, though, that this is not mentioned by the source … which is a bit unfortunate, as I do not know what to do with this information.
    • Most species of Hypericum have not had this sort of anatomical analysis done, so yes it is very unclear. I'm not an expert on the cellular morphology of different plant clades, and I included it since I figured it would be easier to remove than to add. If it is an issue I can spend some time digging into this, if not then I will let it be for the moment.
  • What are amber glands? (edit: you are referring to a color? Maybe make this clear? And link to Amber (color))
    • Yes, amber-colored, linked and clarified. If amber-colored is only necessary for the first instance let me know and I will remove subsequent clarifications.
  • H. huber-morathii has a slightly larger region on its end where the grooves meet. – You mean the pollen grain, not "H. huber-morathii", right?
    • Clarified
  • Anatomically, Hypericum sechmenii is also similar to – What is the "anatomically" doing there? It looks redundant because the article does not mention any features that are not anatomical.
    • The anatomy refers to the similar stomata adaptations and the differences in their palisade tissue structure. Perhaps, "has similar adaptations to..." would be more appropriate, if your think that is warranted?
  • inner stem tissue and pith tissue – Is there a difference here, or are these the same? If different, link/explain. If same, then stick to the same term.
    • To my understanding, the inner stem tissue is made up of either xylem or pith - in the case of H. thymopsis, there is only xylem; in the case of H. sechmenii', there is both xylem and pith. I've linked pith to its article
  • the species was formally described in volume 46 of the peer-reviewed journal Annales Botanici Fennici. – looks like excessive detail to me.
    • Cut down to just mention the journal.
  • Hypericum sechmenii was described by Atila Ocak and Onur Koyuncu alongside Filiz Savaroglu and Ismuhan Potoglu – the latter two are not authors of the species, though. Mentioning them could be confusing. I suggest to remove the entire sentence (also because it basically just repeats the previous sentence).
    • Done
  • The taxonomy section seems a bit wordy for me in relation to its content. The language could be more concise.
  • with almost every species in the genus being placed into one of these sections based on their morphology and phylogeny. – Based on their morphology and phylogeny? Are you sure? Phylogeny is based on morphology.
    • My bad, phylogeny /= molecular phylogenetics, fixed
  • However, Hypericum sechmenii was omitted from this original monograph, as it had not yet been identified as a unique species. – It was not knowingly "omitted" then, right? I would remove this sentence.
    • Would "not included" be more appropriate? I'd like to keep this as there are very few species that Robson didn't include in the original monograph, which makes this one someone unique.
  • After Hypericum sechmenii was described, it was then placed into the overall framework of the genus – See comment for lead.
    • I've just cut this sentence in the name of brevity, I think there is sufficient context in the rest of the paragraph.
  • Hypericum sechmenii is one of numerous species of Hypericum that are endemic to Turkey. – Can this be more specific? We should know how many described endemics in Turkey, hopefully?
    • The number is in flux as species are described, synonymized, and their range is clarified. However, I've pretty easily found a 2019 report that puts the number at 45, so I've included that.
  • Isotype, what is this?
    • I've added a note, but if there's a way you think could do it more elegantly please let me know
  • I am not sure about the "Table of collected specimens of Hypericum sechmenii". It seems a bit excessive, and I wonder if it can be of use to anyone. But most of all: Do you think it is exhaustive, or is it just those specimens you know about? It might get outdated quickly, too,
    • It includes all the recorded collections of the species in published academic journal articles. No, I don't think it is strictly necessary - do you think any of the information would be warranted to be incorporated into the paragraph prior?
  • Anything about the fruits? I can't remember reading about them in the description.
    • Sadly nothing I've been able to find. I also just took a look at the other species in its subsection and none of them have fruits descriptions either. It may be that the fruits are largely diminished or not visible - but I'm not sure that's right and it would be entirely speculation
  • That is all from me. What I really like about this article is that the terms are well-explained, and that there is an extensive "similar species" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hello Fritzmann, and welcome to FAC. Given you haven't previously had an FA to your credit, this nomination will need to undergo spot-checks for source-text integrity and a review for over-close paraphrasing before being considered for promotion. No action is required on your part regarding this note. Best of luck with your nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, is there anything else that needs to be done with the nomination? If my count is correct there are seven supports, and all opposes have been struck. I am assuming that there still needs to be a referencing review. Fritzmann (message me) 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned spot-checks (for source-text integrity or possible overclose paraphrasing) and a general source review that will examine the reliability, verifiability and formatting of the sources. Fellow coordinator Gog the Mild has put in a request here. A reviewer should turn up any day now. FrB.TG (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards

Thank you for engaging with our FA nomination process. I think the prose needs some editing to bring it to FA standard.

  • First of all, there are lots of "whichs" that need a preceding comma or changing to "that".
    • DonecOMM
  • This sounds odd to me "the species was incorporated into the organization of the genus". What is meant by "incorporated into the organization"? Does it mean added?
    • Changed the wording per your and Jens's recommendation
  • "The tissue of the roots is completely covered in elements of water transport tissue called xylem". What is meant by "elements of"? And it reads as though xylem and phloem are unique to these plants.
    • I'll be honest, reviewing the source they just say "xylem elements" so I'm not sure. Looking at the pictures provided, it appears that they just mean that there is a layer of tissue surrounded by a layer of xylem. I'm going to change it to reflect that, but if you have other input it would be welcome.
  • There's a similar problem here "On the top and bottom sides of the leaves there are pores that regulate gas exchange, called stomata," lots of plants have stomata.
    • I'm not sure how to make these terms sound general while maintaining their readability for laymen. All of the terms are linked, and following any of them would demonstrate that these features are common to most plants as opposed to restricted to the species.
  • Does "seeds" really need a link?
    • I would argue that if roots, stems, seed capsule, leafstalks, and petals are linked, then yes. I think all those terms are relatively similar in their complexity, so if they are simple enough then I would unlink all of them.
  • "while the dark glands contain red-staining phenolic compounds (anthraquinone derivatives) that deter some herbivorous insects." And above we have " which a 2020 paper theorized could deter herbivory because of their toxicity." Can we amalgamate these disjointed statements?
    • The druse crystals and red glands are two separate repellants for herbivores. The crystals are spiked and cause irritation, while the glands secrete those phenolic compounds that are toxic. Each paragraph describes these two separate features.
  • This is odd "it has also been closely compared to Hypericum thymopsis." Do you mean it compares closely?
    • Removed "closely" to reduce ambiguity
  • This sounds odd "a genus-wide monograph".
    • Reworded to "monograph of the entire genus Hypericum"

-Graham Beards (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Comment: I'm very supportive of the prospect of a featured article on an obscure species like this, but I find it very difficult to support the use of non-free images of an extant species like this. Perhaps if the species was known only to exist in an area that was genuinely inacessible, this could be justified, but I'm really not convinced in this case. Has any effort been made to reach out to individuals who may have taken photos, to ask if they'd be willing to release them under a free license? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in response to Jens, I have repeatedly reached out to the authors of the original description and the anatomical study to request additional information and the release of image rights. Unfortunately, I only received one response which seemed supportive and asked which information I needed. I replied to ask and followed up, but never received a further response. I also reached out to the herbariums that house the specimens, also to no avail. I think that the first image in the infobox is absolutely critical, while the second one on pollen morphology is less so. However, even the latter one demonstrates the minute differences between this species and several closely related ones. Even for an expert, microscopic differences in pollen may be the only way to tell them apart.
As for the genuinely inaccessible part, this species is known from an area of less than ten square kilometers in the rugged, rural mountain region of Central Anatolia. There are fewer than 250 plants remaining, and that was from a 2013 estimate. It may very well be extinct by now. If that doesn't make the species inaccessible, then I don't know what would. Fritzmann (message me) 12:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but I remain opposed to the use of the non-free images. We have several featured articles on similarly obscure species (e.g., the mammal Akodon spegazzinii and the mushroom Gymnopilus maritimus) that sadly go without lead images because of the lack of freely licensed material. If we had reliable sources noting that the species was extinct or probably extinct, then I think things would be different. But, until that time, I worry that the non-free images here are replaceable as per the non-free content criteria. (I also worry, incidentally, about criterion 2. But my main concern is about replaceability.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while the non-free images remain, per above. Sorry. Anyone is welcome to strike this oppose once the images are removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I would like a second opinion but if there are others who are hesitant about their use then I will remove the images. Fritzmann (message me) 12:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be an interesting precedent if this passed with non-free images. I've raised the question here to hopefully bring some more eyes and ensure a clear consensus. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, I am very interested as well. I think there is a good discussion to be had in this regard. Fritzmann (message me) 22:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because Josh posted a request for input at WT:NFC. I'm sensitive to the issues raised by Fritzmann. Difficult to find, yes. Even more difficult to properly identify, yes. But, this sets a new precedent and I am very loathe to agree with it. The species, so far as we know, still exists. Unless we have reliable sources indicating extinct or probably extinct, then we are speculating about its non-existence. We don't know. Not knowing its current status doesn't generate an exception to WP:NFCC. What we do know; there's a Turkish language Wikipedia which has over 500,000 articles. The province where this plant exists has a population of over 900k people. No, there's no article on this species on the Turkish language Wikipedia, but again that doesn't generate an exception to NFCC policy. I feel that unfortunately the image needs to be deleted. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also here because of Josh's post. It's refreshing to see an NFCC debate that isn't about criteria #8, which is heavily subjective. Unfortunately, in this case the issue is criteria #1, which is much less subjective. The image has got to go. In addition but entirely separate to that, I don't think *any* featured article should have *any* non-free images, with no exceptions. An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopedia while containing non-free content. Therefore I also oppose the nomination while there are any non-free images in it. The FAC coordinators should feel free to strike my oppose i.f.f. the images are removed or replaced. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, Hammersoft, and J Milburn: Thanks for leaving your thoughts, the reasoning seems sound to me. I can't say I agree but I understand why a hardline stance needs to be taken. Perhaps removing the images will reduce the quality of this article, but will contribute moreso to the overall mission of the project. Fritzmann (message me) 10:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Precedent-wise: Way back when, we had the non-free File:SaharanCheetah.gif on Northwest African cheetah because the species in question was critically endangered (less than 250 individuals) so creating a free image was not a sure thing. It was eventually replaced with File:NorthWest African Cheetah (14846381095).jpg but this edit claims that this image was incorrectly identified. How widespread is this plant and where does it occur? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better not to have non-free images in the article if there is a reasonable chance that one might be created (or made free), and the precedent set by including one would be bad. Is there a (non-free) image on some non copyright violating webpage that can be linked to with {{External media}}? —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure I've had an FAC pass through with non-free media in it, and I don't see the problem here either. I disagree very strongly with the thought that "An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopaedia while containing non-free content": that's a misleading idea of what a free encyclopaedia is and is not - as far as I am aware - based on any policy or guideline.
    I looked at the last fourteen articles I've taken to FAC (all of which are from this year). Five of those fourteen have non-free images: Private Case, Portland Spy Ring, Ken "Snakehips" Johnson, Death of Kevin Gately and David Kelly (weapons expert).
    User:Nikkimaria, you look into images at FAC more than anyone else: do you have an opinion on this? - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC) (added three recent examples - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    • I haven't the time to go through the archives but I know we have accepted non-free media in FAs in the past. For some reason this FA springs to mind. It's unfair on the nominator to say that ""An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopedia while containing non-free content". I would question the value of the scanning electron micrograph in this candidate, but I don't see a problem with the lead image. Graham Beards (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've passed numerous image reviews on articles with non-free images with no complaint. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria does implicitly allow non-free images, providing that they meet the usual rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is not whether FAs may contain non-free images: Non-free images are fine if they can't possibly be replaced by free images and significantly enhance reader understanding. In this article, it is unquestionable that the images would be very helpful to readers; the question is whether we believe it is possible to replace them by free images. —Kusma (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my thing is that isn't every image technically replaceable by a free image? We could theoretically request that the owner of every non-free image release it for use... but that is highly unlikely to happen in any case. Could someone hypothetically trek into the remote Turkish mountains to search for a probably extinct plant no one cares about on a volunteer basis for an online encyclopedia? Yes. But it is not realistic at all to expect that, just like it ism't realistic to expect that every owner of a non-free image will release it for free use. Fritzmann (message me) 12:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Images of non-free art are not replaceable by free images (although I'd like to note that some other language Wikipedias manage to write excellent articles without any non-free content at all). There is a bit of a grey area here between "it is theoretically possible to create a free image" and "it is reasonably possible to create a free image". I mean, if someone finds a cave on Mars and takes photographs of something amazing in the interior, but does not release them under a free license, it seems prohibitively difficult to send a Wikipedian to Mars to take a free photograph, so we might just go with the non-free image, at least until a new mission to this cave is announced. On the other hand, enough people go to the summit of Mount Everest that we can reasonably expect free images to exist (and indeed there are many). The relevant policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, by the way, just says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Can a free image of this rare plant that is known to exist in Turkey be made? It seems more "Mount Everest" than "cave on Mars" difficulty to me, but others may well disagree. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the fact that at least one person here has said they don't think an FA should have any non-free images, Kusma, do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used? It looks like Fritzmann has both searched for one and reached out to possible sources that may have them. If there are no free ones, and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one. This is, as far as I am aware, standard practice on all articles. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken. For example, we do not allow non-free images of living people if no free images are known to exist, in order to encourage the creation of such images. —Kusma (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, that's not the case here. I think opposes based on personal views on the usage of non-free content should be disregarded. Let's stick to policies and established guidelines please. Graham Beards (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to me being mistaken, I am not: we are rather obviously not talking about non-free images of living people. I'll ask again: do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used? If not, then use of a non-free image is within the NFCC guidelines and the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree that an oppose based on the fact that there is non-free content in the article at all should be disregarded. But this is a distraction; here is not the place for a conversation about whether NFC should be banned in FAs. We have a clear policies about the use of non-free content, and these policies are explicitly referred to in the featured article criteria. These criteria policies say that non-free content cannot be used if it could be replaced by free content. (So, for example, SchroCat's view -- 'If there are no free [images], and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one' -- is clearly completely contrary to long-established policy. We can't have replacable non-free content even if it hasn't yet been replaced.) The question is whether the non-free content used in this article is replaceable. I believe it is. So does Hammersoft and The Squirrel Conspiracy. (The Squirrel Conspiracy also separately has a view about developing much firmer anti-NFC policies.) I think Kusma thinks that it is, but I may be misinterpretting Kusma's comments. Fritzman believes, as far as I understand, that the images are not replaceable in the relevant sense. (I would probably agree if it was the case that we had a reliable source saying that the species was extinct, or even probably extinct.) Some others (Graham Beards and SilverTiger12) have supported the use of the images (or one of them), which presumably means they either think the image is not replaceable, don't know about the policy regarding replaceability, or believe that the policy does not apply here for some reason. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entirely wrong to say that "'If there are no free [images], and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one' -- is clearly completely contrary to long-established policy". We are able to use non-free images (where appropriate etc), where there are no free ones. When free ones subsequently become available (falling out of protection, released by copyright holder etc), then the non-free can be replaced: this is entirely within the spirit and letter of the policy. With regard to this article (which is what this page is for), searches have shown no free-use images that can be used, so a non-free image is entirely appropriate. Again, this is within the NFCC guidelines, FA criteria and current standard practice. I'll also ask you, Josh, the same question that has been ducked by others: do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used in this article? - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The mere non-existence of free images is not an acceptable reason to use non-free images instead. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the minute area in which this plant just about survives means it's not going to be created. Opposing a decent article over a picture of a rare plant only found in a tiny area? Seems a massive overreaction to me, but I guess everyone's mileage differs. However, we now have an article of a plant in which no-one can see what the plant looks like. That's a bureaucratic nonsense - an over-adherence and overly-narrow reading of the guidelines which does our readers a massive disservice and not a constructive step by any measure. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you are continuing to insist that 'We are able to use non-free images (where appropriate etc), where there are no free ones', even when NFCC#1 has been explained several times, is striking. At risk of repetition: No, we cannot use non-free content just because we don't have any free content. We can only use non-free content when we couldn't have any free content. That's what the relevant policies and guidelines say, and have said for many years. If you believe that we couldn't have any free content in this case, then fine, that's an interesting discussion that we could have. But your insistence that we can use non-free content when we don't have any free content isn't down to reasonable disagreement; it just shows that you don't (or didn't) understand the policy. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the snarky nonsense, Josh. We now have an article of a plant where we don't know what the plant looks like. You have done the readers a disservice in ensuring the removal of the image. Nice work. Fritzmann, sorry you've been forced into this step: FAC is normally much more constructive than this. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out above, we already have numerous featured articles about living species that go unillustrated because of the lack of free content, including some that I wrote. That's the price that we have collectively decided to pay by having strict guidelines and policies limiting the use of non-free content. You're welcome to think that those policies and guidelines are nonsense, or do a disservice to readers, but I don't think it's fair that you take out your frustration with them on me. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify for the closing co-ordinator, Josh, User:The Squirrel Conspiracy, you have both opposed here: can you clarify on which of the FA criteria are you officially opposing, and if it relates specifically to number 3, could you clarify on what basis you think this breaches the NFCC guidelines? - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was being clear, but I'm happy to be as explicit as I can. I am opposing based on WIAFA#3, which stipulates that '[n]on-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content'. That links criterion links to our non-free content criteria (which, for the record, are a policy, not guidelines). NFCC#1 requires explains that 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose'. I believe (along with, at least, Hammersoft and The Squirrel Conspiracy) that a free equivilent 'could be created' in this case. Just as there is a very, very strong presumption against a non-free image of a living person, so there is a very strong presumption against a non-free image of an extant species. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy with regard to "could be created" is vague and open to interpretation. It implies "easily" or "readily" to me. In this case, the plant could be extinct or a least nigh on impossible to find. I think we need to be more flexible on this. The use of the image is not setting a precedent. That was already set years ago. (As an aside, I have emailed Dr Onur Koyuncu, (a coauthor of the original paper) and asked for a free photograph. As the paper was published ten years ago, we cannot be sure if this researcher is still active and responding to emails). Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says in WP:NFC#UUI, it is generally considered possible to create free images of living people and extant buildings, and we don't care too much that it may be difficult. I tend to agree with JM that it is preferable to wait for a free image of an extant species than to go the easy way of taking a random non-iconic non-free image, as doing so makes it harder to accomplish our free content mission. If the article can pass FA without being illustrated, I don't see a big problem, especially if images can be linked to prominently. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: Thanks you for removing the images; I have struck my oppose, and will aim to find time to look through the article properly. You may have missed it in the midst of the discssion above, but I do encourage you to think on Kusma's suggestion above: 'Is there a (non-free) image on some non copyright violating webpage that can be linked to with {{External media}}?' I've found that useful in a number of articles; I believe it is in use in other FAs, but I'm not certain. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

  • Hello I'll be doing a non-expert prose review
  • Can see both points of view on images so I'm neutral on that issue.
  • "The petals are bright yellow, like most species of Hypericum," link hypericum on first mention in body and lead, as well as in infobox
    • Linked in the lede, already linked in the infobox
      I'd still like it linked first time in body, that for me at least is standard practice Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, linked at the first mention of the genus in the description section
  • "and grow in a pentagon of five on each flower" - link pentagon? and don't think you need "of five" since pentagon already means that
    • Changed to "pentagon shape"
  • if you are linking to taxonomist and ecologist, then I'd suggest linking botanist as well
    • Good call
  • re "When compared to Hypericum minutum and H. huber-morathii, Hypericum sechmenii has differences in its leaves, flowers, and pollen grains. Its leaves are adjacent on one another and overlap, while the leaves of H. minutum and H. huber-morathii" - is there a pattern to when you use Hypericum and when you use H.?
    • I use the full name the first time a species is mentioned, and on the first mention of a species in Hypericum in a paragraph. Good catch here, this doesn't follow that logic but I think I've taken care of it
      thanks for the explanation, I don't think the lead follows this logic with "The most closely related of these are Hypericum huber-morathii, H. minutum, and H. thymopsis."? Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, fixed there and in one other spot
  • re "The area of distribution on Arayit Mountain is estimated to be 2 square kilometres (km2). The area of the Kaymaz to Sivrihisar locality is estimated to be smaller.[1]" then how can we say "It is estimated that there are fewer than 250 members of the species within an area smaller than 10 km2", since the way I'm reading it 2 km2 plus less than 2km2 doesnt equal 10 km2
    • My understanding of the source is that the two localities given are assumed not to be the only places the plant grows. It seems that the 10km2 figure is an extrapolation of the actually found localities - with are stated to be separate and fragmented. However, this is not explicitly stated in either survey of the species, and it would be venturing into my own original research to make assumptions like that.
      ok. hmm .. then "Hypericum sechmenii has a known distribution of less than 10 square kilometres" in the lead perhaps should be "Hypericum sechmenii has an estimated distribution of less than 10 square kilometres" and in the body "The species is rare, with an estimated 250 surviving plants of the species in an area smaller than 10 km2" should be written since it seems to present 10 km2 as fact. Difficult I know because you have said "estimated" but I read that as applying to the number of pplants and not necessarily the area
      • Done as suggested in the lede, changed to "in an area assumed to be less than 10km2" in the body. If you have a more elegant solution please, by all means feel free to change as you see fit
  • "Ocak and Koyuncu gave the species the specific epithet" - can give Koyuncu's full name on first mention
    • Was given once in lede, have also added first time in body
  • perennial herb can be linked on first mention in body
    • Done
  • in the lead you say it is a "rare species", but don't explicitly say that in body?
    • I have rewritten the first sentence of the Conservation section to include this verbiage
  • that's it from me, cool we know so much about a very rare plant. Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12

An interesting article about a rare plant. I don't have many comments.

  • The two Fair Use images are, in my opinion, acceptable given the complete lack of free images and the extreme rarity of the plant.
  • In the lede, I suggest adding a "the" to and Norman Robson later placed H. sechmenii into the section Adenosepalum.
    • Agreed, done
  • You may also want to split the first paragraph of the lede into two paragraphs right after the sentence quoted above.
    • Split
  • Please use the {{Convert}} template for measurements, excepting where the measurements are in micrometers.
    • I think I've gotten all of them
  • Hypericum sechmenii is a flowering perennial herb that grows in dense clusters of upright stems typically 3–6 cm tall,[2] sometimes up to 8 cm tall.
    • Done
  • Can you change the one instance where millimeters is used (the length of the sepals) to use centimeter instead for consistency?
    • Yes, thanks for spotting that one
  • Why are there 3 subsections listed? None of them are mentioned in the paragraphs above.
  • Also, if there is one, please add a cladogram of the clade.
    • To answer the above two comments: I have not been able to find a clade because Robson added the species to its subgeneric classification in a brief addendum without a ton of detail. As such, I included the nesting diagram in the article for a substitute; the other three subsections are just the other subsections inside sect. Adneosepalum besides the Huber-Morathii group. If you think they should be removed I don't have any problem with that.
  • Is there really no more recent update on the species' conservation status more recent than 2013?
    • Nope. The optimist in me hopes that no one has bothered to go find it again, while the pessimist in me suspects that the species may be extinct by now.
  • The citations all seem to be in order, and Earwig didn't find any copyvio.

And that's all. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I have made changes as noted in my responses. Fritzmann (message me) 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • "an estimated distribution of less than 10 square kilometres (3.9 square miles), with fewer than 250 living plants." In context, is "living" not redundant.
    • Removed
  • "The pale glands contain and excrete essential oil compounds". Is it known what they are essential for?
    • "essential oil" is a type of oil category, I think I have it linked
And do they serve any function, ie is it known if they benefit the leaf or the plant in any way?
In some species of St Johnswort yes, in others their purpose is not known - but it is not a well studied part of their anatomy. I've not found anything that gives their function for this particular plant
  • "grow in a pentagon shape on each flower". Are the petals pentagon shaped, or are they arranged in pentagons?
    • This passage has given me quite a bit of trouble. I have changed to "pentagonal arrangement" to hopefully make it more clear
Much clearer, but it does leave the question: What shape are the petals?
Strangely, neither the original authors nor Robson give the petal shape. Almost every other species I've written about has at least a brief mention of this, but not this one. Only the glands are described. One of the peculiarities of botany is that sometimes details are missed, I suppose, seemingly at random.
  • "They are 0.4–0.7 cm (0.16–0.28 in)". Adding 'wide' or 'across' may aid clarity.
    • Added "long", thanks
  • "In its original description". Optional: perhaps mention when that was. (I am aware that its date of discovery is mentioned at the start of the following section and the description date a little later.)
    • I think I'll leave the chronology for the taxonomy section, if it's all the same to you
  • "The holotype of the species was first collected in that same year". Is "first" needed? It suggests that the holotype has been collected several times.
    • Yes, first is redundant as there is only one holotype per species
  • "Three years later, in December 2009, the species was formally described in the journal Annales Botanici Fennici." It is usual to say who it was described by.
    • Moved the authors' names forward
  • "Flora of Turkey endemic species registry in 2011". I am puzzled by the upper-case F.
    • "Flora of Turkey" is the name of the publication - I have italicized to note this
  • "early molecular phylogenetics". What does "early" mean in this context?
    • I wanted to indicate that the methods used were in their infancy at the time and not particularly accurate, but that is not relevant to the overall article and may veer into OR. I have struck the "early"
I had thought so. You could say something like 'and the relatively primitive molecular phylogenetics of the day' or 'and an early use of Molecular phylogenetic analysis', but I like it how it is.
"early applications" is what I went with
  • Elevations given in imperial measurements use feet, could you tweak the two conversion templates in "Distribution and habitat".
    • Done
  • Why is the note for Isotype "a 1" rather than just '1' (or 'n 1' or 'note 1')?
    • Inexperience and sloppiness with ref groups, thank you for the keen eye
Ah you gave me a laugh there. You may appreciate WP:GOG1.

What a splendid and well written little article. Can we have more like this please? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to bring more species articles to FAC, especially others from Hypericum. I hope they don't become droll; I quite enjoy writing them. Fritzmann (message me) 22:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I look forward to them.
A couple of thoughts above, which I am happy to continue discussing, but they are not of sufficient weight to prevent me supporting this gem of an article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for helping make this process a most enjoyable one. The essay definitely struck home with me, it seems like the iceberg goes ever deeper with Wikipedia.

AK

  • Bit late here, so the article's more or less ready to go, but I have a few minor comments.
  • "which grows in clusters of stems 3–6 centimetres" you mention in the body that this isn't always the case, so maybe change to "usually grows in clusters of stems 3–6 centimetres" instead?
    • Good call
  • "fewer than 250 plants" ends the sentence a bit abruptly, especially since the previous clause was talking about distribution. I think "fewer than 250 surviving plants" might be better.
    • Good call, that is the verbiage I use in the conservation section as well
  • "O.Koyuncu" is the lack of a space intentional?
    • Yes, that is his standard author abbreviation
  • "the journal" maybe expand to "scientific journal"?
    • I think scientific is implied, readers can get more details at the link
  • "However, Hypericum...unique species" This sentence is kinda redundant; we discuss the discovery of the species in the paragraph right above this one, so this seems a bit like overkill.
    • I would prefer to keep it, as there are very few species not included in the original monograph, but the reason is not because it was missed (which happened with a few other species) but because it was not described yet.
  • Would bullet points for the list of species in the group look nicer?
    • This is pretty standard style for non-cladogram layouts of taxa
  • That's all I got. On the subject of the images, I do feel like we should not have fair-use images of extant species, even if they are very rare; it just doesn't seem to meet the strict requirements we have for NFCC. AryKun (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great work! AryKun (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty

Some nitpicks with ref ordering: a few instances of [3][2] when it should be [2][3] and one instance of [8][2] for [2][8]. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not necessarily though. In my articles, for example, I usually place the most important source (which covers most of the previous text) first. I heard that other editors place the refs in the order in which the information appers in the previous text. So I guess it is up to the author how to do it. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other FACs (like this one) where reviewers ask that they are. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that such a requirement can be quite annoying for authors, does not provide any benefit to readers, and also is not suggested by any policy or guideline as far as I know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what Fritzmann says. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really matters; feel free to change the reference order if you would like. Fritzmann (message me) 21:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no requirement on a specific ordering of references (see WP:CITEORDER). FrB.TG (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since my only nitpick crashed and burned, support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta

A few more nitpicks for your consideration. Esculenta (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • is it "St John's wort family" as in the article text or "St. John's wort family" as given in the family article?
    • Sources use both, my understanding is that St. John's wort is more common in the US, while St John's wort is more common globally. Since this species is cosmopolitan, I have elected for the global usage.
  • is the article supposed to be in BE (centimetres, kilometres) or AE? (honor, color, theorized, specialized)?
  • "Hypericum sechmenii is a perennial herb which usually grows" which->that
    • Done
  • if the term "flower" is to be linked (a low-value link, imo), then why not "petal" and "stem"?
    • Removed flower link
  • "has a very thick cuticle" I've found the use of "very" to be a mostly useless intensifier; I don't think the sentence loses anything without it.
    • Done
  • what benefit is there to linking a plain English term "hairless" to its jargon counterpart (glabrous)? The unlinked term as written is already understood by both laypeople and advanced readers. I noticed that later "net-like pattern" isn't linked in the same way to "reticulate" (not that it needs to be, just pointing out the inconsistency)
    • Yes, it can be understood as hairless - but it would be improper to say that plants have hair in the strictest sense. I prefer to remove ambiguity and link to the jargon term used in the description, which doesn't do any harm.
    • If we were to have an article that added additional context to the term, like there is for glabrousness, I probably would link it. As it stands, there is only a redirect into a disambiguation page into a section link to "leaf venation", which I don't think is particularly intuitive.
  • "They are roughly 0.2–0.5 cm (0.079–0.197 in) long" ensure that the precision of the input matches that of the output. There are some other examples throughout the text (which are more difficult to justify truncating); have you considered using fractional outputs instead? e.g., 0.2–0.5 cm (1⁄16–3⁄16 in)
    • I have changed the presentation of measurements back and forth quite a bit by now; I will just truncate to maintain significant figures.
  • "contain and excrete essential oil compounds" construction sounds odd, I suggest just "essential oils"
    • Done
  • maybe link gas exchange, vein, midrib
    • Done
  • short-form species names in subsection "Similar species" are missing non-breaking spaces or nowrap templates
    No idea why it did that, but it appears a good Samaritan has come along to fix my sloppiness. Fritzmann (message me) 21:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link/gloss palisade tissue
    • Done
  • "Huber-morathii Group" capitalise 2nd name?
    • Another weird thing no one can seem to decide. Is it the Hypericum huber-morathii Group, the Huber-Morathii Group, or the Huber-morathii Group? Who knows. I've standardized to Huber-morathii group, since the species name does not have capitalization after the hyphen
    Looks like "Huber-morathii" is in reference to a guy named "Huber-Morath", so yeah I agree it should be "Huber-Morathii" Fritzmann (message me) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. sechmenii has two adaptations of the genus Hypericum which deter grazing" which -> that
    • Done
  • the text mention that some cells contain druse crystals. This seemed odd to me that this would occur intracellularly (isn't the cell size then self-limiting? doesn't it mess up with cellular electrolyte balance, etc.), so I went to the source to check, and saw prose like "Some hypodermal cells are includes druse crystals" so I'm reluctant to use this as confirmation; the images of the transverse leaf section and stem section don't really clarify the intracellularity or extracellularity of druse crystals, and our own article on druse (botany) doesn't commit either way. Can you provide clarity?
    • I'm not sure what the question is, are you asking whether the druse crystals are present inside the cells or in the extracellular space? My understanding is that druses by their nature contained within a cell, but I could very well be wrong. The prose of much of that article is not particularly stellar (the authors are Turkish, and likely writing in their second language), but they say elsewhere that "Some peridermal cells also include druse crytals", which seems pretty clear that the druse crystals are inside the cell.
  • it might be interesting to mention somewhere that the red glands of Hypericum (like this species has), contain compounds called naphthodianthrones (of course gloss what this means if you do), and that these red glands have been associated, in some folklores, with "magical protective powers"? (Crockett & Robson 2011)
    • Hmm, I'm hesitant to do this. While the red glands are characteristic of the genus, it is entirely likely that this species has lost that characteristic. Maybe I'm missing it, but a re-skim of the source descriptions don't mention red glands - only amber ones. These could be the same, and could contain naphthodianthrones, or they may have different compounds. That would also be quite interesting, but the research has unfortunately not be done.
      • Okay, perhaps I'm confused because this article first calls them "black glands" but then in the next sentence calls them "dark glands contain red-staining phenolic compounds (anthraquinone derivatives)", which I guess I incorrectly assumed was equivalent to "red glands". Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed all mentions of "dark glands" to "black glands" to reduce confusion. My understanding is that they look black, but if you were to crush them with your fingers your hand would get stained red. In another point, the "anthraquinone derivative" is equivalent to "naphthodianthrones". It is just more clear because we have an article on anthraquinones and they are also the more well-known kind of compound. Fritzmann (message me) 21:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • one source I saw (Akçi̇n et al. 2016, "Anatomical Properties of Medicinal Plant Hypericum orientale L.", Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 10 (2): 16-20) says that in the Hypericaceae, there are species with either bifacial or ecvifacial leaves, and Hypericum sechmenii is the latter. What does this mean and should it be in the article?
    • I believe "ecvifacial" is a misspelling or corruption of "equifacial". This refers to the arrangement of the stomata, i.e. on both sides of the leaf equally, instead of bifacial where they are all or almost all on the underside of the leaf. I believe this is adequately covered in the last paragraph of the vegetative structures section.
Esculenta, should be done except for where noted. Fritzmann (message me) 20:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta, was there anything else that you saw? Some very astute observations so far, I appreciate that. Fritzmann (message me) 23:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got – good luck! Esculenta (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

I like plants. Will endeavor to do a spotcheck. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Climate of Turkey" should be ordered by its author - Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü - rather than its title. Eddie, apologies for repeatedly interrupting your source review, I shall stop now. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked three individual citations, which I have left below. However, I think I will have to bow out with my apologies. I can't parse the source material. Sentences like "seed linear foveolate to subscalariform" mean nothing to me. I don't feel that I can adequately assess whether the source material has been accurately reflected on the article page, unfortunately. Really sorry. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3a Not seeing this in the source, 3g not seeing "The holotype of the species was collected at about 1,800 m (5,900 ft)" in the source
  • 3a: looks like refs 2 and 3 got swapped when I changed to sfn. The Ocak paper contains the upper limit estimations; I have swapped them back
  • 3g: I am pretty sure this arose from first writing that the general elevation of the species was around 1800 m, and later adding the exact range of the species without removing the previous generalization. I have removed the first clause
  • 8 I don't think p. 591 is the correct page number for these citations.
  • Changed 8a to p. 592 and 8b to p. 593

Source review and spot-check

Is Bizimbit Kiler (www.bizimbitkiler.org.tr) a reliable source? It's a bit underrepresented online. Location tags are applied inconsistently. Otherwise, it seems like the sources are reliable save as noted below and mostly consistently formatted, making allowances for certain inconsistencies in which information is available. I presume that all the sources here have been either used or ruled out?

On the spotcheck, reviewing this version:

    • My understanding of Bizimbit is that it is an online mirror of a paper publication, much like Hypericum MySpecies. In this case, it mirrors the content of a vascular plants list from a Turkish botanical garden's academic publication, which I have no reason to suspect of unreliability.
    • All of the sources on google scholar which are not used are only passing mentions of the species. I am confident I've fully scoured anything available online for actual information.
  • 1 I see nothing on the page saying that it is five leaves per flower or that it is typical for the genus.
    • The five petals statement was based on the image from the previous page, which the GAN reviewer suggested I use since none of the sources explicitly say it. I have corrected the sfn directions
    • I have changed the statement about most species of Hypericum to one about the type species of the genus
  • 2 I don't think the source implies that bracts lack the amber or black lines, or that the glands are black. "Little research has been conducted regarding the ecology of Hypericum sechmenii and its relationship with its environment." likewise seems unsupported.
    • The source states that the leaves and sepals have glands, and describes them in detail. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the omission of such a description for the bracts means that they do not have the lines.
    • I'm not sure to which reference of the black glands you are referring
  • 4 OK if we don't mind the image interpretation.
  • 5 OK but I note that the definition of cuticula and xylem is not in the source.
  • 6 I don't think "oblong" should be transcribed as "oval". As with above, the definition of cambium, suberin and druse crystal isn't in the source.
    • I have changed oval back to oblong
  • 7 The page number does not add up; also MDPI from what I know is a so-so publisher; are the authors well-known and/or the paper frequently cited?
    • The publishing website only gives the first page of the paper as 591, so I am unsure of how to give a more specific notation
    • The primary author has over 40 papers published on the biomineralization process, so she definitely isn't unknown. The paper looks like it has been cited 14 times; I have no idea if that is frequent or not
  • 8 I don't think that this page really supports most of the text.
    • Corrected per the previous review
  • 9 This is talking about Hypericum perforatum?
    • Yes, the glands should contain common chemical categories throughout the genus; as the type species H. perforatum is the most evident reference
  • 10 The definition of stomata is not in the source. And I don't see the vein thing either.
    • Leaving the definition for the end, but I have no idea where the vein statement came from. I've re-read the references and can't find it either, thank you for the good eye.
  • 11 I don't think this says why the adaptations arose, at least not on this page.
    • I'm not seeing what this is referring to?
      • "Both species have similar adaptations in their stomata that make them able to thrive in dry climates, and both have stomata on the upper and lower sides of their leaves" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "presence of amphistomatic leaves and xeromorphic stomata in H. sechmenii are the same features as for those in H. thymopsis" (xeromorphic means an adaptation or morphological feature that retains water and allows species to survive in dry habitats)
  • 12 This absolutely does not back the flower distinctions, at least not on this page.
    • Also includes the comparison table on the previous page, made that change to denote
  • 13 Is Günüzü=Günyüzü? Also, Atila Ocak is not mentioned here.
    • Yes to the first point; Ocak is mentioned as the collector in his 2009 paper, I have addended it to the sentence
  • 14 Where is the etymology stated.
    • Bizimbit gives "secmen kantaronu". Kantaronu is the Turkish common name for Hypericum/St John's wort
  • 17 OK
  • 18 Not sure what this source adds.
    • I believe POWO is a more recognizable source for botanical experts who may be dubious of Bizimbit
  • 20 Is HUB=Hacettepe University?
    • Yes
  • 21 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 24 Seems like this is on the previous page.
    • Page 70 also discusses the Irano-Turanian element, but I have expanded it to a range of 69-70
  • 25 OK
One thing I notice that a number of jargon terms (which I've listed above) used in the source have been explained in the article, without the explanation being in the source. Not relevant to the spotcheck, but worth noting, some content seems to duplicate itself, e.g the five petaled flowers thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for doing this. In your final comment, is there a hiccup between "without the" and "Not relevant"? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've fixed that now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for the thorough source review. I hope I have adequately responded. The one point I will push back on is the explanation for the jargon terms. I believe it is necessary, and that because their meanings are unambiguous the definition should not need a source. To do so would be counterproductive and make writing these articles to a high standard even more difficult, perhaps prohibitively so. I give the reader both a simple explanation, and the original, so if they are dubious of my explanation they can look up the jargon term (or click through to its wiki article) on their own. Fritzmann (message me) 00:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably add some citations for the jargon terms too. See for example how Gargaud 2011 is used on TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Individual points all responded to. If there is consensus that sources are needed for every jargon term, I will endeavor to include them but that might take a little while. Fritzmann (message me) 13:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion regarding the explanations of the jargon terms: If these definitions are uncontroversial, I think that no citation is needed. These should fall into "the sky is blue" kind of statements according to WP:CITEKILL, and providing citations for them adds clutter without much benefit. Most of the FAs I wrote or reviewed do not provide such citations, including most of our dinosaur FAs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus and Gog the Mild, were there any other sourcing concerns that I can address at this point? Fritzmann (message me) 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd be wary of passing an article when a spotcheck shows this many issues, but this "spotcheck" ended up being roughly 90% of the article. Undecided whether we should worry about the remaining 10%. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for performing the spot-checks. Normally, when spot-checks reveal this many issues, I like to ensure that the nominator goes through the entirety of sources again and rechecks everything. As and when that is done, further spot-checks (possibly by you if you feel inclined or another reviewer) should be done to make sure everything is in the clear. FrB.TG (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, I have gone through with a fine comb again that has hopefully removed any lingering ambiguity or inconsistencies. I will note that most of the issues arose from a hasty transition between reference styles during this FAC, as opposed to being present beforehand. That's certainly an error on my part (and a lesson learned for my next time at FAC), but I don't think it's indicative of the overall quality of the article. Out of all of Jo-Jo's points, it seems to me like a maximum of four could be interpreted as actual source-text integrity issues (and minor ones at that) — the rest all just required clarification within this review or were those page-related issues that also arose during this review. Fritzmann (message me) 14:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to hint at the alternative: For this reason, I like to use the {{rp}} templates rather than {{Sfn}} for page numbers, as these are much easier to handle and much more flexible. It's a personal preference, but rp-templates are one way to save a lot of headaches. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I had before the FAC, but was advised to remove it because it made the text look unwieldy and wasn't necessary for short articles like Ocak 2009. I guess the lesson is to know what is required beforehand and what is preference-based, and to stick to one's guns on the latter issues. Fritzmann (message me) 14:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Both templates are accepted, including at FAC, and there is no rule or guideline that one should be preferred over the other. It is entirely up to you. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that the source-text inconsistencies were "minor", but since they are no longer there this can be considered a pass. Don't care whether to use sfn or rp, that's up to others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 December 2023 [32].

John B. Creeden

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jesuit and university president who played a major role in the creation of the modern Georgetown University. He was responsible for the eventual creation of the School of Foreign Service and he founded Boston College Law School. He also drew up plans for what would be the creation of the Gothic section of Georgetown's campus. Ergo Sum 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from HAL

Comments soon. ~ HAL333 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAL333, I was wondering if these were still on their way? Otherwise I shall be giving the "this is in danger of timing out" warning. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long belated comments:

Looks great otherwise and is certainly of featured quality. ~ HAL333 17:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review, HAL333. Ergo Sum 17:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hal333 and Ergo Sum: please remember the tq template can't be used at FAC as it slows down load time and affects archives; right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all users, so I've switched out some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy

I'll take a look and write some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: I didn't review the images, citations, or sources. Though, I did glance at the sources, and they all looked pretty legit. I didn't notice any titles that seemed really Creeden-specific, so I did a really really basic search on Google Books, JSTOR, and my statewide library for titles and couldn't find anything. That is my way of saying that I am willing to believe that the sources listed represent a reasonably wide breadth of available scholarship on the topic. Though I knew absolutely nothing about Creeden or the schools mentioned before reading this article, the article itself doesn't seem to have any glaring holes in covering the man's life, so I think it is pretty comprehensive. Yet, it doesn't go into too much detail anywhere, I think. And the tone throughout is very encyclopedic and clear. Well done.

Fun fact that has no bearing on this nomination: Creeden's predecessor, Patrick Francis Healy, is the brother of James Augustine Healy, who was the bishop where I live for 25 years. I guide walking tours by his old cathedral and tell guests about Bishop Healy. He has an amazing story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. And a small world. The Healy family is quite fascinating. Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I support this nomination based on the reasons stated above. If you have the time to do some reviewing of your own, this current FAC nomination of mine is in need of attention. I thank you in advance if you are able to take a look at the article and leave some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Source formatting seems consistent and sources seem reliable, but I notice that a rather large amount of sources is affiliated with Georgetown and the Jesuits - is he primarily discussed by these? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum, are you planning to respond to Jo-Jo's concern about the sources associated with Georgetown and the Jesuits? FrB.TG (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant to get back to this and it slipped my mind. This was an issue that was broached in my last FAC. It appears that Creeden is discussed in detail primarily by Jesuit-affiliated sources, some directly published by the Jesuits, others published by institutions affiliated with the Jesuits, and others stilled only written by people affiliated with the Jesuits. That is, there are various levels of Jesuit control over the publications. In any event, it does not appear to me that any of the sources used engage in hagiography and generally bear inidicia of reliability. Ergo Sum 04:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tough to say. If substantial coverage by independent sources was a requirement for FA, I doubt this would pass. As it stands the article does not mention anything that would make me demand independent coverage. I've done some looking around myself and there are a fair few sources discussing political activities of the university and mentioning Creeden; did he play a role in them?

Also, from a close paraphrase perspective, I wonder if "On November 20, 1921, Creeden received Ferdinand Foch, the French marshal and Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies, and presented him with an honorary Doctor of Civil and Canon Laws degree, as well as a golden sword on behalf of the American Jesuits." is unduly similar to the source's "On November 20, 1921, Creeden received French Marshal Ferdinand Foch at Georgetown and awarded him an honorary degree of Doctor of Canon and Civil Laws. Marshal Foch was also presented a gold sword on behalf of the American Society of Jesus", it's admittedly not the easiest sentence to paraphrase.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not the easiest to paraphrase. I tweaked the phrasing a bit to make it less close to the source. I will take a look at those sources. Ergo Sum 20:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have gone through those sources and everything I have found either is already in the article or is not really worthy of mention in a biographical article about Creeden. Ergo Sum 22:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 November 2023 [33].

Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the longest MLB baseball game in terms of innings ever, and probably with rule changes the longest there will ever be. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airship's flyby

That's probably the chunkiest infobox I've ever seen. Would suggest narrowing it a bit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The line score takes up the space it does. If there's any way to narrow it, I'm all in favor of it, but the only way I can see is eliminating the line score, and we might as well get rid of the infobox then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to set an image size. The box with the giant image is taking up my column in New Vector -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is silly big. At my standard settings the first line of the text is "On Saturday, May 1,". On my phone, where the cartoon is little more than a blur, the first line of text is "On Saturday,"; the second is "May 1, 1920," This is not satisfactory. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Experimenting, setting upright to 1.4 gives a legible cartoon on my - largish - monitor with a sensible strip of text; and a result on my phone where the cartoon title is legible - so no difference - and the strip of text is at least not laughable. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The plaque image is displacing the following table
Those are done. Thank you for the image review. Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – abandoned

Interesting article, putting down a marker to review soon. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox image is far too big, and cramps the text in the lead. Somewhere around 450px would match the width of the score.
  • The abbreviations "BKN" and "BSN" are used in a few places, but never explained. Recommend including them in the opening sentence of the lead: "On Saturday, May 1, 1920, the Brooklyn Dodgers (BKN) and the Boston Braves (BSN) played.."
I've struck the infobox and eliminated the abbreviations, which are not official in any case.
  • "..saw rainy weather, and it was unclear whether the game would be played, but the weather cleared.." The repetition of "weather", "whether" and "weather" makes this sentence slightly awkward; try to rephrase.
  • Wikilink "run" in the lead.
  • "Brooklyn scored a run in the fifth inning, and Boston in the sixth; thereafter the pitchers became increasingly dominant. As the game lengthened past eighteen innings, the small crowd at Braves Field cheered both pitchers. The last twenty innings were scoreless, and with darkness starting to fall, the umpires called a halt after the 26th inning.." Spell out "twenty-sixth" to make the format of the other comparable numbers.
  • I know AmEng likes false titles, but try to avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE they create: "manager Wilbert Robinson", "Pitcher Leon Cadore", "spitballer Burleigh Grimes" etc.
  • Explain what "had a 15–14 record" means.
Link added.
  • "Oeschger was later in 1919 traded.." This sounds a bit odd; maybe switch it around to "Later in 1919, Oeschger was traded.."
  • "Earlier in the 1920 season, Oeschger and Cadore had opposed each other in Brooklyn, with Cadore the winning pitcher over Oeschger, 1–0 in 11 innings." I'd move this to the end of the next paragraph.
  • "Both Oeschger were 28-year-old right-handers." Should this be "Both Oeschger and Cadore were 28-year-old right-handers."?
  • "..good for second place out of eight.." "good for" sounds like journalese. Maybe "placing them".
  • "..half a game behind.." What does this mean?
  • "Boston sported a 4–5 record.." Again, not sure this use of "sport" fits in an encyclopaedia.
  • "..31⁄2 games.." As you used the written form previously ("half a game"), this should also be written out.
As a general rule, baseball games behind are more commonly expressed as numerals, perhaps deriving from their place in statistical tables such as standings. I've never seen, in text, 1⁄2 games behind, though. It seems to be an exception.
  • "..for the 3:00 game.." Specify am or pm (same in the infobox, now I notice.)
  • "..be the starting pitcher, if the game was played." No need for this comma.
  • "Thus, only 4,000 or so fans came to Braves Field to view the contest." Switch "came" to "went".
  • "In the top of the first inning.." What does this mean?
This is explained in glossary of baseball terms, which is now included as a whatnot to cover minor baseball terms that do not have their own articles.
  • "..reached on a throwing error.." What does this mean?
Linked.
  • "..when Zack Wheat popped to second base." What does this mean?
Rephrased and linked.
  • "In the bottom of the first.." What does this mean?
See "top".
  • "..walked to lead off the inning.." What does this mean?
Linked to base on balls
  • "Cadore retired the next three batters.." What does this mean?
Retired is now linked to out (baseball).
  • The article contradicts itself: "..and it almost entirely stopped by the end of the first inning.." vs "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly.."
I don't see this as a contradiction. There's no way to prove there was never another raindrop after the first inning.
  • "..was retired in order.." What does this mean?
Again, retired means basically what it does in cricket. In order is defined in the glossary.
  • "..side without a run scoring." Grammatically, I think this would sound better as "..side without a run being scored." But honestly, this section is so jargon intense that I'm really struggling.
  • I think there is an extent to which any sports articles requires jargon.
  • "Wheat walked with one out.." What does this mean?
  • Linked.
  • "..hit a ground ball.." What's a ground ball?
  • Linked.

I'm going to stop here for the moment. I'm really struggling with the jargon. As someone who writes cricket articles, I appreciate the difficulty, but this section could really do with simplifying if possible. If not, all jargon at least needs to be wikilinked on first use. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think now you'll find that all terms with articles are linked, and a glossary is supplied for the puzzled reader to look up the terms. I don't think it can be written without jargon because the ninety and nine of the hundred readers who read this article are going to know something about baseball or they would not be looking for the longest game.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More
  • "..as there was as yet no artificial illumination of baseball fields." This sounds awkward; maybe something simpler like "..as the field had no artificial lighting."
No MLB field had such illumination so I'd rather phrase it broadly.
(Pulled down from above.) I take your point, but the current phrasing remains awkward. How about "..as baseball fields did not yet have artificial lighting." (It's mostly the "as there was as" which is awkward.)
OK
  • "Called to bat, Stengel received mixed boos and cheers from the Brooklyn crowd as a former Dodger, and doffed his cap, whereupon the bird flew away to great laughter from the crowd." I found this a bit difficult to read first time. I think removing the comma after "Dodger" would help.
OK
  • "The Dodgers had won eight of their first twelve games going into May 1, and was in second place.." "was" should be "were" here for consistency.
OK
  • "..reached on a throwing error.." What does this mean?
Linked.
(Pulled down from above.) I still don't know what "reached" means in this context.
I've directly linked from the glossary.
  • The article contradicts itself: "..and it almost entirely stopped by the end of the first inning.." vs "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly.."
I don't see this as a contradiction. There's no way to prove there was never another raindrop after the first inning.
(Pulled down from above.) I disagree. One says it almost entirely stopped (ie, it didn't stop), while the other says it stopped. That's a contradiction.
I cut the one that is not in the game description.
  • General repetition: Five of the six paragraphs of the First nine innings section start "In the top of the xth...", while the other starts "In the xth..". Try and add some variation.
OK, done.
  • "In the top of the first inning.." What does this mean?
This is explained in glossary of baseball terms, which is now included as a whatnot to cover minor baseball terms that do not have their own articles.
  • "..was retired in order.." What does this mean?
Again, retired means basically what it does in cricket. In order is defined in the glossary.
(Pulled down from above for both of these.) An article should not require a reader to have thoroughly read a glossary on the subject to understand. If there is something in the glossary to help understanding, then link to it. Unless I'm missing it, the article does not currently link to the glossary at all.
  1. I've linked to the glossary for the baseball terms you question and as many others as I can find.
  • "Cadore, though, retired the side without a run scoring." This might be an AmEng/BrEng thing, but to me this should be "..without a run being scored."
  1. It feels the same to me either way but I've taken your language.
  • "Cadore's hit could have been a double play had not Oeschger bobbled it.." Bobbled?
  1. I'm not sure that term is unique to baseball or even sport but I've linked to "muff' in the glossary.
  • "..hit a fly ball to shallow left field that dropped, allowing Krueger to score." I don't follow what is happening here.
  1. Rephrased somewhat.
  • "The Brooklyn run scored on what Oeschger remembered as a broken-bat single." Feels like this is missing "was" after "run".
  1. The shorter version feels slightly more natural but I'll accept your language.
  • "..right fielder Walton Cruise tripled for Boston against the Braves Field scoreboard in left field with one out." I don't understand the relevance of the scoreboard in this description.
It denotes that the ball traveled to the scoreboard in left field. The would make it quite a long hit. It's useful to put in some description where we can other than simply mentioning hit or out, and this is an important point of the game. Similarly we mention the broken-bat (now linked) nature of the Brooklyn run-scoring hit.
  • "..advanced to second on a Cruise sacrifice but, and went to third on a groundout by Holke." Something not quite right there I think.
Yes, fixed.

Reviewed to end of First nine innings, will continue. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the @FAC coordinators: ; I've abandoned this review as I just can't wade through the jargon well enough to review it suitably. As Wehwalt suggests, there may well be no realistic way of avoiding it, so I don't intend to oppose, but I don't think I'm in a position to provide an effective review of this article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts. I do not think it possible to write an article on a sporting event without using the sport's jargon. For guidance, I looked at the FA 1988 Football League Second Division play-off final, for which you were the successful nominator. I do not question its quality, I simply note the use of jargon, in fact often less linked than in the present article. For example (citations excluded in all cases, but links included), "but the Chelsea goalkeeper, Kevin Hitchcock managed to get his left palm to the attempted chip. Nevin then created an opportunity for Chelsea, crossing the ball to Dixon, who missed the goal with his header." Never is there an explanation or link to what a chip is, or an opportunity, or crossing, or header. Or a goalkeeper, or "goal" in its meaning as in an area on the pitch. Oh, I rather like this passage: "Chelsea dominated play early on; within 90 seconds of kick-off, Nevin had a shot at goal which Pears "brilliantly" deflected onto the post, according to White. Middlesbrough's best chance of the match came a few minutes later, when a cross-cum-shot from Cooper rebounded off the post to Slaven. From 5 yards (5 m), his headed shot went over the bar." Nowhere is there an explanation or link to tell the putative novice reader what a kick-off is, or what shot at goal is, or a post, or a bar, and certainly not a cross-cum-shot. (I wondered at that myself, and do follow English football in a desultory sort of way, and have been to two play-off finals myself). I could go on, or even pass to cricket (I'm sure I could find ample there) but I think my point is made.
I say again, my point is not to denigrate your writing in any way, and in my view you are one of the best writers we have. But an article such as these two are not intended to give basic information on the rules of the sport to the reader. While they should be adequately linked, they exist to explain exceptional matches (such as Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979) to individuals already versed in the sport. While they should explain the basics (such as the background and aftermath) in language that is clear to anyone, ultimately discussion of sport uses the language of sport. As your articles show, and in my view both your articles and this one meet the standards I have discussed. (though I might link cross-cum-shot) :).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by RoySmith

I probably won't do a full review, but here's a few random comments:

Brooklyn and Boston played to a 1-1 tie on September 20, 1905 in the second game of a doubleheader (8 innings), on April 24, 1907 (13 innings), and possibly other times as well. Thus, that title would not completely disambiguate.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have articles about those games?
No, they aren't notable games as far as I am aware. But how does the reader know that?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is not to disambiguate in the title unless you have to, not because you might have to at some point in the future if other articles get written. TITLEDAB says, "... already used for other articles". RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside FAs such as Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977) (there is no other similarly-titled Coventry City article), I'd state that the (26 innings) is not a disambiguating parenthetical, but part of the scoreline, as baseball games that are decided in other than nine innings very often carry such a parenthetical. It also, like the year in the soccer article above, provides a clue to the searching reader (in our search box) that they have found what they are looking for. Simply stating the score without the number of innings does not tell the reader that they've found what they very likely are looking for, the longest MLB game ever. Unlike many other articles on individual baseball games, this does not have a shorthand nickname like, say, the Pine Tar Game. TITLEDAB says, "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles."--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised that it was even possible for a baseball game to end in a tie. It took a bit of research to discover this used to be common, due to the lack of lighting at ballparks. I think this should at least be covered briefly.
I've added a sentence on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's many places in the Records set section where statements are implicitly as of 2023. While this is stated explicitly in the first sentence, it should be made explicit for all the other ones, in some way that isn't as ugly as plastering {{asof}} templates every other sentence.
Do you have some suggestions as to how? It would be as of 2024 now, effectively, as the regular season for baseball has concluded and postseason records will not change the regular season record book.--
Maybe start out the section with, "The May 1, 1920 game set a number of records which still stand As of 2023" and then start enumerating them? I would even make that one sentence a stand-alone paragraph to emphasize that it applies equally to everything that follows (even if that horrifies the FA regulars). RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence but kept it within the exiting structure of the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess...

Lead
  • Delete "Saturday" in the first sentence. What day of the week it was isn't that important.
  • "26 innings, the longest game in terms of innings..." -> "26 innings, the most..."
  • Only link Braves Field the first time
  • Delete "for their teams". Who else would they be pitching for?
  • In the lead, it's "jointly hold the record", in the main body, "jointly hold the MLB records". Use either record (singular) or records (plural) in both places.
In the lead, we only mention one record. In the body, we list two: longest pitching appearance and longest complete game. These are distinct records.
  • "May 1, 1920, saw rainy weather", don't repeat the date, or at least don't repeat the year. How about, "The day of the game" or "Game day"?
  • "came to understand ..." in wiki voice is editorializing, and I can't find where it's stated in the main body.
  • "no illumination of baseball fields." Of course there was. It just stopped working at sunset.
  • "There were stories told" is stated as "A myth arose" in the main body. I'm not convinced those are fungible.
I think the sources would support both phrasings, but I've adjusted the lede a bit.
  • "as many former major leaguers" It's not clear if "former" means "before 1920" or "before 2023".
  • "the records ... were not threatened." Who said they weren't threatened? WP:OR?
No, the body says that the longest pitching appearance in the two 25-inning games was 91⁄3 innings, which is barely a third of what Oeschger and Cadone did. So no one came close to equalling their joint record.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done or responded to in this section.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • There's so much richness in the cartoon, let's not deprive our screen-reader users of it with just a stingy "Newspaper cartoon" for an alt text.
Added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that's a correct statement. I added a bit more which attempts to let a blind person enjoy more of the wonderful story depicted in the cartoon. And while I was there, I uploaded a better version of the image.
Background
  • "Joe Oeschger, had won 15 games in 1917, but only four in 1919" ... and in 1918 didn't play because he was abducted by space aliens?
He probably would have preferred it to the poor record he posted for the Giants ... added.
  • "Oeschger and Cadore had opposed each other in Brooklyn, with Cadore the winning pitcher over Oeschge" Drop "over Oeschger"; we know they opposed each other, no need to repeat that. Actually, no need to say "winning pitcher"; we already know what positions they both played.
The current phrasing makes it clear both pitched the entire game (or at least, until the final inning). The changes you suggest would not exclude the possibility of relief pitchers.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Cadore and his roommate" avoid repetition of "and"
All done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First nine innings
  • Throughout this entire section (and the rest of the article), you overuse "but". It's not just the word itself; it's repeition of the "A thing happened, but then something else happened" sentence structure that's repeated many times and makes for an awkward pattern.
I see your point, and will work to tone it down a bit, but it is to an extent unavoidable. The narration of a baseball game, with many discrete events, is necessarily going to be choppy, and as many of the innings took the pattern "So-and-so reached base, but then Cadore/Oeschger got out of the inning without a run scoring", it's hard to avoid. Cadore, for example, allowed baserunners in 13 of the first 14 innings, but only one scored.
"Although So-and-so reached base, Cadore/Oeschger got out of the inning without allowing him to score"
"In the first 14 innings, Caldor only kept the bases empty once; of the 27 (whatever) baserunners he allowed in that stretch, 26 were stranded"
  • "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly." This implies the game was started in the rain, which comes as a surprise. Maybe in the first short paragraph of The game, "... to view the contest, which started while it was still raining"?
The source doesn't definitively say that. Baseball can be played in the rain, as long as it isn't raining too hard, and there could have been intervals of rain during the first inning.
You've already got a source which covers that: 'It was drizzling when Umpire Barry McCormick called "Play Ball!"'. That begs the question of how drizzle stops abruptly, but that's not our problem.
  • "which held up many fly balls" I picture a cold wind, holding a gun to a fly ball's head, demanding, "OK bub, give me your wallet!"
I've changed to "slowed". But I'm dubious it carries the same nuance to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reached on a throwing error" reached what? There's a lot of baseball jargon in this article. Maybe that's OK given the subject matter, but this one seems a little much. Pity our poor readers who were forced to grow up on footy and cricket.
Rephrased slightly.
  • "Oeschger doubled to center field" might be worth mentioning that in this era, pitchers actually knew how to use a bat.
The two pitchers were a combined 1 for 19, which isn't very good, nor unusual for pitchers.
  • "from Mickey O'Neil, the catcher" -> "from catcher Mickey O'Neil"?
  • "Walton Cruise tripled for Boston against the Braves Field scoreboard" I'm guessing that means the ball bounced off the scoreboard, but that's not clear. Was this a ground-rule triple? It might be interesting to say where the scoreboard was, i.e. behind left, center, right, whatever field?
  • "tagged out at home plate" spelling out "home plate" instead of just "home" seems out of tone with the rest of the narrative.
Maybe, but I was trying to avoid being too jargony.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stallings replaced the catcher, Krueger, with Rowdy Elliott" it's unclear if that happened in the 7th or the 8th.
  • "The pinch hitter also singled." this is an awkward little sentence. How about "... Stalling sent in Lloyd Christenbury to pinch hit for O'Neil. Christenbury attempted a sacrifice, but Cadore's throw..."
Extra innings
  • "Having pinch hit for his catcher, Stallings" I know what you're saying, but this sounds like Stallings did the hitting, as opposed to doing the managing. Maybe it's OK, but consider if it can be clarified.
  • "In the top of the seventeenth, Brooklyn mounted its first threat of extra innings". They weren't threatening to send it into extra innings, they were already there. Maybe "... first threat of the extra innings?"
I've never heard "the extra innings" in baseball parlance. It's always been without the definite article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but "threat of extra innings" is still confusing. When I read "threat of X", I take to to mean "X might happen". Threat of rain. Threat of banishment. Threat of being forced to listen to Justin Bieber. What you're trying to say is "threat of scoring a run during extra innings", and "threat of extra innings" doesn't say that to me.
I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the game lasted three hours and fifty minutes" That's astoundingly fast for 26 innings by modern standards. Might be worth saying something about that.
It's fast, but nine innings was sometimes played in less than an hour pre-television.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only three baseballs were used in the entire contest" again, might be worth comparing to modern play where three baseballs might not get you through a single at-bat.
It's exceptional, but a comparison with modern practice seems a bit OR to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Records set
  • "Charlie Pick ... eleven at bats in a game without getting a hit", which implies others have had eleven at bats, but they got a hit?
Yes. In this game, Boeckel.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holke's record of 42 putouts in a game by a first baseman" or for any other position, I would imagine?
  • "43 total chances, also a MLB record for a first baseman", same comment
On both. I would agree, but I'm unable to find a site that confirms this. The records seem to be broken down by position. But given the first baseman gets the most putouts in most games unless you have Nolan Ryan on the mound, you are almost certainly correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction and aftermath
  • "The tie game was replayed as the second game of a doubleheader on June 25," Interesting, Yesterday I learned you could have ties. Today I learned they get replayed. Might be worth mentioning how this worked in those days.
Added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, both men pitched effectively if not brilliantly for several years after the game" Editorializing. Who said those things?
I've limited to they remained in MLB for several years after the game.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, probably worth mentioning somewhere if the pitchers were left or right handed. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's worth mentioning. They were both right-handers, but that really plays no part in the story. Stallings sometimes platooned his players, especially in 1914, but there's mention of him doing so or choosing a right handed pitcher for that reason. Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of that, I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten to or responded to everything. I've cut down on the number of but constructions in the "The Game" sections, but I haven't tried to eliminate them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all your further points, or at least discussed them, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few more changes which you can find from the history. The only thing I still see as a problem is overuse of "but". I made a few changes on my own. There's more work to be done on this, which I'll leave to you. As a nit-pick, "overcast" has a specific meaning in meteorology and "dark clouds and mist" isn't quite it. Given this isn't a meteorology article it was probably OK, but since I was in there removing a "but", I fixed that too. I also wrote you a nice alt text for the infobox cartoon. RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very thorough alt text. I've reduced the "but" constructions to two in the first nine innings and two in extra innings (not counting the quotation from Oeschger). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, the Miracle Braves, the World Series champions of 1914, when manager George Stallings led them from last place on the Fourth of July to sweeping the 1914 World Series." - this is a bit convoluted. I suggest "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, when manager George Stallings led the team dubbed the Miracle Braves from last place on the Fourth of July to sweeping the 1914 World Series."
  • "Brooklyn center fielder led off Hi Myers the top of the second inning" - I think some of these words are in the wrong order
  • "Cadore died in 1958 at age 66, having played most of his MLB career with the Dodgers, with brief stints with the Chicago White Sox and New York Giants. He compiled a lifetime record of 68–72, marrying the daughter of Brooklyn owner Charles H. Ebbets; he was a stockbroker," - the first part of the second sentence oddly combines two not-really-related things. I would re-arrange it to "Cadore died in 1958 at age 66, having played most of his MLB career with the Dodgers, with brief stints with the Chicago White Sox and New York Giants, compiling a lifetime record of 68–72. He married the daughter of Brooklyn owner Charles H. Ebbets; he was a stockbroker,"
  • "Sportswriter Bert Randolph Sugar wrote, "but for Cadore and Oeschger" - I don't think the "but" is needed. That presumably relates to an earlier sentence in Sugar's article which isn't quoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I've done those things, though with a bit different text from what you suggested in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Just two bits from me:[reply]

  • I can just about follow the technical language of baseball in the first para of First nine innings (is that what it's like for Americans having to review cricket articles?), and my mind got stuck in a "who's on first" loop. If a complete novice comes along, I suspect they'll struggle. I don't think there's anything you can do about it really – all the technical terms are linked to explanatory articles, so I think that will have to do.
    The only real wrinkle was in the phrase "was left at first base" in which the linked "left" is a bit of an easter egg: maybe extend the link to cover "left at first base"?
  • "pitchers mound": pitcher's mound? (or pitchers' mound?)

Interesting piece of history. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've made those changes. Yes, I feel the jargon is inevitable and fully understanding the description of the game will require some basic knowledge of baseball or willingness to patiently go through the links. As for cricket, I've seen enough of it over the years to have a rudimentary understanding of what I've seen on TV and very rarely in person but I probably lose a good deal of the nuance, so you're probably right. Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie

Spot for comments to follow Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Cadore was involved in a well-known stunt," Does the source establish the stunt as "well-known"? Feels hard to quantify, to me
I've added a source that describes it as "remembered as Casey's zaniest moment as a player" and "there were enough eyewitnesses on hand that day to assure that this was a wholly true story, not a fable. His signature moment had been achieved.".
  • " Stengel later stated of Cadore, who was a roommate while both were with the Dodgers, "Wonderful person, wonderful pitcher with a brilliant mind."" what's the relevance of this sentence?
I think it's to establish the relationship of Stengel, a very well known baseball figure, with Cadore, who is less-known, also with a view of setting up the quotation from Stengel late in the article. To be blunt, outside of this one game, the only thing Cadore is really remembered for is his bit part in Stengel's sparrow stunt.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but he had won fourteen games in 1919," out of how many?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on from their great success" maybe like "from their last great success" or "most recent"? Unless it really was and remained their only?
The Boston Braves won only the one World Series though they played in it in 1948.
  • "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, when manager George Stallings led the team dubbed the Miracle Braves from last place on the Fourth of July to a sweep of the 1914 World Series." Can you reorg or split this sentence up actually? I don't think it reads super easily, especially because you don't give the year of their "great success" until the very end of the sentence, and I might expect something like "George Stallings had led the team"
I don't think the had is necessary. Rephrased.
It already is, in the extra innings section.
  • "Ties, brought on by adverse weather or the fall of darkness, were common in MLB in the time before night baseball." awkward phrasing here: ties are presumably still as common due to adverse weather as they were before night baseball?
No, because baseball rules now allow for suspended games and also can wait past the fall of darkness to resume a game.
  • Something isn't working for me in the background. I think it's that things keep getting introduced in passing. For instance, "(that role fell to Burleigh Grimes)" is when Grimes is first mentioned, "they were well-regarded as the 1920 season began" is when we get a sense of the time the article is focused on (rather than earlier in the sentence), "The starting pitcher for the Braves on May 1, 1920" is when the date of the game is established (why not earlier), but we don't know why the date is significant until later, when "before the May 1 game," is mentioned. I think this might be helped if you have an introductory sentence that establishes the teams that were set to play on what date. Might just be me though, happy to be told this is silly.
Added a topic sentence. Grimes is mentioned three times in the article, the purpose is to establish him as a pitcher for Brooklyn.
OK.
  • Are all the baseball terms needed? I think there's a few that could be replaced with words that make sense to the ordinary reader (ie why use 'retired' instead of 'out', 'left' instead of 'stranded')? Most of them are necessary, just not all imo
"retired the side" is such common baseball parlance that not to use it would look odd. Left is the more formal term in my view as it is part of the statistic "left on base". It's the description of a baseball game and baseball terms must be used. There are ample links for those unfamiliar with baseball who for some reason try to puzzle through this description. I find other baseball articles about specific games to be similar in their use of terms, and those many we have about American football and soccer.
  • Are the duplinks intentional?
There's one, I think, now, with "lead off" and "led off". I'm inclined to leave it.
  • " one long hit that might win the game" What does "long hit" in this context mean?
I think, literally, a long hit, an extra base hit. We're being pretty faithful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after Holke threw the ball back to him" necessary? How else would he have gotten the ball?
Another fielder might have thrown the ball. The source doesn't mention it, but it would be usual for the pitcher, Oeschger, to back up the play at first base.
  • "has had the effect of greatly reducing" maybe just "has greatly reduced"
Fine.
  • " as the advent of the relief pitcher made it highly unlikely" but according to our article on relief pitchers, they had been around since even before this game
Changed to "greater use" of the reliever.
  • " According to Warren Corbett" maybe put a year for context here?
OK
  • "James C. O'Leary of The Boston Globe" a date would be good for this?
I've made it clear this was the next day
  • "but such matters were not a consideration in 1920" necessary? I think it can be assumed from the context to be the case
Yes, but I'm inclined to spell it out for the reader.

That's all for a first read-through, mostly minor points. As always, not wedded to all/any of the aboveEddie891 Talk Work 22:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've responded or dealt with all of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie, did you want to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can support now. I went ahead and linked night baseball on first rather than second mention. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-check upon request. I presume that www.sports-reference.com is not usergenerated? It looks like otherwise the sources are consistently formatted and seem to be reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball-Reference.com is probably what you mean. Although it includes a part that is user generated (the "bullpen"), all citations are to the main portion, that is not user generated, and that is widely relied upon by media organizations and others per our article on it, that contains stats for all players and games in Major League Baseball.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then that seems like a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2023 [34].

John Spencer (snooker player)

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins[reply]

This article is about three-time world snooker champion John Spencer. Spencer was noted for his cue action, which featured an unusually long backswing that provided immense cue power, allowing him to develop long-distance shots with deep screw and maximum side spin. According to Clive Everton in Billiards and Snooker magazine, Spencer's play in the 1969 World Snooker Championship final "justifiably caused gasps of amazement" from the audience. We previously worked on the article for Spencer's great rival Ray Reardon, which was promoted as a Featured Article just over a year ago. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins[reply]

Image review

  • File:Spencer-john.jpg: source link is dead, needs a more extensive FUR
Many thanks, Nikkimaria. I've deleted the Reardon image from this article and from his article. I've expanded on the FUR for the Spencer image, but let me know if more is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

  • " the first year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible Theatre" - mention Sheffield here → (done)
  • I notice that in a couple of places you inflate amounts of money to current (ish) values, but in most places you don't..?
→ It looks as if the inflation conversions are mostly in the early career section (1967–1971), as I guess it's quite useful to put these seemingly small amounts of money from 50-odd years ago into context for today's audience. I think converting all the cash sums throughout would be overkill and unnecessary. The only other one I can find is at the end of the Declining health section, where it converts the £9K that Spencer got in Feb 1987, this being the most he ever earned from a single event during his career. Compared with some of the sums that the players are winning nowadays, £26,932 equivalent might seem paltry and worth a particular mention? That seems to be the logic used anyway, not sure if you agree? The latest available year that can be used with the inflation template for the UK is 2021 at the moment. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had suggested to Hendry that they play the next match in casual clothes, to which Hendry agreed, with the result that Spencer won their third encounter 6–4" - does the source really attribute the fact that he won to what he was wearing, as the wording suggests?
→ Benny can perhaps check this – maybe a subjective interpretation of the source material? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Burn has "Afterwards [Hendry] told his father that he thought it had been a set-up. '[Spencer] knew that if I was dressed casually', he said, 'I'd play casually.'" As this is Hendry's own account, perhaps a rewording would be in order. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Benny, nice bit of detail to add in. Have reworded/expanded. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the final stages of this event, he defeated then World Champion Joe Johnson 5–3" => "In the final stages of this event, he defeated then-World Champion Joe Johnson 5–3" → (done)
  • "he scored just 207 points against Bjorn L'Orange in the second round of qualifying, before losing the match 0–10" => "he scored just 207 points against Bjorn L'Orange in the second round of qualifying, losing the match 0–10" (the use of "before" is ambiguous and could be read as his having somehow scored 207 points before the match even took place → (done)
  • That's it, I think. An enjoyable read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59

Yesterday, I noticed this article here and thought that Spencer's parentage should be included in this article; the information is in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Some details of his early life mentioned in the obituary in The Guardian were also absent. So I decided to add those details. I was then surprised to see today that these changes were reverted by Rodney Baggins, who suggested that improvements should be suggested here. I am not sure that's how this works, but I'd rather see the improvements included. So, here are my suggestions:

  • For the first sentence of "Early life", change "John Spencer was born on 18 September 1935 in Radcliffe, Lancashire.[1] He attended Stand Grammar School for Boys in Whitefield." to the following: "John Spencer was born on 18 September 1935 at Bealey Maternity Home in Radcliffe, Lancashire, the youngest child of William Spencer, a night watchman and bookkeeper's runner, and his wife Annie, née Bleakley." This can be cited to the ODNB article.
  • Replace "He started playing snooker on a full-sized table at the age of 14 and compiled his first century break aged 15." with the following: "John first played snooker on a makeshift table with tape for cushions and nails to mark out pockets, before his father introduced him to playing snooker on a full-sized table when the boy was aged 14. John compiled his first century break at the age of 15." This can be cited to The Guardian.

I have no further comments at this stage. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, Noswall59. I wasn't sure where the material had come from, but will add it back in with ref tags. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noswall59 and BennyOnTheLoose: and Gog the Mild; please have a look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. Because they cause problems in archives, and slow down the load time of the entire FAC page, templates like tq are avoided at FAC. I've switched out a few here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SMcCandlish

Overall it reads very well, seems comprehensive of the subject, properly sourced as far as I can tell. I don't see any criteria issues that need work. I wish more of our articles were like this. I made one typographic tweak a few days ago, but see no even trivial issues remaining, so am in support of the promotion. (Disclaimer: I am a participant in WikiProject Snooker, so I'm involved in the general topic area, though I did no significant work on this particular article.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMcCandlish, it is good to get a specialist review. Should the coordinators take your comments as a support for promotion to FA status? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeps. I guess I should have boldfaced the "so am in support of the promotion", or put "Support" in the heading. I'm not a terribly frequent FAC visitor. PS: As for "specialist", I'm more of a pool than snooker editor within cue sports, but this certainly has everything I would expect from a snooker bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

Having been open for a while now, this nomination has garnered only one general support, and the last activity was almost two weeks ago. Without substantial advancement towards a consensus favoring promotion over the next few days, I'm afraid there's a risk that the nomination may be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pawnkingthree

The article appears to be fully comprehensive and is of a similar quality to last year's Ray Reardon FAC in which I also participated. The only thing I might suggest is that the Daily Telegraph obituary fills in what he was doing after his national service and before returning to snooker - "a variety of jobs including labourer, van driver and betting office settler." Perhaps that could be added. But in any case, it's a support from me. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: Thank you for supporting promotion of this article. I'll add the material you mentioned. I also notice the DT obituary says he did his national service in the RAF, which is notable and worth adding in. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

  • "..he started National Service at age 18, and did not play snooker again until he was 29." The way this is written, it makes it seem causal, ie that it was because of his National Service that he didn't play for 11 years, but there is no indication that this is the case; I'd suggest rephrasing.
  • Personally, I'd swap the last sentence of the second paragraph with the first of the final paragraph. The second paragraph is mostly a list of his career highlights, and the sentence currently feels like it would fit well there. Similarly, the final paragraph deals with the end of his snooker career, and his post-playing life, and a sentence about his playing style feels like it would fit well there. But I'm not going to kick up a fuss either way, so feel free to leave as is if you think it works better.
  • "..Spencer, Reardon, Owen and Bernard Bennett.." While I think it is obvious this refers to Gary, I think it would bear clarifying, as both Owen brothers have been mentioned already in the article. — (done)
  • "..against defending champion Pulman.." Try to avoid the false title here. — (done)
  • "The tournament that is recognised as the 1971 World Championship was in fact held in late 1970.." I think this is wordier than it needs to be; I think it could just be "The 1971 World Championship was in fact held in late 1970.." — (done)
  • "Historian Dominic Sandbrook.." Another false title. — (done)
  • "..even though he was feeling exhausted and ill after a major tour of Canada, and had been trapped in a lift ahead of one of the sessions, and involved in a minor car crash on the way to another." Recommend getting rid of the "and" at the start of the bit about the lift to improve the flow. — (done)
  • "He had also expended effort in beating Higgins 4–3 in the final of the Park Drive 2000 event the night before the first session of the World Championship final." This seems a weird thing to note given that Higgins was also his opponent in the World Championship final. Did Higgins not expend effort during the Park Drive 2000 event??
  • I also agree. (It is, however, supported by the source which says that Spencer's win in the Park Drive 2000 final "drained him dry", coming after his trip to Canada and his win against Charlton. Perhaps there's a bit of hyperbole in the source; in the next sentence, Everton writes that "Higgins played with a sense of destiny..." ) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his 2005 memoir, Spencer made clear that Higgins had produced the better snooker.." I'm not keen on this phrasing, as it seems to turn an opinion into a fact. Maybe rephrase to "Spencer made clear that he felt Higgins had produced the better snooker.." — (done)
  • "..he beat Thorburn 9–7 in the semi-finals.." Provide his full name and wikilink on this first mention of Thorburn. — (done)
  • "..the two inaugural Pontins events.." I'm not keen on the use of "the", which makes it sound like the reader should know what these are.
  • You might argue the same for any mention of an inaugural tournament, e.g. "he won the inaugural Irish Masters at Goffs Sales Room in County Kildare" which could equally look as if we expect the reader to know of the event. In fact, could you not use the same argument for any use of the definite article!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..of 25 points per frame.." This is the first time "points" have been mentioned in the article: could do with a wikilink. — (done)
  • "..to celebrate the firm's £8,000 investment into the sport in the 1973–74 season. Spencer took the £150 first prize.." Previously, you had provided modern equivalences for monetary values, but from here onwards you stop. Is there a particular reason for that?
  • "Spencer's good form was not translated into positive results at the next two World Championships. In 1973, after showing decisive form in defeating David Taylor 16–5 and Williams 16–7, he lost by a single frame to Reardon in the semi-finals, 22–23." Two decisive victories followed by a narrow loss to a good player seems to be two positive results and an acceptable one. Possibly rephrase the opening sentence?
  • Have reworded. His good form in 1973 and 1974 (detailed in previous paragraph) wasn't quite good enough to bag the world title in 1973 and 1974 (as one might have expected), but was perhaps a bit unclear. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..but refused to blame his defeat on a dose of flu from which he had been suffering.." This gives the impression that Wikipedia's editorial voice is suggesting that his blame was because of the flu; please rephrase. — (done)
  • "..won the inaugural Masters event held at the West Centre Hotel in Fulham, West London." Add a comma after "event", to make it clear that it was the inaugural Masters event, not just the inaugural one hosted at the West Centre Hotel. — (done)
  • "..before defeating Reardon in the closest of finals." This sounds like journalese, try to rephrase it. — (done)
  • "..in one half of the draw, with Charlton himself in the other." As the sentence starts with the word "With", I think this "with" would be better changed to "and". — (done)
  • "..highest break of the tournament, a 138, in the.." Get rid of "a". — (done)
  • "..defeating Virgo.." Provide his full name and wikilink on this first mention of Virgo. (Currently done on his third, and last, mention.) — (done)
  • "The conditions were so hot that Spencer's chalk snapped in half when he tried to use it, because of an accumulation of moisture inside his breast pocket." This comma isn't necessary.
  • Why is the 147 break stuff out of sequence? Why structure the article chronologically, but then have that out of place? It would even fit naturally between existing paragraphs: surely it would be better moved there?
  • I've now restructured the professional career section so that the unofficial 147 part can be more easily incorporated in the flow. I did provide a lengthy explanation for the previous layout but I can remove that now, as superseded/irrelevant. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was to be the last time the two players would face each other in a World Championship match." There is no need for this to be so convoluted: "This was the last time the two players faced each other in a.." Would be fine. — (done)
  • "..he startled the audience by lunging forward and striking over the cue ball in his initial address.." I'm a little confused by this: what did he strike above the cue ball? Surely there wasn't anything there to strike?
  • The source talks about the audience but doesn't quite say anything to the effect that they were startled, and the rest is perhaps a bit too close to the source, which has "Spencer amused himself by lunging forward and hitting over the cue-ball as he addressed it to pot the final black but then settled down to make absolutely certain of the fifth maximum of his career." Looking through some of the press coverage from the time, including the Snooker Scene editor Clive Everton's report in The Guardian, all of which omits this, I tend towards removing this detail. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the detail in the body of the article, I think the lead needs tweaking to match the article better. "..because the pockets on the table may not have met the required specifications." This gives the reader the impression that the pockets probably were the wrong size; I think it would be better softened to "..because the pockets had not been measured against official specifications." (Or similar.) — (done)
  • "The Miles match was to be Spencer's last victory at the Crucible." Again, this could just be "The Miles match was Spencer's last victory at the Crucible." — (done)
  • Spell out WPBSA on first mention. — (done)
  • Per MOS:SURVIVEDBY, try to rephrase the last sentence. — (done)

That's the lot for the prose I think. A nice biography. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thank you for the thorough review, very much appreciated. I'll start going through your points later today. Most are very useful, but I disagree with a couple and will give my reasons, then we can discuss. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Thank you. I've split the performance and ranking timeline into three tables to avoid having column headers in the middle of a table, removed some cell colours that didn't add much, added captions, added row and column scopes, and removed breaks. Please let me know if any other table formatting is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I've dealt with most of your queries, please see individual responses above. I've given feedback on the ones that need more discussion or general agreement. Also marked a couple for attention of User:BennyOnTheLoose. Still working on changes to the lead following alterations by User:HurricaneHiggins, almost completed! Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Hello again, just about done now. I think the only thing outstanding is the currency conversions. I would like to keep these to a minimum, so we should probably remove some of them rather than adding in any more. There are 18 monetary amounts given in the article's body and I can't see how we could provide equivalents for every one of those without the whole thing looking a bit cluttered. What do you think? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note that I'm currently away from home with work, so won't be able to look at this for a few days. Harrias (he/him) • talk 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, you back on deck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm happy to support based on the changes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-check upon request, reviewing this version. How did we come to the conclusion of the footnote t "The winning aggregate score is unknown."? Are Billiards and Snooker. and Snooker Scene. offline publications? Which The Times is source #17 about? What make uk.eurosport.yahoo.com and snookerdatabase.co.uk reliable sources? I am also not sure if the Daily Mirror is a high-quality source for a FA. Kinda wondering about "Turner, Chris. Chris Turner's Snooker Archive.", is that a commonly cited source? I am not sure that the citations #120-#121, #124-#126 provide enough information to track down the source. Source formatting appears to be mostly consistent, except for #35 which has a different formatting from other citations to Snooker Scene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the Eurosport thing. As for the footnote, it should cite some sources that were checked. As for the archive, I'll defer to the RSN discussion this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I amended the note to "The winning aggregate score is not mentioned in any of the reliable sources consulted for this article." - but I can specify two or three (or as many as you suggest) sources instead if that works better. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to specify, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've mentioned three of the soruces that would have been most likely to include that information. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a pass, with my caveat about no spotcheck. It seems like a lot of the coverage is in snooker-dedicated sources, but there are some non-snooker sources too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The winning aggregate score is unknown" changed to "The winning aggregate score is not mentioned in the source."
  • Billiards and Snooker and Snooker Scene are offline publications, although Snooker Scene also had a website. Billiards and Snooker was the official magazine of the Billiards Association and Control Council and during the period of the issues cited here, was edited by Clive Everton. Everton, I think it's fair to say, is the most respected authority on snooker history. He went on to found Snooker Scene and continued to write for newspapers including The Guardian as well as being a commentator for the BBC's television coverage of snooker.
  • I've added locations for The Times (London),
  • Chris Turner's Snooker Archive was discussed as the reliable sources noticeboard last year and although there wasn't wide participation, there were no objections. It is very commonly used in our snooker articles.
  • uk.eurosport.yahoo.com - I've never seen any objection to Eurosport as a reliable source. Let me know if this needs to be changed.
  • snookerdatabase.co.uk - removed. I'll see if I can find another source for the Pot Black results.
  • I've swapped out the Daily Mirror references, and clippings for their replacements and the other ones where you were concerned that there might not be enough information to track down the source.
  • I made the source formatting change that you identified.

Comments from HurricaneHiggins

I've made some edits to the article lead, but have not edited the article body itself, which looks great to me overall. It is complete, well written, and well-sourced. No major criticisms or concerns. A few suggestions:

  • Some sources say that Spencer was known as "Gentleman John". Should this be included as a nickname, per many other snooker bios?
  • Per the Bolton News and New York Times, Spencer was involved in a serious car crash after an exhibition match in 1974, when he fell asleep at the wheel and swerved in front of a lorry. The BN article mentions that he was lucky to escape alive. This is surely noteworthy.
  • In describing the same incident, the Bolton Times refers to Spencer's "famous twisted cue" that was 80 years old, which was smashed into four pieces in the crash, leading Spencer to become one of the first professionals to use a two-piece cue. Another detail that could be of interest?

These suggestions aside, I'm more than happy to support the promotion of this article to Featured status.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneHiggins (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneHiggins: Thank you for supporting the article and for the above comments, which I will address later. I also want to look at your lead changes in detail because you've completely overhauled it since the article was nominated for FAC :) Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, @Rodney Baggins. I see from your comment above that you disagree with some of my edits, which is fine ... please feel free to revert anything that creates an issue! My goal was to make the lead clearer and more readable, especially for non–snooker fans. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneHiggins: Hi there, I've had a good bash at the lead, mostly keeping your new structure intact but trimming and expanding where I think necessary. I've tried to explain my main changes so you can follow the logic. Please can you take a look and highlight anything you don't agree with? Might have to run this past the other FAC reviewers too. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodney Baggins Great work! I love everything you've done here. One minor thing -- you say he "lost interest in playing snooker for several years" but there was a substantial 11-year period where he didn't play at all. I might suggest "lost interest in playing snooker for over a decade". Otherwise, fantastic job. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 18 November 2023 [35].

Phoolan Devi

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoolan Devi (1963 – 2001), also known as the Bandit Queen, had a rather unique life. She went from a very poor rural beginning in Uttar Pradesh to being a notorious dacoit (bandit). Her fame grew amongst the lower castes in India whilst she was on the run since she was seen as a Robin Hood figure; she was also involved (to at least some degree) in the Behmai massacre. She negotiated her surrender to the authorities and spent eleven years in prison. Her charges were dropped so she could become an MP in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of India's Parliament, then she was shot to death whilst incumbent. It's quite a story, made more colourful by her tendency to change how she recounted the events of her life to suit different situations. The film Bandit Queen made her globally famous although she herself objected to her depiction and at first wanted it banned in India. This article was improved by a helpful review at GA (by @Larataguera:) and useful comments at PR from (@Alanna the Brave:, @SusunW: and @BennyOnTheLoose:). A note on naming conventions - after several discussions it was decided to refer to her consistently as Phoolan Devi. All constructive comments welcome! Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK

Collapsed comments


  • "sexually abused repeatedly" Didn't this happen after her marriage? Actually, this entire sentence is nonsensical; her marriage and the kidnapping (which was followed by sexual abuse) are separate incidents and mentioning them together portrays them as clearly leading to each other. You should have one sentence about her marriage and maybe later troubles, and then another about her kidnapping and how it eventually led to her joining the dacoits.
    she was sexually abused by (at least) Puttilal, the second son of the village leader, the police (probably), Babu Gujjar, Shri Ram Singh and the Behmai Thakurs Mujinga (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those were still after marriage (as opposed to current phrasing, which implies some occurred before marriage), and none of those are directly related to her joining the dacoits, which is also implied by the current phrasing.
    I see what you mean, I think, so I've switched the two things around to make " After being married off at the age of eleven and being sexually abused by various people, she joined a dacoit group." Mujinga (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without facing trial" Wasn't she awaiting trial? This isn't clear in the body either, see below.
    i'm glad you are reading the body, since I always read the lead lasty after the reading the article. she didn't face a trial in 11 years Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But she was awaiting trial, right? So shouldn't that be mentioned?
    the sentence is " spent eleven years in Gwalior prison, without facing trial", would you prefer " spent eleven years in Gwalior prison, awaiting trial."? I don't see much difference to be honest Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The former implies some sort of arbitrary detention; the other implies that she was just awaiting trial.
    I'm not sure if I agree with that rationale, but added "awaiting" if its clearer than facing Mujinga (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moxham reported that she then renounced Buddhism" When, immediately after converting? Why?
    sources are a bit of a mess here...
    Arquilla says "She had become a Buddhist "to escape the perpetual damnation of the Hindu caste system"" based on Cuny, and Rambali, The Bandit Queen of India, viii.
    Moxham says: "earlier in the month Phoolan had decided to convert to Buddhism" and "Phoolan had now decided not to convert to Buddhism"
    ToI says "slain samajwadi party mp phoolan devi and her husband ummed singh had embraced buddhism at the famous "deekshabhoomi" here, according to former general secretary of all india buddhist conference (aibc) dr bhalchandra khandekar." Mujinga (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't any of the sources provide a timeline for when she renounced it? AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    nope Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused them many problems" What problems? Presumably financial hardship, so mention it.
    this summarises "Phoolan Devi's uncle and his son (her cousin) stole land from her father ... Her family was compelled to live in a small house on the edge of the village; the uncle and son continued to harass the family and to steal their crops, aiming to drive them away from the village ... Maiyadin ordered her to leave, and when she did not, he beat her into unconsciousness; the village leader then decreed that her parents should also be beaten ... Phoolan Devi's mother told The Asian Age that she was still fighting to regain the land which Maiyadin had stolen from the family ... Maiyadin pressured the family to ask Puttilali to take her back ... In January 1979, Maiyadin destroyed the family's crops and began to chop down a neem tree on their land. When Phoolan Devi threw stones at him and wounded his face, she was arrested by the local police and detained for one month" etc Mujinga (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop quoting the article as a reply, I read the article already. I'm saying mention what kinds of problems (eg financial hardships) were caused in the lead.
    we need to have common ground to discuss on, not someone saying IDONTLIKEIT. I'd say "many problems" summarises the issues much better than "financial hardship", if you look at the various things that happened. also would you mind signing your posts please? it would make replying easier Mujinga (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man Singh" Again, who is this?
    sentence reads "Phoolan Devi managed to escape and formed another gang with Man Singh" - I could say "the bandit Man Singh" but is that not obvious? Mujinga (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But how did Phoolan Devi know him? Was a previous acquaintance or just some random bandit she happened to meet? AryKun (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit complicated. According to Sen's account, Phoolan Devi went to see the gang leader Mustaqeem and Man Singh was part of that gang. She wanted to join Mustaqeem's gang but Mustaqeem didn't want a woman in his gang so it caused tensions. Man Singh became attracted to her, she rebuffed him, then she realised after months she couldn't stay in Mustaqeem's gang so she asked Man Singh to form a gang with her, he was at first cold then decided to break away with her. Mustaqeem endorsed their decision. Mujinga (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else (GRuban) also flagged this up so I've changed it up Mujinga (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by order of the central government of Mulayam Singh Yadav" You probably mean state government, MSY has never led a government at the Centre. Also, you need to explain why this happened; MSY's government was in power in UP, and Devi was incarcerated in MP.
    source only says "In 1994, the government of Mulayam Singh Yadav, leader of the Other Backward Castes, withdrew criminal cases against her" - I haven't been able to find more info in english language sources Mujinga (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was...Shobhawati Devi." Irrelevant.
    sentence reads "She was not the only illiterate MP, joining others such as Bhagwati Devi and Shobhawati Devi" - this seems like useful info to me, thinking in terms of the general reader Mujinga (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this useful? It's trivia. You don't even mention her literacy anywhere earlier in the article, because it's irrelevant.
    growing up illiterate in rural India is not uncommon, to become an illiterate MP is Mujinga (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, plenty of illiterate MPs, as illustrated by the other examples you cite; more importantly, you don't mention her literacy anywhere earlier, so this just seems like a random factoid. AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The family was illiterate" is mentioned earlier; the source here only mentions Bhagwati Devi and Shobhawati Devi Mujinga (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "politician, who became a Member of Parliament before being assassinated" would be better as "politician who served as a Member of Parliament from Mirzapur". We can mention her assassination later in the lead, it isn't a defining characteristic of her or something that is super-widely known.
    i would disagree her assassination is not a defining characteristic Mujinga (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't a defining characteristic, the defining characteristic is her dacoity.
    for me the definining characteristics of Phoolan Devi are outlaw / MP / worldwide fame / assassination Mujinga (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC

'* "the river" Indefinite article or mention the exact river.

  • "one Other Backward Class" OBC isn't a caste, it's a administrative grouping.
    this came up at PR, the source uses OBC Mujinga (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then might have to be rephrased, no-one uses OBC as a singular noun as currently done in the article. AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. It's been really hard to get advice on naming conventions for this article, happy for any constructive comments on this point. The source says "A total of 20 persons, including 17 Thakurs, one Muslim, one Dalit and one belonging to the OBC". So shall we say "one person from the Other Backward Class"? Whilst we are on the subject, is the later statement "she was generally popular among Other Backward Classes" working for you? Mujinga (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "given land with their goat and cow" Implies they already had a goat and cow?
    The quote in The Atlantic reads: "My other conditions were that all my cases be tried together in Madhya Pradesh in special courts; that the land that was my father's and was stolen by my cousin be rightfully returned to him; that my brother [he was then fourteen] be given a government job; that my family be resettled in Madhya Pradesh, on government land; and that they be accompanied by my goat and cow." Mujinga (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then clarify that it's "her" goat, not "their" goat.
    ok Mujinga (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Mallah...Shudra varna" Overexplaining, the audience most likely to read this article (Indians) already know what caste is. We wouldn't have an explanation of Jim Crow laws in an article about a Black American from the 1940s.
    Yeah this is going to be contentious and has already been discussed/edited several times. Since WP:INDIA has been invited twice to look over the article and several active members made edits, I assume the current version is OK, but .. happy to hear other opinions. I just want the article to be accurate. I disagree with "the audience most likely to read this article (Indians)" - if this article is featured on the front page of english wikipedia I'd hope people from all over the world will see it. Having said that, I'm ofc open to improving the article Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one front page appearance this may have aside, the vast majority of readers will know the obvious things we're explaining; just say that Mallahs are Shudras, and let the hyperlinks explain the rest for people who don't know what the caste system is (also, I think pretty much everyone at least knows this, even in the West). AryKun (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am far from being an expert on this topic of caste and this has already been rewritten by others who presumably know more than me, so hopefully other people can reply as well to help improve this sentence Mujinga (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is written for a global audience and we can't assume that the reader knows what the caste system is. (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the...criminal charges." How is this worth mentioning in the lead? You don't even mention the SC setting aside the dismissal of the charges before this.
    i'm summarising the article? Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you don't mention the charges being reinstitute earlier, while you do mention them being set aside; to someone who just read the lead, these charges are reappearing out of nowhere. Also, if she died unexpectedly, wouldn't it be obvious that the charges hadn't been dealt with before her death?
    for me the lead reads ok since she surrendered, she awaited trial (on charges), the charges were dropped and at the time she died the charges had been reinstituted. that chrononology works for me Mujinga (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning India in her birthplace is pointing out the obvious, just Uttar Pradesh is enough.
But it is so obvious as to be pointless; you wouldn't insert "George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut, United States" to that article, would you? AryKun (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No probably not, but it's a different case Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Again, an unnecessarily Western-centric perspective. AryKun (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a US former president and Phoolan Devi are comparable in stature? Mujinga (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some other random white people we don't mention the country for (one of them's French, so it isn't just because we're the English Wikipedia either). AryKun (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty WP:OSE. We can't assume that the reader knows the names of different states in India. (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we can expect them to know where Wyoming or New South Wales is? In any case, OSE is about deletion discussions; for content, “we do this in all our other articles” is a perfectly valid for consistency. I’d say this is exactly the kind of thing SYSTEMICBIAS is about; even on an article primarily of interest to Indians, we’re assuming the reader knows nothing about India, when we wouldn’t make this assumption for an article about a person from the Anglosphere, as shown in the random FAs above. AryKun (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a few things going on here. As I understand it, (1) your rationale here AryKun is that it is systemically biased to say Uttar Pradesh is in India in the body since most readers will be Indian and will already know this fact. In support of your rationale, (2) you give some other FAs which don't use the country on first mention of location in the body. Further, (3) I take it you are also saying since we already know Phoolan Devi is Indian, it's overkill to say she was born in India, but that's a stylistic point and I might be wrong there.
On point 1, the way I see the systemic bias is the other way round, wikipedia editors assume we all know where New York is for example. Yes Indian readers know UP is in India, but on a global perspective I'd say most readers won't. I would argue one way to counter systemic bias is to have more FAs about things and people from different cultures than Western Europe and Northern America, so having Phoolan Devi on the frontpage is working towards that. We both want to improve the article I hope, so then it's finding the middle ground to move forward.
On points 2 and3, for me I prefer to write the lead summarising everything in the body so that if someone skips the summary they still get all the cited info. I don't know if it necessarily helps to look at specific examples you gave or not, I can though:
  • "George Walker Bush was born on July 6, 1946, at Grace-New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut" - since he is a former US president I'm not sure if US needs stating.
  • "Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors was born in Langley Burrell, Wiltshire,[2] on 28 July 1903 into a family of Herefordshire gentry.[3] " - I'd say adding England or southern England after Wiltshire would be helpful
  • "Lemoine was born in Quimper, Finistère, on 22 November 1840, the son of a retired military captain who had participated in the campaigns of the First French Empire occurring after 1807. " - since the French Empire is mentioned I don't think we need France here
  • "Philip Hoffman was born on July 23, 1967, in the Rochester suburb of Fairport, New York." - NY is generally agreed by convention to be commonly known enough not to need a country identifier. Is that in itself systemically biased? Well that's another question.
  • "Stephen Russell Davies was born on 27 April 1963 at Mount Pleasant Hospital in Swansea." - I'd say adding Wales would be helpful
  • "Tolliver grew up in Boyd, Texas, where he attended local schools." - I'm on the fence if Texas needs geolocating here
To give some of my own examples from FAs which do identify by country in the body:
  • Olive Morris was born on 26 June 1952 in Harewood, St Catherine, Jamaica.
  • Mary [Queen of Scots] was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Scotland, to King James V and his French second wife, Mary of Guise.
  • Emma Goldman was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Kovno in Lithuania, then within the Russian Empire.
  • Ella Marija Lani Yelich-O'Connor [Lorde]was born on 7 November 1996 in Takapuna, New Zealand, a suburb of Auckland, to poet Sonja Yelich (Croatian: Jelić) and civil engineer Vic O'Connor.
I personally don't think everyone reading wikipedia knows where UP is, but I'm from Europe so that's my perspective, which might well be institutionally biased. On the other hand, wikipedia has a global audience so just as we shouldn't be writing articles about North American people from a North American perspective, we shouldn't be writing articles about people from India from an Indian perspective. This says nothing about your particular point of view by the way, I'm trying not to assume very much about that. Mujinga (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phoolan Devi...Party in 1996" I shuddered reading that comma splice, would be better as "After the charges against her were set aside in 1994, Phoolan Devi was released from prison and joined politics, standing as a Member of Parliament as a member of the Samjwadi Party in 1996".
    I prefer my version, happy to hear other opinions Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure it has a comma splice; it also reads a bit overly rushed, like someone's just trying to get their thoughts out. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worldwide fame" seems peacock-y, maybe "fame outside India".
    this summarises "Phoolan Devi's fame throughout India continued to grow after her death, and the controversy surrounding the Bandit Queen film had already ensured that she was globally famous; she has become a legendary figure, alongside other outlaws such as Ned Kelly, Sándor Rózsa and Pancho Villa" Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it sounds kind of peacock-y in wikivoice, at least to me. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to rephrase, still trying to work out a good way of saying this. Her fame is unusual Mujinga (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to oppose this right now. There are just too many issues here. Just going to note a couple points below where there may be factual, DUE, or comprehensiveness issues.
    oh that's a shame, hopefully we can get there! i've been able to answer/reply on the above in ten minutes Mujinga (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but you haven't actually addressed any of the substantive comments, just the minor prose and grammar related issues. The actual comprehensiveness and DUE issues still remain unaddressed, or have replies that are just quotes from the article I just read. AryKun (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I am a bit baffled by that reply, could you be more specific so we can improve the article collaboratively? Mujinga (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tributes were...Janata Dal." Irrelevant, this is more or less every party in UP with a lower caste base of support. AryKun (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    irrelevant to you perhaps but worth including for the general reader? Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your hypothetical general reader is too Western-centric and apparently has no knowledge of India; like I said, this just pointless platitudes (two of the parties delivering the platitudes aren't even electorally relevant in UP), and UNDUE in this article.
    I don't doubt that you have more knowledge about India generally than I do, but your rationale here doesn't persuade me that the article would be improved by removing this sentence Mujinga (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is politicians being politicians and doesn't really strike me as important enough to mention here. AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For comparison, imagine a Representative in the US saying some civil rights activist was a pretty great person while campaigning in a majority-Black area; it's just fishing for votes and not noteworthy enough to be in the article. AryKun (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this comes back to the discussion of systemic bias we had earlier - I appreciate you know more about Indian politics than I do but for a global perspective I think the article gains more from having this included than it excluded Mujinga (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about bias or anything, I just don't think politicians fishing for votes 20 years after her death is notable enough to mention in the article. Even the source you're using says "Though neither Tejashwi nor Paswan have indicated that their parties may contest the upcoming Assembly elections in UP", since these two parties aren't even particularly important. AryKun (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It still seems worth mentioning to me that tributes were made. If the politicians in question weren't going to contest elections then it seems it wasn't just about vote-grabbing Mujinga (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo of the dung cakes now strikes me as undue; since using dung cakes for fuel is a common thing to do, I don't think we should have a photo of the dung cakes, which makes it feel like it's something highly unusual and indicative of their poverty for people unfamiliar with the region. AryKun (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    well again, would it improve the article to remove the picture? it's quite hard to illustrate it Mujinga (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe put in a photo of a pearl millet field; dung has negative connotations and putting a photo of dung cakes would probably make non-locals think that it was because of their poverty, when it's actually because dung is just a common fuel source in the region. AryKun (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check out images of millet and chickpea fields previously (and just did again) - I'm not really finding an appropriate image unfortuately. I find it fascinating we seem to have very different views on what systemic bias means here. Could it be resolved by finding a source to back saying that dung is commonly used as a fuel? I just checked the Sen and Moxham but they don't say anything along those lines. Mujinga (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; this seems like an appropriate contemporary-ish source. AryKun (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I've accessed this through the wikipedia library and will give it a read Mujinga (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    expanded slightly Mujinga (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

  • File:Phoolan_Devi-Bandit_Queen.jpg needs a more expansive FUR
Thanks Nikkimaria, I'll look into both of these issues Mujinga (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Hopefully these issues have been resolved. Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One remaining issue with File:Non-free_picture_of_Phoolan_Devi.jpg. The "respect for commercial opportunities" field is meant to explain why this usage does not replace the original market role of the work; the current parameter does not explicitly do this, it only explains what that role was. If that can be tweaked a bit this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "This copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but too low resolution for commercial use. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork." Mujinga (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Choliamb

The Legacy section of the article currently states that Phoolan Devi: The Bandit Queen, the opera by Shirish Korde and Lynn Kremer, had its premiere at the University of Boston in April 2010. The source cited for this statement is incorrect: the premiere actually took place at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, on April 15, 2010, a week before the production moved to Boston. See my comment (with sources) on the article's talk page. – 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

many thanks @Choliamb: for pointing this out, I'll look into now Mujinga (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Mujinga (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • spotchecks not done
  • Footnote 2: how can this be dated 1991 if the edition is 1995?
  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted
  • FN8 is missing page numbers
  • Fn11 is missing author
  • Pugazhendhi is missing publisher and location
  • What makes The Times of India a high-quality reliable source? See WP:RSP
  • FN2 is published 1991, revised and updated 1995
  • I've gone through and hopefully fixed that issue
  • Why US in FN5 but not FN4?
  • FN8 - looking into this so not done yet
  • FN11 - good spot! added
  • "Pugazhendhi, N. (1984). Phoolan Devi (in Tamil)" is all I've got. Should I remove it?
  • Yes, per WP:TOI "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable". I've used it seven times, I would say as a news source for an Indian citizen it seems ok - is there any instance that seems unreliable? Most uses also have other cites, this one is standing on its own - "Munni Devi again claimed in 2018 that Devi had been murdered on the order of Umed Singh and argued that Sher Singh Rana had been framed by a government conspiracy". Happy to chop that one out?
  • FN46 typo fixed
Mujinga (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately if a source is classed between no consensus and generally unreliable, you're going to need a strong argument to support it being considered high-quality for our purposes, and I'm not seeing that here. You say it seems ok - is there something in particular you're basing that on, other than that we're not relying heavily on it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll go through the ToI refs in the article now - what I meant was that an Indian newspaper covering an Indian person seems "matter-of-fact reporting" to me, but I appreciate you could reply that ToI is "generally unreliable for factual reporting on any topic with political ramifications". Mujinga (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All ToI links chopped or replaced Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria could you take another look please. I'm hoping that both image and source review are a pass, please note I have added a few more sources. Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. On sources, looks like there's still a Times ref present. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry which one are you talking about? Mujinga (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN33. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Ok. Could you ping me when you have a decision. Possibly duck the issue entirely? Eg 'and one other person'.
Ok.
changed to Ary Kun's suggestion
  • "and had to shoot her way out." No she didn't, eg she could have surrendered. Please rephrase in encyclopedic language.
    agreed, rejigged Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and still armed with a Mauser rifle". Why "still"?
    it was a condition of her surrender she remained armed in case of any hijinks - this was unusual in that she was surrendering herself but stayed armed, so she was still armed with the rifle rather than surrendering it (if that makes sense) Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense, but if you are to use the word "still", a summary of that needs to precede its use in the article.
I've removed it now Mujinga (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first paragraph of "In culture" may work better in the previous section. If only to avoid having readers wondering what her religious conversions and lapses have to do with culture.
    previous section is "political career" but I like your suggestion below to rename the section, so moved Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She dictated her autobigraphy I, Phoolan Devi". Is it known when?
    I don't have the book to hand right now, but we do it was published in 1996 so I think between 1994 and 1996. Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads "Phoolan Devi received £40,000 from Channel 4 and dropped the complaint. She then dictated her autobigraphy". I assume the date she received the £40,000 and the date of publication are known, so you have your range for the dictation; could this be included in the article?
done Mujinga (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear: the source states that Sher Singh Rana "claimed he had shot at Phoolan Devi", yes?
    I obviously have failed to communicate the central point here which is that the police didn't believe him when he surrendered himself to justice and said he was the assassin. I'll go back to the source and rephrase Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    archive.org isn't working for me right now so i'll have to come back on this Mujinga (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    rejigged, hopefully clearer now Mujinga (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rana ... struggled to convince police that he was present at the scene of the crime". Is it known why he would want to?
Just checking that you have seen this.
I think this is resolved by the clarification that he surrendered but let me know if you need more Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Ok. (Maybe 'prior to'?)
sure! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to comply with the MoS. If you would like me to copy edit the offending phrases into compliance, let me know.
yes, please do! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • The section "In culture" is not a summary of Phoolan Devi in culture, but almost entirely about one film. Consider renaming it "Bandit Queen film".
    great suggestion! naming this section has been tricky and that works :) Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Unnao and Varanasi, the local authorities blocked the installation of the statues." What happened in the other 16 districts?
    interesting question, I'm now deep in the research Mujinga (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was quite the political kerfuffle, no statues were installed but the proposers retaliated by offering 50,000 small idols of Phoolan Devi, so rejigged, thanks for the prod to look deeper Mujinga (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tributes were paid to her by Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Chirag Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) and Tejashwi Yadav of Rashtriya Janata Dal." When?
    2021, added Mujinga (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selected works": the book title should be in title case.
    I've consistently used "Bandit Queen" as a capitalised name throughout the article, so I'd rather keep it here as well Mujinga (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it. Let me know if it's an issue.
ah now I understand, thanks!

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to responses. This is ticking along nicely. Ping me when when you're ready for me to have another look. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
will do! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I think I've replied on everything now, thanks for the suggestions! Mujinga (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good going. I will now reread the whole article to see what further nits I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know here if you disagree with anything, don't understand something, or I get something wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits! I would only query whether it's correct to say "member of parliament (MP) for Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh" instead of "Member of Parliament (MP) for Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh" since I thought it was capitalised when the constituency is given, as for example in Caroline Lucas - "has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Brighton Pavilion since the 2010 general election." Mujinga (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2
  • "When the two men could not be found". What two men?
  • "She was celebrated among Dalits for ..." Could we have a brief explanation of what a Dalit is.
  • "Phoolan Devi was charged ... twenty-two murders". You say earlier that only 20 people died.
  • "two Nishad parties laid claim to Phoolan Devi's legacy". Political parties? If so, perhaps insert 'political'.

And that's all I have. Great work. (What's next?) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two men are " Sri Ram Singh and his brother", with the whole bit reading "She returned to Behmai with her gang on 14 February 1981; speaking through a loudhailer, she demanded that the villagers hand over Sri Ram Singh and his brother, then the bandits went from house to house looting valuables.[2]: 150–151 [17]: 324  When the two men could not be found, twenty-two Thakur men were lined up at the Yamuna river and shot from behind". I think that's clear enough as is?
  • Writing about anything related to caste seems fraught with difficulties, so I've tried and anyone is welcome to improve
  • Hmm yes that's a good point. Sen says: "She is charged with 48 major criminal offences, including 22 murder charges, kidnaps-for-ransom and the looting of villages throughout the area" and I would have said that it must be the 20 Behmai murders and two carried out elsewhere, but in the next sentence Sen says "More specifically, she is accused of killing 22 high-caste Hindu men from Behmai, a remote hamlet that few have heard of, just south of Delhi." So it seems Sen has wrongly written 22 instead of 20. I'll have to check for other sources on this to confirm.
  • Added "political" Mujinga (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild There does seem to be confusion in the soources between there being 22 and 20 deaths at Behmai, although there is general agreement that she was charged with 48 crimes total, so I've cropped it to "48 crimes, which included kidnapping, looting and murder".
    Re what's next, nothing springs to mind unfortunately! Perhaps another heist, but I think I'd prefer to concentrate on increasing the representation of women at FAC. Mujinga (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indira Gandhi needs work. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

BennyOnTheLoose

I'll try and have a proper look over the next few days, but I don't think I'll have much to say. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose I hope you don't mind me giving you a prod on this? Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of instances of "Devi" rather than "Phoolan Devi": in Behmai massacre, Surrender, Political career (x2), caption for the Biswas image, Assassination (x2), Legacy (x2). Please check whether these should be amended.
    Cheers that's very helpful. I have doublechecked and I think I've got them all now Mujinga (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who became a member of parliament before being assassinated - I quite often see statements about people doing things before they died (rather than afterwards). Consider rewording, but no objection if you decide to retain this form.
    haha it does make me laugh when you put it like that :) I'll change to Kavyansh.Singh's suggestion Mujinga (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the Mallah subcaste forms part of the Nishad caste, two Nishad political parties laid claim to Phoolan Devi's legacy" - maybe reword as the two parties laying claim doesn't necessarily follow?
    true, rephrased Mujinga (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are varying accounts of her life because she told differing versions of events in her life. - maybe reword to avoid using "life" twice?
    thanks for noticing that, it seems as points are discussed and new edits are made, new errors creep in! hopefully we'll get there soon. cheers for the comments :@BennyOnTheLoose Mujinga (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga, have you addressed Benny's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just seeing them now, thanks for the return prod! Mujinga (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga and BennyOnTheLoose: and also Gog the Mild, who read this section; please have a look at the instructions at WP:FAC. The {{tq}} template should not be used at FAC, as it slows down the whole page. I've switched a few of them, but please review throughout, as right now these templates are rendering the entire FAC page not accessible to all, which slows down reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be ok now, thanks to whoever sorted it! Mujinga (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the article has moved on a bit since I last looked, and I have nothing else to suggest. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dwaipayan

I have not read the full article yet. It seems to me the prose is not up yo the mark. I did a mild copyedit, only a couple of paragraphs. The article likely needs copyediting by some experienced editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately Gog the Mild has just completed their copy edit! Any other comments welcomed, I've added the year where you asked and if you wanted to improve this edit about Dalits please feel free Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a reviewer's copy edit rather than, say, what I would have done if I had picked it up at GoCE. So where possible I went with the existing text. That said, for me it now gets over the "prose is engaging and of a professional standard" bar. Of course, other points of view are available. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment Gog and thanks for the edits Dwaipayan, I've made some edits in turn Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

  • who became a member of parliament before being assassinated. — Of-course you can't become MP after being assassinated. It may be just me, but this phrasing seems a bit odd. The way we put it, it seemingly implies that she was assassinated just after a few days in office (like the case with William Goebel). Would it be an improvement if we say something like, "who served as a member of parliament until her assassination"? There may be more better ways to put it, I am by no means an "expert" on prose, but, its just my opinion ...
    it's good point, also made by BennyOnTheLoose above and I'll change to your suggestion Mujinga (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a deal-breaker for me, but do we really need the state of in "a village in the state of Uttar Pradesh". We have already linked UP.
    I think it's doing more help than harm there, although I'm also not fussed if you want to change it Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this massacre the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh resigned — My reading of MOS:JOBTITLE suggests that 'chief minister' should not be capitalized. Check for other instances of the same throughout the article.
    Yes it seems during the course of the review there have been various opinions on this, so it needs standardising again. I'll try to make it Chief Minister when a title and chief minister when a description, which is how I'm reading JOBTITLE Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and being sexually abused by various people — by various men, I guess.
    since everything is so vague on this point, I'd prefer to keep "people" although I take your point it probably was all men Mujinga (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we have a bit of inconsistency with the usage of Oxford comma. her family grew chickpeas, sunflowers and pearl millet. v. offered 100 Indian rupees (equivalent to ₹400 or £4.20 in 2023), a cow, and a bicycle to her parents. v. places such as Devariya, Kanpur, and Orai. v. kidnapping, looting and murder. Kindly check for the entire article.
    I've standardised to no oxford commma Mujinga (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard practice in Biographical articles is that after introducing the subject, they are referred by their surname in the text. That, however, is not an absolute requirement, and only thing we look for is consistency. I see that for most of the article, we have referred to the subject by her complete name "Phoolan Devi". Exceptions to this are Instead, her mother sent Devi to stay with a distant relative. Same goes with 'Mala Sen'. We have already introduced her in the third para of early life, and for much of the text, she has been referred by her last name. In the last para of early life, however, we have Mala Sen asked her if she had been raped, again repeating her full name. Kindly check this for the entire article, and do let me know if I am misinterpreting something.
    Regarding Phoolan Devi, there's been quite a lengthy debate on the naming convention and we've settled on using her whole name, so thanks for pointing out there were a few "Devis". Regarding Mala Sen, it's a different issue in that the name "Sen" seems to me rather confusing unless it is clear that we are referring to Mala Sen, so I've used "Mala Sen" when mentioning her again and "Sen" when she has just been mentioned, I hope that makes sense. It certainly isn't standard practice but I think if I only used the full name on first mention, it would be confusing. Not particularly stuck on this rationale though. Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • beside the Yamuna river — 'r' in river should be capitalized, I guess.
    done Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The director of the Women's Feature Service — Shouldn't we mention their name as well?
    not sure here, the director is/was Anita Anand, who is neither Anita Anand nor Anita Anand (journalist) Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phoolan Devi was charged in absentia with — We haven't italicized the term in the lead
    done Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • then prostrated herself in front of Arjun Singh, Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, with 8,000 people watching — check for JOBTITLE, and with 8,000 people watching should be with approximately 8,000 people watching
    Now I have added "the" then the capitals are justified, as I read JOBTILE. Added approximately Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phoolan Devi faced the 48 criminal charges — We have been already told this
    yes and i want to emphasise that the charges made in absentia were then held, happy to try to make that clearer if needed Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kanpur district court — Should be 'Kanpur District Court'
    done Mujinga (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Assassination of Phoolan Devi should be a redirect to the assassination section of this article
    done Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At 13:30" — 13:30 where? Specify IST
    ok Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ashok Roy made the 1984 film Phoolan Devi — Our article says 1985. Of-course that has nothing to do with this FAC, but can you just recheck the year.
    aha I was a bit mystified here but the wikiarticle is the about the 1985 hindi film, not the 1984 bengali one. same director and Rita Bhaduri starred as Phoolan Devi in both!? so I've moved the link Mujinga (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work! I can only imagine how hard it must have been to research and write such a complex subject. I sort of agree with @Dwaipayan, and have tried to be a bit nit-picky, so apologies for that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Will respond later today or tomorrow Mujinga (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comment about it being a complex subject, it is really is. The nitpicks have been really handy, sadly I've run out of time today but hope to finish off tomorrow. Mujinga (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Kavyansh.Singh, I've replied on everything now, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try revisiting this within a day or two. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second read
  • another wife who enjoyed mistreating her. — Not a major issue, but if we could rephrase it as "another wife who often mistreated Phoolan Devi.", I think it would be a bit more encyclopedic.
  • Indian feminist groups were recording many — "Indian feminist groups recorded many". Sounds better?
  • Do the sources discuss Phoolan Devi what we claim her to be in the infobox: a "Human rights activist"?

Looking much better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grnrchst

Hope it's ok if I leave some comments on this. This article looks fantastic and I know you've put a lot of work into it, so I'm more than happy to give it a look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "She became a heroine to the lower castes for being a Robin Hood figure who punished her rapists and evaded capture by the authorities." Sentence structure here is a bit odd on first glance. Consider a slight rewrite?
    Damn I made an answer here but wikipedia went down earlier and it must've got lost. I see what you mean and suggested "When she punished her rapists and evaded capture by the authorities, she became a heroine to the lower castes who saw her as a Robin Hood figure" Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was assassinated outside her house by Sher Singh Rana" What motivated the assassin?
    I'd rather not get into it in the lead I think because it takes the focus away from her Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which told her life story in a way she did not approve of." Might be worth saying why she didn't approve of it? Even a little detail would go a long way in clarifying what she didn't like about it.
    This sentence has been scrutinised a lot over the FAC, I'm not sure what to add, but feel free to put in a detail Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "Given names vary between texts" Worth clarifying that this is about the village, as I was confused by the term "given name" which I usually see applied to people. Maybe move the explanatory footnote inline with the village name itself?
    good point, hopefully resolved by removing "given" Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hindu caste system in India" Hrm, this is potentially problematic. The Indian caste system isn't limited to Hindu faiths, nor are all Hindus believers in it, and there are different understandings of what it is. I would recommend either dropping "Hindu" as an adjective or linking instead to the Hindu varna system, if it's necessary to be specific.
  • "Indian society is divided into four castes or social classes." Again, this is describing the varna system. "Indian society" implies something much broader.
    same as above Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the uncle"; "the family". The use of "the" here is a bit odd. Why not use "her"?
    I don't know any more I just want this FAC to be over hahaha, I'm sure you can relate :) "the uncle and his son" reads better to me than "her uncle and his son" but I wouldn't be at all fussed if you wanted to change it. Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devi's full name is used a lot in this section, is there a reason for this?
    this is another thing that has been discussed at some length and whilst it does read awkwardly, the consensus seems to be to use "Phoolan Devi" at every mention rather than using a contracted version Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puttilal had taken another wife who enjoyed mistreating her" His new wife enjoyed mistreating Devi?
    yes Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the parental home" Again, shouldn't this be "her parental home"?
    again I prefer the but please change it if you want to Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recording many instances of women being attacked and murdered by men" Do we have more specific figures than "many"? Gender violence is a big issue, so I think showing the magnitude may help.
    Sen doesn't give figures, only a few horrendous examples Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The director of the Women's Feature Service commented" Might be worth a wee clarification that this was specifically in relation to Devi's case.
    Sure! Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bandit Queen
  • In the explanatory footnote, you should probably use semi-colons instead of commas to separate different author's depictions
    Sure, done. I get the impression Dwaipayan isn't keen on semi-colons but I think they work here Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vikram Mallah and Phoolan Devi fell in love." Think this could be moved earlier in the paragraph, so just after it mentions Vikram killing Gujjar, as it would contextualise their relationship better than having it after details of the gang's exploits.
    Hmmm. I agree the setnence is a bit jerky, but it was a bit of a saga apparently, Vikram Mallah at first was attracted to her and she wasn't interested, then feelings blossomed over time, not sure how much of that needs to be in the article. Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    rejigged, see what you think! Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They found and punished Puttilal" Punished how?
    Sen quotes Phoolan Devi saying: "All through this I was beating him black and blue, using the butt of my rifle, my hands, my feet. “We tied up Puttilal and his wife Vidya and we left the village with them. I wanted to kill them in the vicinity of the Sikandra police station and leave a note that this would be the fate of any man who married two wives. “When we were barely a mile from the police station, I changed my mind and decided not to kill them but to let them live to tell the tale. This time I beat them both, so much so that Puttilal lost two of his teeth and I broke his arms and legs, before leaving them there, tied together, with a letter to the daroga [police inspector], claiming responsibility for the act."
    In putting that down I realised perhaps you are asking punished in what sense, so could add "violently"? Mujinga (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thouhgts I made it: "They located Puttilal and punished him violently" Mujinga (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works! --Grnrchst (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was celebrated by most of the Indian mainstream media" How are we defining "most"?
  • Spotcheck: Only The Guardian describes her as "India's answer to Robin Hood". Neither BBC News nor Signs describe her as such. Only BBC News mentions the Indian media, which it says "glorified [her]" and "wrote tirelessly of her exploits". This sentence should probably be rewritten, as it seems like their might be some synthesis of sources here.
    yeah I think you're right about it needing tweaking and actually last time I read this through, "most of the Indian mainstream media" did seem a strange turn of phrase. BBC does say "one of India's most famous outlaws" though. signs p125 introduces her as "Phoolan Devi, a legendary lower-caste woman dacoit in India who was known for raiding villages with her gang and redistributing wealth from upper-class, upper-caste landlords to poor landless villagers" which I would take as summarisable by "a Robin Hood figure" but now I'm wondering if that's a helpful comparison. in any case removed "by most of the Indian mainstream media"
    added Seal as another explicit Robin Hood reference Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was seen as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga" By who?
  • Spotcheck: Journal of Religion and Violence seems to say she was seen this way by "the down-trodden" (dalits?), and that she saw herself this way. BBC News source verifies the thing about the doll.
    yes the "down-trodden" indeed so after a bit of rejigging i hope it's clear it's the Other Backward Classes mentioned in the previous sentence Mujinga (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye that reads much better now :D --Grnrchst (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think the first couple sentences of the second paragraph could be condensed a bit, so as not to take focus away from Devi.
    It's difficult because the information here then explains why the Behmai massacre occurred and why it had such massive repercussions, so I can't see what to chop out Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Behmai massacre
Surrender
Political career
  • "Hindu caste system" As per above, should clarify that this is the varna system and probably delink caste system in India.
    same answer as above I'm afraid - I'm happy to discuss but loathe to change what seems to be generally agreed to be ok Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was she able to regain her seat? (More info about the elections would be good, if there's sourcing for it)
    It's a good question, I'm not really finding anything here, I'm afraid Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she later renounced Buddhism" Any reason given for why?
    no, like many things in this article the more you look the less you find haha Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bandit Queen film
  • If Devi disputed the accuracy of the film, does she also think similarly of Mala Sen's biography? Or was it that loosely adapted?
    this is another tricky one .. Phoolan Devi was interviewed by Sen and was broadly ok with the resulting book, then it was adapted and although Sen got the credit it was actually her exhusband Farrukh Dhondy who adapted it and "jazzed it up", then the director Shekhar Kapur imposed his narrative on it. so the film isn't a reflection of the book whch is quite nuanced Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth adding some information about the release and reception of Mala Sen's biography. This section could then be expanded into "Media depictions" or something?
    hmm yes this is an interesting one, I'll do a source sweep Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    still busy with this Mujinga (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it does seem strange to me but can't find very much on this. a lot of people refer to it but don't really say much about it. i could only find one review. maybe the book became more famous after the film. Mujinga (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination
  • Is it common to contract "rupees" to "Rs"? I've not seen this before.
    thanks for noticing that, it's a hangover from removing the templates - rupee talks of "Indian rupees (₹) and Pakistani rupees (Rs. )" Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "Devi is an example of a Third World postcolonial subject who is aware of the racist and patronising Orientalist attitudes that First World analysts have of her" Could you explain further? What attitudes specifically?
    First time round I said "Media theorist Sandra Ponzanesi sees Devi's life as an exemplary case of a postcolonial subject attempting to preserve their agency in the face of an Orientalist gaze" and was asked to make it clearer. I'm mot getting much from the article reading it again but I think generally the point is that Phoolan Devi is avoiding being pigeonholed as the vulnerable poor lower caste person with no agency and also being the lower class hero with no imperfections. Mujinga (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashok Roy made the 1984 film [...]" As these films were made and released during her life, it may be worth moving up into the proposed "Media depictions" section.
    I'm fine with you making changes, I think I'm getting article fatigue at this point so I don't have the headspace for structural changes. Mujinga (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the paragraph about the court case will be updated as it progresses.
    pretty much everyone is now dead or close to death, so I'm not sure if it will ever get to the judgement stage, what a farce. Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also in 2021, tributes were paid to Phoolan Devi" Did anything prompt this series of tributes?
    they're marking twenty years since her assassination, which is in the text but probably a bit buried if you didn't clock it Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    made that clearer Mujinga (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, this is a wonderfully-written article that has taught me a lot about this very interesting person. My comments are mostly minor, but there's a few cases I think where the article is potentially falling short of a quick-support. Ping me when you've responded to these and I'll be happy to take another look. Excellent work, as always! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I'll hope to reply soon Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still busy with replies, could I ask you to give an opinion on Kavyansh.Singh's second round query on tense as well? Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst Thanks a lot for the queries, it prodded me to search for info in new ways, although I haven't dredged up a huge amount more. I've answered on everything, we might need to discuss still on some points. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2023 [36].

WWJ-TV

Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC), User:Nathan Obral[reply]

Ask either of us about the most culturally significant TV station we've written and this will be our unequivocal answer. Channel 62 in Detroit started life in September 1975, after a years-long struggle to secure financing, as WGPR-TV, the first Black-owned TV station in the United States. Owned by a Black Masonic group, it was a high-visibility station at its launch with very ambitious programming plans, key portions of which never materialized. However, some of its local shows stuck, and it produced a string of notable local and national Black broadcast professionals. In 1994, a major TV station affiliation switch swept the nation and left CBS looking for a new affiliate in Detroit. CBS failed to secure a better station, and the desperate network bought WGPR-TV from the International Free and Accepted Modern Masons, in the process removing the Black- and community-oriented programming channel 62 had long carried (and raising some community outcry). Today, the former WGPR studios are on the National Register of Historic Places, and in the old TV studio is a museum devoted to its history.

CBS renamed the station WWJ-TV, for the radio station it owned there. For many years, it never thoroughly invested in this high-number station. It floated but quickly abandoned an attempt to start a news department in 1995; upon merging with WKBD-TV, that station's ailing news department briefly extended to channel 62 before dying; and there was a morning weather-and-news program for a few years. That changed in a big way in February, when a full online streaming service and news department known as CBS News Detroit debuted.

This is a big dog of a project, and it's one that we have found quite fulfilling. It is also Nathan's first time at FAC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed by script.
  • File:William_V._Banks.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Why is it necessary to visually identify the individual here, when he has his own article?
    • Also leaving room for Nathan to chime in. The association with WGPR-TV and Banks is incredibly strong—the museum in the former WGPR studio is named for him. I can understand the concern and that typically images like this are restricted to the subject's biography. It'd make sense to beef up the FUR, but Nikkimaria, do you think it should just be removed at this point?
    • Nathan here! For some context, Dr. Banks founded the Modern Masons in 1950, led the organization when it purchased WGPR radio and was instrumental in WGPR-TV even taking to the air. It even became a family affair of sorts; his daughter gave up a career as a college instructor to manage the station's day-to-day affairs. Station personnel have credited Dr. Banks for making them look beyond a show's budget to focus on the substance. That was largely why I had chosen to include his picture here, as he was almost inextricable. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll make minor copyedits as I read through; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • "It is owned by the network's CBS News and Stations group alongside WKBD-TV, an independent station; both stations share studios on Eleven Mile Road in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, while WWJ-TV's transmitter is located in Oak Park." Suggest "It is owned by the network's CBS News and Stations group alongside WKBD-TV, an independent station; the stations share studios on Eleven Mile Road in the Detroit suburb of Southfield. WWJ-TV's transmitter is located in Oak Park." "Both" is redundant with "share", and as far as I can tell there's no logical connection between the transmitter location and the previous clause, so it's better to split the sentence.
    • Changed.
  • Should there be a redlink for International Free and Accepted Modern Masons?
    • There probably could be an article here. I'd need to do more research.
  • "for $413,000 in United expenses": what is "expenses" telling us here?
    • You couldn't sell a construction permit for more money than the seller had spent trying to pursue it and on legal costs, etc.
  • "Land mobile interests pushed back against the sale": what are land mobile interests?
    • Added a link. Context: Land mobile radio was assigned the band 470–512 MHz to be shared with TV. Channel 20 is 506–512 MHz. They wanted more room to operate and thus the TV permit to be deleted.
  • "Despite being lower-rated and placing a heavy emphasis on gospel music and religious fare, particularly on Sundays, the Masons rebuffed an offer of $1.5 million for WGPR-FM in 1973": I don't follow the connection between the two halves of this sentence. I assume the implication is that this would have been a good price for a low-rated station? If so, can we source that well enough to say so? And why is the religious content relevant?
    • Reworded. No connection, really.
  • "The pursuit of a television station wholly owned and operated by Blacks was not without merit": suggest making this "not without business merit" -- my eyebrows went up when I read this, until I read the second half of the sentence.
    • Reworded
  • Do we have (even approximate) dates for Banks' attempted purchases of WXON-TV and WJMY?
    • Not in source. But Dr. Banks was determined to enter this side of the industry because he wanted to change the stereotype image of blacks in TV and felt the only way to do that was to purchase a station andproduce black related programs. The only TV channel available at that time was WXON channel 62, Walled Lake, Mich. The owners were willing to sell for a million dollars. The Banks team (with Boykin) scurried around seeking a loan. They were tured down by the Ford Foundation, and were turned down at four Detroit banks. "Then we tried to contact the owners of TV channel 20 who had a construction permit but had not been able to get on the air," Boykin testified.
  • "had planned to host a game show named Countdown": does the "had planned" mean it never aired? If so, is this worth mentioning?
    • Added here. That is indeed correct.
  • 'the program inspired multiple popular area dance moves during competitions in what George White dubbed "electronic sociology"': what is an area dance move? And I don't understand White's comment.
    • Reworded: "locally popular dance moves". Removed the George White item which makes no sense in context.
  • "from both he and the band": grammatically this should be "him", but suggest rephrasing instead as that would sound awkward. Perhaps "and he and the band gave several gold records to the stations".
    • Reworded
  • I was surprised to discover that A Time to Live never aired, having gained the impression from earlier mentions that it had been on the air. Looking back at the first mention, I see it says "Proposed programs included ...". How about making it "Proposed programs, not all of which were eventually produced, included ..."?
    • Changed
  • Along the same lines, you have "A Time to Live, the star program ..." -- can we say it was the star if it never aired? Perhaps "A Time to Live, intended as the star program ..."?
    • Changed
  • " The PTL Club, which by 1976 was on channel 62 for four hours a day[36] and became one of the station's more popular religious programs.[45] By 1977, The PTL Club purchased 24 hours a week on the station": this is a reduction, but it's phrased as if it were an increase. Suggest "By 1977, The PTL Club was still purchasing 24 hours a week on the station".
    • Changed to not conflict.
  • "limited solely to the congregation as not all of the church's members consistently attended": I don't know what this means.
    • Reworded.
  • 'with the parable "the set is not the show"': parable is not the right word, as it refers to a story, not just a succinct phrase. Perhaps 'insisted a newer set for The Scene was not necessary, saying "the set is not the show"'.
    • Changed.
  • In the last sentence of "Turning to religion and creativity", what does "pre-empted" mean?
    • It wasn't uncommon back then that network affiliates would not air all the shows provided by the network. In that case, they were often offered to other local stations.
  • "Unsolicited offers were also received for channel 62": why "also"? Because Mathews, or the group of Masons that were his co-plaintiffs, was interested in purchasing the channel? If so we should make that clearer.
    • Reworded
  • "consequently, Mathews took WGPR off the market": as far as I can see we haven't said it was on the market. We've said there were unsolicited bids but that's all.
    • Reworded.
  • Is R. J. Watkins worth a redlink?
  • "an uneven programming structure that still weighed heavily on religious fare": I think you mean "weighted towards"; as written this means it had a negative effect on religious fare.
    • Yeah, good catch.
  • File:WGPR TV.png is very dark. I would suggest lightening it quite a bit, unless it really was this dark on screen. If you don't have tools that can do that I can do it if you like.
    • That's a direct screenshot from tape. WGPR was not the best station technically and was at times quite inartful.
  • "the network seemed more interested in an acquisition than a purchase": what's the difference? Does purchase refer to an affiliation contract? If so I'd make it "than affiliation", or something similar.
    • Typo on my part.
  • "Even as the station never truly fulfilled its promised potential, WGPR-TV has been regarded as a needed starting point for many budding careers." Suggest shortening to "Even as the station never fulfilled its promised potential, WGPR-TV a starting point for many budding careers".
    • Changed.
  • "An NRHP plaque would be affixed": why "would be" rather than "was"?
  • "those programs started to become more expensive to purchase and thus made local news cheaper": "cheaper" is surely not right -- should this be "more competitive", or "a more attractive option"?
    • Fixed.
  • 'McMahon later described her initial reaction as, "...I thought to myself, 'This never happens. Until now.'"' I don't really see the value of this quote -- what is is trying to tell the reader? Just that McMahon was surprised?'
    • It's so unusual that I felt the quote was useful.
  • The CBS News Detroit section's second paragraph is partly in the future tense, even though the launch has now happened.
    • Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything above is fixed, so I won't bother to strike individual points. Just one point left:

  • Re McMahon's quote: What's unusual about the situation? If you can convey to a reader why it's unusual the quote would seem more natural.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Last fix is good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I will leave some comments soon, likely on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Paragraph 2 - "channel 62 in Detroit holds the distinction of being the first Black-owned television station" - Why not just "channel 62 in Detroit was the first Black-owned television station"?
Done.
  • Paragraph 2 - "did not fully pan out" - I'd change this to something like "were not entirely successful" to make it more encyclopedic.
I went with "were not entirely successful due to economic and financial limitations" which should better make sense in context.
  • Paragraph 2 - "The original studios for WGPR-TV, still in use by the radio station, have been preserved as a museum and recognized as a cultural landmark, with inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places." - Are you referring to the NRHP designation as a cultural landmark designation? Or is there a separate cultural landmark designation that you're talking about? Usually, the NRHP designation is considered a historic-landmark designation, not a cultural one.
Gotcha. Reworded as a historical landmark.
  • Paragraph 3 - "WWJ-TV held a dubious distinction as the only station directly owned by" - This feels a bit unencyclopedic; I'd go with "WWJ-TV was the only station directly owned by..."
Done.

Prior use of channel 62 in Detroit:

  • "for a total of four years" - Do we need "a total of"?
Done. Went with "for four years".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, I noticed you use apostrophes inconsistently when there is a name ending with the letter "s". For example, I see "Brookes' " and "Bonds' ", but also "Banks's". Per MOS:POSS, these should all end with " 's" if singular, e.g. "Brookes's", "Bonds's". There is an exception for when these names are themselves part of another proper name, e.g. Diggs' Washington Forum.
  • Fixed those two to have 's.
WGPR-TV - Built by Masons
  • Para 1 - "International Free and Accepted Modern Masons" - I would add a link to Freemasonry somewhere. Also, was this particular sect largely composed of black members?
  • Para 2 - "WGPR-TV would thus become" - per WP:WOULDCHUCK, I would change this to "WGPR-TV thus became"
  • Done.
  • Para 2 - "telling Jet" - Probably worth noting that this is a magazine catering to the black community.
  • I went with "Jet, a nationally known weekly magazine aimed at the Black community"
  • Para 3 - "Construction took nearly two years, in part because lenders were unwilling to loan money to finance the station's start-up" - Construction of a transmitter and studio?
  • Altered to "The construction process"
Signing on with a local focus
  • The serial comma is used inconsistently. For example, I see sentences both without the comma (para 2: "I Spy, Rawhide and Up and Coming"; para 3: "James Brown, The Gap Band, The Time and Jermaine Jackson ") and with the comma (para 2: "The Abbott and Costello Show, Get Smart, and Felix the Cat and assorted B-movies").
  • Those should largely be straightened out. I removed the "and" before "Felix the Cat" as it felt slightly awkward.
  • Para 2 - "Consequently, channel 62 leaned heavily on local program production, much of it from scratch" - to specify, these were created by channel 62 itself?
  • Correct. Reworded to "...much of it created from scratch by the station."
  • Para 2 - By the way, it would be interesting if you had info on why these shows never aired (e.g. did executives scrap the shows, or did the producers themselves not follow through with creating these shows>)
  • Even if the station hadn't lost a great deal of money in their first year alone (expounded on more in the following section), the volume of local output was to have composed up to 90 percent of the station's programming lineup; that ratio was and remains impossible to achieve even in good economic conditions. I inserted the following... "Local production would account for 90 percent of WGPR-TV's entire schedule, an amount unheard of for the market's larger and more established stations." with an existing citation.
  • Para 3 - "Scene co-host Nat Morris was originally hired in 1972 for WGPR-FM and was simply given directions to play music" - Should it be "was given directions to simply play music", since "simply" modifies "play music"?
  • Reworded to "...was simply given directions to play music on the program as if he were a disc jockey, with the cameras focusing on the dancers throughout." If it isn't clear enough (this is about The Scene, not the radio station), I can revise further.
  • Done.
  • Para 4 - "In the area of news, WGPR-TV's promise" - Is there a better way to word this, like "The promise of WGPR-TV's news department"? It seems somewhat awkward.
  • Fixed.
  • Para 4 - "Big City News targeted Detroit's urban population and eschewed the suburban audience, which was more interested in crime reporting that disproportionately covered Blacks" - Just to be 100% clear, it was the suburban audience that was interested in crime reporting that disproportionately covered Blacks? If so, I would say something like "Big City News targeted Detroit's urban population, eschewing the suburban audience that was more interested in crime reporting that disproportionately covered Blacks".
  • This is correct, and fixed.
  • Para 4: "One area of Big City News was technically innovative: it was the first television news operation in Detroit to use videotape for news-gathering purposes, eschewing film entirely" - I would cut "was technically innovative: it", e.g. "One area of Big City News was the first television news operation in Detroit to use videotape for news-gathering purposes, eschewing film entirely".
  • I also chopped off "One area of" as it didn't make grammatical sense, so the sentence reads "Big City News was also the first television news operation in Detroit to use videotape for news-gathering purposes, eschewing film entirely."
Financial and technical challenges
  • Para 1: "Amyre Makupson's situation was not unique, as the station's early months were very rough. Technical failures were common; broadcast hours were cut back; and programming plans were curtailed after just one month when Banks felt the station was losing too much money" - I would condense this to something like "The station's early months were very rough: Technical failures were common..."
  • Done.
  • Para 1: "at the end of (1975)" - Usually I use [square brackets] to indicate something that isn't in the text, but I guess MOS:BRACKET doesn't say anything about what happens if the quoted source itself uses parentheses. Interesting.
  • Para 2: "Substantial downsizing and reorganizations took place at WGPR-TV: the news department was reduced from twelve people to six[21]: 42  and Blocker departed after less than a year on the advice of a doctor[29] while Sharon Crews left at the end of 1976 to join WGHP-TV" - Per WP:CINS, shouldn't there be a comma after "twelve people to six" and "advice of a doctor"? Ironically, I'm citing Sammi's own essay for this.
  • Fixed. I think Sammie Brie was having me fix this one lol.
  • Para 2: "Altogether, payroll was trimmed from $35,000 a month to $18,000 a month" can be condensed to "Altogether, monthly payroll was trimmed from $35,000 to $18,000".
  • Done.
  • Para 3: "few White-owned business were" - I think it should be "businesses".
  • Fixed.
  • Para 3: "Detroit's decreasing overall population and concurrently growing Black population—which by 1976 was larger than either Louisville, Kentucky, or Nashville, Tennessee" - Does this mean that the black population was larger than the total populations of either Louisville or Nashville, or that the black population was larger than the respective black populations of each city?
  • The total populations (see here). Reworded.
Turning to religion and creativity
  • Para 1: "generating $36,000 monthly" - Was this the amount The PTL Club paid, or was this the net income after expenses were subtracted from the amount paid?
  • The amount paid (see here). Redone to "By 1977, The PTL Club purchased 24 hours a week on the station, with the ministry paying $36,000 on a monthly basis."
  • Para 1: "Various ethnic groups also purchased airtime on WGPR-TV. ... Channel 62 also aired shows aimed at other ethnicities including" - The second instance of this seems a bit redundant. As such, I would say "Channel 62's other shows included Dino’s Greece, Polish Panorama, and Romanian Variety; ...".
  • Done.
  • Para 3: "Horror host Ron "The Ghoul" Sweed" - I recommend rephrasing this so the two links are not right next to each other per WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • I went with "Ron "The Ghoul" Sweed, a local horror host..."
  • Para 4: "By the eighth year" - Given that it is a full 13 paragraphs since the station's founding is mentioned, you should probably clarify which year this is.
  • Reworded to "By 1983, after eight years of operation, channel 62 finally turned a profit and offered over 60 hours a week of local programming." The source didn't specify the exact year but it is easy to deduce.
After Banks's death
  • Para 2: "No sale materialized, and after a judge" - I'd put a comma after "and", since "After a judge ruled ... share in the market" can theoretically stand alone as a sentence.
  • Done.
  • Para 2: "Tenicia Gregory—who Mathews replaced as general manager—then sued Mathews" - Shouldn't it be "whom Mathews replaced", since "whom" is the object of that clause?
  • Fixed.
  • Para 2: "Mathews, who had no background in broadcasting and admitted to Ebony magazine that he was relying on people who were "competent and loyal" in his new job,[75] took over the station as the marketplace for television stations began to cool after several recent purchases were now deemed to have been at inflated prices; consequently, Mathews declared the station was not for sale." - This sentence is pretty long, so I recommend splitting it.
  • Split at the semicolon.
More later. It may take me a few days to go through this given that it's a long article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: These changes should be accounted for. =^-^= Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 01:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changes and controversies:
  • Para 2: "as little as $35 for thirty seconds" - I personally would add an {{inflation}} template here (even if it's in a footnote). $35 in 1987 is probably worth more than twice that today due to inflation.
  • Para 3: "Its programming rarely attracted significant viewership or community attention, with one exception: talk show Strictly Speaking, which was most famously hosted by Shaun Robinson." - Any idea how many people watched this? You mention community attention for this show but don't talk about viewership.
  • @Epicgenius: This needed a rewrite of sorts in lieu of not having ratings data for the station, but there was a good amount of local media coverage for the program, much more so that most of the station's efforts. It has been rewritten to: "One of WGPR-TV's local programs, the topical talk show Strictly Speaking, attracted significant community attention as the decade ended. Shaun Robinson joined channel 62 after graduating from Cass Technical High School and Spelman College; she initially appeared as a Big City News reporter but soon fronted Strictly Speaking, where one media outlet dubbed her "our own Oprah"." Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "it aired CBS's The Pat Sajak Show in late-night" - Is there a word missing here, or is "late-night" short for something like late-night programming?
  • Para 4: "WGPR-TV did lose carriage" - Why is this "did lose" and not "lost"?
  • Para 5: "be granted back pay and the reinstatement of their jobs" - Similarly I'd go with just "be granted back pay and reinstated".
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Handled all of these items but Strictly Speaking which I leave to @Nathan Obral. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CBS comes calling:
  • Para 1: "The deal came on the heels of CBS losing the rights" - Can this be rewritten without the figure of speech "on the heels of"? That phrase doesn't sound too encyclopedic.
  • Reworded to "The deal came after Fox outbid CBS for the rights to National Football Conference football games..."
  • Para 1: "Over a three-month period," - Why not something like "over three months"?
  • Done.
  • Para 2: "Frank Adell. Adell was interested in CBS, but CBS offered him a poor deal" - To avoid having "Adell. Adell" and "CBS, but CBS" in such close proximity, I'd rephrase the second sentence.
  • Redone to "CBS also contacted WADL (channel 38), an independent station owned by Frank Adell, who was offered a poor deal despite his interest in CBS. Adell sought five years and compensation, in line with other deals the network was making with new affiliates, while the network merely offered him one year without any compensation payments."
  • Para 4: "but Arabo would not have been able to sell advertising to make a profit, causing him to decline the offer" - I'd condense this to something like "but Arabo declined the offer as he would not have been able to sell advertising to make a profit".
  • Fixed.
  • Para 5: "Joel Ferguson, who had been rebuffed in 1986, joined forces with Bing and Roy Roberts, an executive at General Motors, to propose operation as a Black-owned CBS affiliate; Ferguson claimed he had offered $31 million for channel 62 weeks before the Masons took the $24 million CBS bid[115] but Mathews claimed no such offer was ever made, saying, "There was no one else in line when CBS came to us"." - This sentence is quite long and should probably be split.
  • Split at the semicolon.
  • Para 5: "Representative John Conyers promised to pressure the FCC to reject the sale" - By the way, did sources ever mention whether he pressured the FCC to reject the sale, or whether the FCC took any action?
  • Given his ranking in Congress at the time, if he had been successful in lobbying the FCC to review the deal, there would have been coverage. Reworded to, "Representative John Conyers criticized the sale, believing that channel 62 could retain existing Black-focused programming if it remained Black-owned."
Legacy of WGPR-TV:
  • Para 2: "19 television stations were owned by African-Americans" should be "Nineteen television stations..." per MOS:NUMNOTES. Same thing goes for "300 surviving episodes" in para 5.
  • Fixed.
  • Para 2: "Byron Allen, a Detroit native, currently owns or operates 30 television stations" - as of when?
  • The number as of this year is 34 stations but press coverage on his most recent purchase counted it to 36. Sammi Brie and I think it was an erroneous count based on an FCC filing. For now, I worded it to "over 30 television stations as of 2023..."
  • Para 3: "which remain as the home to WGPR-FM," - I think "as" can be dropped.
  • Done.
  • Para 4: "The William V. Banks Broadcast Museum" - Was this at at the Detroit Historical Museum, the studio building, or somewhere else?
  • The studio building. Reworded to, "The former studios, renamed the William V. Banks Broadcast Museum in honor of WGPR-TV's founder..."
  • Para 4: "The achievement turned somber when Karen Hudson-Samuels died on February 9, 2021," - Does the source specifically mention the NRHP listing having occurred prior to Samuels's death? If not, I'd remove "The achievement turned somber when".
  • It did in source: A week before she died came a crowning achievement: On Feb. 1, the first day of Black History Month, the National Park Service announced it had granted the museum a listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the nation's official roster of important historic sites.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New name, new power, but no news:
  • Para 1: "making fun of the high channel position" - Was a high channel position bad?
  • It was very bad; in fact, it was one of the main reasons why the Fox-New World deal happened in the first place, to improve Fox's visibility by being on lower dial positions. Local press coverage referred to channel 62 as a "last resort" and "dire" for CBS specifically due to the channel number.
  • Para 2: "CBS signed a lease to move channel 62 to Stroh's River Place as temporary office space" - I would rephrase this as "CBS signed a short-term lease for office space at Stroh's River Place, moving channel 62 there". I gather from paragraph 3 that the lease was later expanded, so I wouldn't say "temporary office space".
  • Done.
  • Para 2: "Because of this, the station had to use the studio facilities of WTVS for Detroit: Making It Happen, a town hall meeting on January 31, 1995, with former WXYZ-TV anchorman Bill Bonds as moderator. Bonds's presence was as a freelancer as he signed a contract with WJBK-TV the next day" - I am confused as to why the second sentence is relevant to WWJ-TV. Wouldn't it be sufficient to say that Bonds was a freelance moderator? (Or maybe not even mentioning his freelancing status?)
  • I agree, it doesn't fit. Removed the second sentence and freelancing reference.
  • Para 2: "ratings for the Evening News declined precipitously" - Do we have any figures?
  • Para 4: " the tower would also be used" - Per WP:WOULDCHUCK, I would change this to "later, the tower was also used".
  • Done.
  • Para 5: "That April, CBS had felt the pain of not having more than a bureau with one correspondent in Detroit." - To me, "felt the pain" seems a little unencyclopedic; I'd suggest "experienced the drawbacks". I admit that's a bit more boring, but it's also more professional.
  • Reworded as such.
CBS-Viacom merger and 62 CBS News:
  • Para 1: "In 1999, Viacom, owner of WKBD, acquired CBS. In a number of markets, this combination created newly permitted duopolies between established CBS stations and UPN outlets." - The only other mention of UPN in this article is in the "CBS comes calling" section, where it is mentioned that Paramount was preparing to launch UPN. Thus, it may not be apparent why this created a duopoly between UPN outlets and CBS stations; one would have to know that Viacom is related to (or rather, absorbed) Paramount. As such, I would clarify this a bit.
  • I redid this to "Viacom, the corporate parent of Paramount and owner of UPN affiliate WKBD-TV, acquired CBS in September 1999. In a number of markets, this combination created newly permitted duopolies between established CBS stations and UPN outlets. However, in Detroit, WKBD was larger and had a functional local news department." As part of this, two sources were added to help explain this further (source one p1, p2) (source two p1, p2)
  • Para 3: "general manager Mike Dunlop and Viacom parted ways in August." - Why not just "general manager Mike Dunlop left Viacom in August"?
  • Done.
  • Para 4: "In September 2002, rumblings surfaced that Viacom was about to pull the plug on the WKBD–WWJ news operation—the last newsroom Viacom inherited from Paramount that was still operating[172]—which were met by lukewarm responses from executives" - What was met with lukewarm responses from executives? The WKBD–WWJ news operation, or the fact that it was about to be canceled?
  • The rumors of the closure. Reworded to "In September 2002, rumblings surfaced that Viacom was about to pull the plug on the WKBD–WWJ news operation—the last newsroom Viacom inherited from Paramount that was still operating. These rumors were met with lukewarm responses from executives after being contacted by a Free Press reporter."
I will finish this in a day or so. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"First Forecast":
  • Para 1: "That same year" - I'd change this to "That year" or "The same year".
  • Para 1: "The station's local output would consist" - Could this be "The station's local output consisted"?
  • Done both of these.
CBS News Detroit:
  • Para 1: "vice president/general manager" - Per MOS:SLASH, this should probably be changed. Do you mean that Watson is a vice president and general manager?
  • Yes. This is not uncommon in TV. Changed.
  • Para 3: "In January 2022, Paul Pytlowany, an employee of WKBD since 1988 and the director of local production and community affairs for WKBD and WWJ-TV since 2017, was named the founding news director" - Is it necessary to describe Pytlowany's credentials here, or would it be sufficient to mention that he was a 34-year employee of WKBD? (This is just a question, not a request to shorten the sentence; I won't force you to condense it.)
  • It's an unusual background for a news director, which is a specialized position. People that are NDs in a market like Detroit usually come from having ND'd other stations.
  • Para 4: "By year's end, the launch plan had changed, owing to supply chain- and pandemic-induced delays:" - Do you know how supply chain and pandemic-related issues would change the launch plan?
  • Reworded to be more faithful to source.
  • Para 4: "The morning newscast premiered early on February 20, 2023, to provide coverage of the shooting at Michigan State University,[204] before fully launching on March 6, co-anchored by former WDIV-TV anchor/reporter Sandra Ali and also featuring extended streaming-only segments." - I recommend splitting this into two sentences.
  • Split.
Local programming:
  • Is Michigan Matters the only original program that WWJ-TV produces?
  • Outside of local news, yes. When this article was rewritten, the news department was a future tense item, so this is kind of a standalone item. Gonna leave this to Nathan as I am really not sure how I'd want to structure or place this.
Technical information:
  • I know it might be customary for other TV station articles, but it still feels strange to have the "Subchannels" subsection be the only content in the "Technical information" section. Perhaps we could get rid of the subheader and/or add further info about this, if possible.
  • Removed the header here.
  • Also, I would suggest combining the two paragraphs, which are pretty short.
  • I added some info that should have been in paragraph 1 (repack). Paragraph 2 is thematically separate and I don't think combinable with paragraph 1.
@Nathan Obral and @Sammi Brie: That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Addressed nearly every item. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I think all issues have been satisfactorily addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • There appear to be a number of books (eg [37]) and journal articles (eg [38]) that aren't included here - what was your approach to sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've been tricked, Nikkimaria! Putting this here in bold because this will trip up non-topic reviewers: References to WWJ-TV in material prior to 1995 are actually in reference to WDIV-TV, which was the original WWJ-TV until 1978. Both of the links you provide are talking about that station, not the one at FAC. In the process of writing this article, I had to fix a Commons category that contained 1970s material mentioning channel 4 (not 62) and write WorldCat to fix an error that commingled channel 4 and 62 items in the same OCLC entry. This sort of thing is why we discourage linking to redirects among call sign-titled pages, for instance. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is also not without some precedent in the topic field... it's not common, but it's also not a terribly unique situation. There exist two stations that have used the WHAM-TV call sign: WROC-TV from 1949 to 1956, and the current WHAM-TV from 2005 onward. Similarly, there are two WSYR-TVs: WSTM-TV from 1950 to 1980; and the current WSYR-TV from from 2005 onward. In both cases (and such was the case with the two WWJ-TVs being derived from WWJ radio), the calls were applied from WHAM radio and WSYR radio. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To respond to the second piece of this, the sourcing mix for most of my articles is primarily newspapers and trade journals. This station is unique in that it requires an additional set of publications, primarily from the Black community (see Jet and Black Enterprise which this article has), and its cultural influence has resulted in secondary source coverage not typical for US broadcast stations. Academic journal articles like the one from The Velvet Light Trap that is included are an utter rarity in this field. In another FA (WBPX-TV), I was lucky to find a book with in-depth coverage of part of its history. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Generalissima

I aim to make comments over the next few days. - Generalissima (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts

I would like to say that this is an exceptionally well-written article. The prose is really engaging and it feels like reading a professional work about the station. I have seen that a source review has been done, and that you have made significant improvements from the reviewers on bits of prose that was otherwise cumbersome, so I have just a tiny little bit still to cover!

  • "testified before the United States Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications..."
    • Do we need to specify United States here? This massive proper-name blue link disrupts the flow of the section. Wouldn't "Senate Commerce Subcommitee on Communications" be better?
  • "In 2021, Bruiser Brigade, a Detroit hip-hop collective led by Danny Brown, released an album titled TV62, a direct reference to WGPR, with the station's historic butterfly logo featured on the cover."
    • Due to the large number of short segments separated by commas, this sentence was a little confusing to read at first glance, although I don't necessarily know how to resolve it.

Having read through it several times, I cannot find any other mistakes - previous reviewers have been quite thorough! Great job so far, you two. Generalissima (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications". @Sammi Brie, any thoughts on the Bruiser Brigade sentence? Maybe it should be rephrased? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 15:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome, thank you for the changes. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

The nomination is coming up on eight weeks old. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 03:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to finish my review within the next couple hours and expect to support! Apologies for taking so long. Generalissima (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima, any update on the review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs It looks like she just completed it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1185540192"